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

At a meeting of the young tsar with Metropolitan Macarius in September 1550, an agreement was reached: monasteries were forbidden to found new settlements in the city, and to establish new courtyards in old settlements. Posad people, who fled from taxes to monastic settlements, were also “brought back” back. This was dictated by the needs of the state treasury.

However, such compromise measures did not satisfy the government. In January-February 1551, a church council was convened, at which the royal questions, compiled by Sylvester and imbued with a non-covetous spirit, were read out. The answers to them amounted to one hundred chapters of the verdict of the council, which received the name Stoglavogo, or Stoglav. The king and his entourage were worried about whether “it was worthy for monasteries to acquire land and receive various preferential charters. By decision of the council, the royal reign ceased
assistance to monasteries that have villages and other properties. Stoglav forbade giving money from the monastery treasury for “growth” and bread for “nasp”, i.e. - at interest than
deprived the monasteries of permanent income.

Since 1549, the centralization of the Orthodox cult began. A list of revered saints was compiled, which included almost none of the appanage princes and princes of the former great principalities. Political maxims that are alien to Moscow views are excluded from the Lives. From now on, the canonization of new saints will only be by decision of the metropolitan and the consecrated cathedral.

Stoglavy Cathedral = Zemsky Cathedral. The judge approved it.

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

Archpriests, priestly elders and tenth priests supervise the parish clergy, copying books and painting icons.

Canons based on 15th century models were approved.

Literacy training is in churches.

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

Flat sums for church sacraments (crown).

Strict order in monasteries (drink “in moderation”, monks and nuns do not live in the same monastery, etc.).

The clergy is not subject to the jurisdiction of secular authorities. True, the metropolitan boyars, elders, ten priests, zemstvo elders and kissers are included in the saintly court.

But no amount of centralization got rid of heresies. The church and secular authorities are united in the fight against them.

Heresies of Theodosius Kosoy and Matvey Bashkin.

The union of the church and secular authorities in missionary activity in the Volga region.

A number of participants in the Council of the Hundred Heads (Josephites) met the program set out in the royal questions with fierce resistance.

The program of tsarist reforms outlined by the Elected Rada was rejected in the most significant points by the Stoglavy Council. The wrath of Ivan IV fell on the most prominent representatives of the Josephites. On May 11, 1551 (i.e., a few days after the end of the council), the purchase of patrimonial lands by monasteries “without reporting” to the tsar was prohibited. All the lands of the boyars, which they had transferred there during Ivan’s childhood (from 1533), were taken away from the monasteries. Thus, control of the royal power was established over the movement of church land funds, although the properties themselves remained in the hands of the church. The church retained its possessions even after 1551.

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

The importance of Ivan 4 reforms

1. Contributed to the strengthening of autocracy.

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

3. Contributed to changing the balance of power within the feudal class in favor of the nobility.

4. The personal power of the king was strengthened.

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

6. As a result of the reforms, 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.



The cathedral was opened by the king himself. The cathedral was attended mainly by representatives of the clergy: Metropolitan. 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 council, the tsar named his brethren, all his beloved princes, boyars and warriors. 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 sacred customs were “shaken”: much was done in the church by autocracy, previous laws were violated, divine commandments remained neglected.

The tsar first proposed 37 questions for the leadership of the cathedral, then 32 more. The tsar’s questions and the council’s answers to them constitute the main content of the resolutions (Stoglava). They cover the following topics:

1) about church services, namely about regulations and decency church services, about the correctness of liturgical books, about the rules of icon painting, about the sign of the cross, about singing hallelujah and about some other church rituals;

2) on streamlining the diocesan administration and court by establishing new bodies of supervision over the clergy, eliminating secular bishops’ 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 improving various aspects of worldly life (measures against barber shaving in connection with the sin of Sodom, against magic and witchcraft, buffoonery, pagan folk amusements, the game 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 charter documents and, if there is nothing in them that disagrees with the rules of the church and previous laws, approve them with their signatures (Chapter 4).

This also includes the resolutions of the council on a new national tax for the ransom of prisoners (Chapter 72); about saintly and monastic settlements and their relationship to settlements (chapter 98); about non-conviction certificates (chapter 67), etc.

It is also known that the tsar had in mind to submit to the council a whole series of very important issues: about localism, about the organization of services, about estates and estates, about taverns, washhouses, etc., but these issues are not included in Stoglav, so it is impossible to 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 comparatively short time; the meetings, opened on February 23, ended by the beginning of May, since by May 11 the cathedral decrees were sent to the Trinity Monastery for review and returned from there.

Both in the selection of material and in the formulation of the questions themselves could not but be affected by those turbulent currents social thought that has worried Moscow society since the emergence of the Judaizer heresy. Two fighting parties among the clergy and cultural society - the Josephites and the non-covetous - had to clash not only at the council, but also during the period of preparation for it.

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

It is known that the Metropolitan wrote an extensive “answer” to the Tsar in defense of the patrimonial rights of the church. It could only have been compiled before the council, because after the council’s decrees on the same subject, such a message was completely unnecessary. This means that questions were raised about the secularization of church property, and the Metropolitan was approached for instructions, which is why he wrote his “answer.”

All these considerations speak in favor of the conjecture that the initiative to convene the council and its program came from among non-covetous people, who, with the help of the Elected Rada and with the assistance of the Metropolitan, outlined a wide range of reforms in the field of church and state government.

The non-covetous people seemed to be preparing to give the Josephites a general battle, but victory remained on the side of the latter; At the council they turned out to be 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 those who were not at all interested in carrying out the resolutions of the council, and the metropolitan could do nothing without active support. Naturally, under such conditions, “almost everything legalized by the cathedral was forgotten and everything went as before, as if the cathedral had never existed at all, the actions of which turned into a simple historical monument.”

Literature

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

Sources

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

Plan
Introduction
1 History of creation
2 Structure of Stoglav
3 Basic provisions of “Stoglava”
3.1 Financial matters
3.2 Issues of morality and control over the lives of the clergy and laity
3.3 Issues of worship
3.4 Church court
3.5 Church land ownership

4 The meaning of Stoglav
References

Introduction

Stoglav - a collection of decisions of the Stoglav Council of 1551; consists of 100 chapters. The name was established at the end of the 16th century: the text of the monument itself contains other names: cathedral code , royal and hierarchical code(Ch. 99). The decisions of the collection concern both religious-church and state-economic issues in the light of the fierce disputes of that time about church land ownership; contains explanations on the relationship between the norms of state, judicial, and criminal law and church law.

1. History of creation

In connection with the controversy about the authenticity and canonical significance 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 the Stoglav Council.

In 1551, Ivan IV set about convening a council, considering himself the successor of the Byzantine emperors and not wanting to lag behind them in anything, including in convening church councils. Chapter 2, “Stoglava,” in addition to a description of the opening of the Council and the text of the Tsar’s first speech to the Council, contains a message about the great joy of the hierarchs over the Tsar’s invitation. This is explained not only as a tribute to the Tsar, but also by the fact that the clergy needed this Council to resolve a number of issues that had acquired special significance by the middle of the 16th century. These are, first of all, issues of strengthening church discipline among the clergy, the powers of the church court, the fight against the vicious behavior of church representatives (drunkenness, debauchery, bribery), usury in monasteries, against the remnants of paganism among the population, the unification of church rites and services, strict regulation (and, in essence, , the introduction of a kind of spiritual censorship) of the order of copying church books, writing icons, building churches, etc. The convening of the Council for these reasons was not only justified, but also necessary.

The title of the first chapter (“In the summer of the 7059th month of February on the 23rd day...”), it would seem, gives exact date works of the Stoglavy Cathedral: February 23, 7059 (1551). However, researchers disagree on whether this date indicates the beginning of the meetings of the Council or determines the time when the preparation of the Council Code began. The work of the Council can be divided into two stages - a meeting with the discussion of a number of issues and processing of the material, although it is possible that these were simultaneous processes. This assumption is confirmed by the very structure of Stoglav, the sequence of chapters and their content.

In the first chapter in general outline The program of the Council is outlined: the Council answers questions from the Tsar, who proposed topics for council discussion. The participants of the Council, as follows from the text, limited themselves to expressing their opinions on the proposed topics. In the first chapter, the range of questions of the Council is presented briefly, somewhat confusingly, sometimes answers are given, sometimes not. The compiler did not have the task here of fully revealing the content of those “corrections” that the Council dealt with. But although the compiler does not always cite the Council’s answers to questions, he introduces the documents in accordance with which decisions were made at the Council. By existing rules The Council had no right to make a decision that was at odds with canonical literature. Some of the monuments of this literature are mentioned in the first chapter of the “Stoglava”: Rules of the holy apostles, holy fathers of the church, Rules established at the Councils of the clergy, as well as the teachings of canonized saints. This list is expanded in subsequent chapters.

2. Structure of “Stoglava”

Two chapters (5 and 41) contain royal issues that were to be discussed by all 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 answers are continued in the 42nd and subsequent chapters. This gap is explained by the fact that the conciliar debate on drawing up answers to the tsar’s questions was apparently interrupted by the appearance of the tsar at the Council. Over the course of a day, or maybe several days, the Council resolved issues together with the Tsar. This is apparently connected with the emergence of the so-called “second royal questions”, which are set out 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) exposing disorder in the clergy and monastic administration, in monastic life (questions: 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 37);

3) concerning disorders in worship, denouncing prejudices and the 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 life of the clergy and the population. Since the state completely entrusted this area to the church and saw in it its ideological support, it was natural for the tsar to want to see the church united and enjoying authority among the population.

Among the features of the structure of “Stoglava”, special mention should be made of the presence of the 101st chapter - the verdict on estates. It was apparently compiled after the end of the Stoglavy Council and added to the main list as an addition.

3. Basic 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 Helmsman's Book, the Charter of St. Vladimir, resolutions of the Council of 1503, messages of the metropolitans.

The decrees of "Stoglava" concern bishop's duties, church court, discipline of the clergy, monks and laity, worship, monastic estates, public education and charity for the poor and other issues.

3.1. Financial issues

Contrary to the resolution of the Council of 1503, “Stoglav” allowed the collection of stub duties, but established a fixed rate for them, as well as for demands. At the same time, it was decided that all duties should be collected not by bishop’s officials, but by priest’s elders and tens.

3.2. Issues of morality and control over the lives of the clergy and laity

The Council was forced to admit the existence of certain unrest that discredited 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 of priestly elders. These were elected by the priests. The number of priestly elders in each city was determined specifically, apparently by the bishops by royal command. The Council determined the number of elders only for Moscow - seven. This number corresponded to the number of cathedrals, that is, temples central in importance in a given district. Priestly elders were supposed to serve in cathedrals. To help them, according to Stoglav, tens 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 monitoring the correct conduct of services in subordinate churches and the deanery of priests.

The Council of 1551 passed important decision Regarding the “double” monasteries in which monastics of both sexes lived at the same time: the monasteries were ordered to strictly observe the separation of the sexes and comply with the cenobitic rules. But all this was only accepted, and in practice remained a dead letter.

The cathedral resolution condemned the atrocities and remnants of paganism common in popular life: judicial duels, buffoon performances, gambling, and drunkenness.

Another resolution of the Council concerned the condemnation of godless and heretical books. These books were declared: “Secveta secvetovum”, a collection of medieval wisdom, known in Rus' under the name “Aristotle”, astronomical maps of Emmanuel Ben Jacob, which we called “Six-Winged”. A ban was also imposed on communication with foreigners, who, during the time of Ivan the Terrible, began to increasingly come to Russia.

3.3. Questions of worship

Many of Stoglav’s decrees relate to worship. Some of them were brought up for discussion on the initiative of Ivan IV himself, although there is no doubt that Metropolitan Macarius guided him in this matter.

Stoglav officially legalized the double-fingered addition when making the sign of the cross and the special alleluia in the Moscow Church. The conciliar authority of these decisions subsequently became the main argument of the Old Believers.

Perhaps, under the influence of Maximus the Greek, the Council took up the issue of correcting the sacred books and decided to open a printing house in Moscow, where books corrected according to the most accurate samples were to be printed. But this printing house did not last long.

3.4. Church court

“Stoglav” abolished the “non-conviction” charters, thereby making all monasteries and parish clergy subject to the jurisdiction of their bishops. He forbade secular courts from judging clergy. Before this, the church court, entrusted by the bishops to the boyars, clerks, and foremen, caused constant complaints. But the Council could not even think about abolishing these positions - after all, they existed under Metropolitans Peter and Alexei. Therefore, it was decided to give priests the right to participate in courts through their elected elders and councilors. But at the same time, legislators completely forgot to define the role of these representatives.

3.5. Church land ownership

Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551

While identifying the priceless treasures of the Church - its holy ascetics, and glorifying them, Metropolitan Macarius did not forget about church disorders, for the eradication of which he took energetic measures. The wise archpastoral approach is expressed in the fact that he first of all puts on the candlestick of the Church its glory - the saints glorified at the Councils of 1547-1549, and with their gracious help identifies and eliminates various shortcomings in society. This is how the call of the Apostle Paul was fully fulfilled: “Therefore we also, since we have such a cloud of witnesses around us, let us lay aside every burden and the one who leads us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us” ().

The Stoglavy Council dealt with various similar issues. The beginning of the work of the Council took place in this way: “In the summer of the 7059th (1551) month of February, on the 23rd day of this year, many questions and answers were given about various church rites in the reigning city of Moscow in the royal chambers from the blessed and blessed Tsar and Sovereign and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, the autocrat to his father Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia, and to the entire sacred Council of the Russian Metropolis who were here: Theodosius, Archbishop of the Great Novagrad and Pskov; Nikandra, Archbishop of Rostov; Tryphon, Bishop of Suzdal and Toru; Bishop Gury of Smolensk and Bryansk; Kasyan, Bishop of Ryazan; Akakiy, Bishop of Tver and Kashinsky; Theodosius, Bishop of Kolomna and Kashira; Sava, Bishop of Sarsk and Podonsk; Cyprian, Bishop of Perm and Volotsk, with honest archimandrites and abbots.” The author-compiler of the conciliar documents, like the hymnographers glorifying the participants of the Ecumenical Councils, calls the hierarchs who gathered in Moscow “sky eagles”, “lightly possessed.” About their coming to Moscow it is said: “And how wonderful was the sight, as if the whole God-saved city was adoring the Father’s coming.”

Contemporary chroniclers say nothing about the Council of the Hundred Heads, as well as about the Councils of the “new wonderworkers” of 1547 and 1549. Reports about Stoglav can be found in later chronicles. L.V. Cherepnin rightly notes that the chronicle notes about Stoglav of the 17th century “go back as a source to the text of the monument itself.”

Given the diversity of the content of the Council's materials, one can, however, discern some division by topic. The first four chapters contain historical material about the preparation and beginning of the work of the Council, its composition, and the Tsar’s speeches to the participants of the Council. In them, the young king turns with prayer to the Holy Trinity, angels, saints, names the names of “great miracle workers like those in our land of Great Russia who shone in miracles” (chapter 3, p. 261). He also talks about the Councils at which “great new lamps, miraculous with many and ineffable miracles glorified by God” were canonized (chapter 4, p. 266). Then it is said that the work of the Stoglavy Council was preceded by prayer services and supplications in the cathedral church of the Most Pure Mother of God, after which the king, speaking about the disturbances, addresses those gathered: “...about all this, please advise yourself spiritually enough. And in the midst of the Council, announce this to us, and we demand your saintly advice and deeds and wish to consult with you, O God, to establish what is discordant for good” (chapter 4, p. 267).

The next, fifth, chapter sets out in a row thirty-seven very different questions from the king addressed to the participants of the Council, with the intention of ending the unrest. The Tsar says: “My Father Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia and all archbishops and bishops, look into your homes, God has entrusted to you the holiness of your shepherding for the saints. God's churches and about honest icons and about every church building, so that in holy churches they ring and sing according to the Divine Rule and according to the sacred rules. And now we see and hear, in addition to the Divine Rule, many church rites are not fully performed, not according to the sacred rule and not according to the Rule. And you would have judged all those church rites and carried out the decree in full according to the Divine Rule and according to the sacred rule” (chapter 5, question 1, p. 268). Chapters, starting from 6 to 40, contain the answers of the fathers of the Council to the questions of the king, who strive to eradicate the identified shortcomings, “so that nothing in the holy churches, except for the sacred and Divine rules, will be despised by our negligence” (chapter 6, pp. 277–278).

The forty-first chapter contains thirty-two more royal questions, and this time the answers are given along with the questions, separated only by the phrase: “And this is the answer.” The subsequent chapters, starting from the forty-second, represent only “answers,” that is, only decisions without any preliminary questions. The topics of these decisions may be repeated with previous questions and answers or fundamentally new. The last two chapters (99 and 100) talk about sending the documents of the Council to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery to the former Metropolitan Joasaph (†1555) who was there and his response is his opinion on the council materials.

Reading Stoglav, one might think that the initiative to convene the Council, its work, that is, the issues, all belonged to the tsar. E. Golubinsky does not agree with this; he sees the initiative of St. Macarius in the implementation of Stoglav; Other researchers also speak about the great role of the Metropolitan. In addition, the messages and documents of Metropolitan Macarius were reflected in the materials of the Council. St. Macarius is characterized by modesty and humility, which was manifested in giving the initiative to the king himself. At the beginning, the young autocrat speaks about the Council of 1547: “At the seventeenth year of age, the grace of the Holy Spirit touched my mind. Come to my memory and my soul's lust and jealousy, the great and inexhaustible wealth from many times under our ancestors was hidden and consigned to oblivion. Great lamps, new wonderworkers, with many and unspeakable miracles glorified by God...” (chapter 4, p. 266). At the age of seventeen, the young king, who was raised without parents, could only have such thoughts under the influence of St. Macarius. The same picture, presumably, applies to the initiative to convene and hold the Stoglavy Council. We can say that the atmosphere of the need for corrections and reforms was maturing in the Russian Church. This is evidenced by the “Petition of Monks to Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich,” published by G. Z. Kuntsevich (St. Petersburg, 1912). And Metropolitan Macarius was the best exponent of these aspirations, giving them conciliar forms. The saint is a great organizer, admirer of Russian ascetics, spiritual collector of Rus' and inspirer of the great undertakings of his time. A. Zimin rightly believes: “The entire text of Stoglav’s decisions convinces us that it was compiled under the influence of Metropolitan Macarius.”

In general, the issues that the council dealt with were very diverse. This is the church court, bishops' and monastic estates, the appearance of a Christian and his behavior, church deanery and discipline, church iconography and spiritual enlightenment, and so on. At the Council of the Stoglavy, an effort was made to centralize and unify the structure of the Russian Church and its administration. In the second series of questions, the tsar at the very beginning addresses the hierarchs with the words: “... and the priestly elders would naturally make sure that all the priests are oblivious for the sake of the church” (chapter 5, question 1, p. 268). The royal questions are completed by a “conciliar” answer, which speaks in great detail about the introduction of the institution of “deanery” in the Church. “And for the sake of the church rank in the reigning city of Moscow and in all the cities of the Russian kingdom, the Russian Metropolis was ordered to be elected archpriest in each city, by royal command and with the blessing of the hierarch, priests who are skillful, good and immaculate in their lives. In the reigning city of Moscow, it is worthy to be seven priestly elders and seven congregations according to the royal code, and to elect to them ten good priests, skilled in their lives and immaculate. Likewise, throughout the city, appoint elders, priests and despots, where it is best in which city. And in the villages and in the churchyards, and in the volosts throughout the land, appoint ten priests to the priests” (chapter 6, p. 278). Like icon painters, Stoglav prescribes that the chosen priests should be “skillful, kind and blameless in their lives.” Priest Dimitri Stefanovich in his work quotes the text of the decree of February 17, 1551, which lists the appointed clergy for “church neglect” in Moscow. Chapter 34 of Stoglav could serve as a kind of instruction for elected elders. It begins like this: “The holy archpriest in the cathedral churches, and the elders, priests and tens of all churches, often scrutinize...” (chapter 34, p. 297). Their competence included such issues as the lifestyle of the parish clergy, reporting to the highest hierarchy, and the care of the assigned flock. In the next chapter, using the example of the “deaneries” of Moscow, the order of religious processions throughout the year is given.

The Council concerns such an important issue as the financial and economic situation of church institutions in the light of church-state relations. In the second series of questions, the king talks about monasteries that received “ruga” from the state in the form of money, bread, wine, etc. under Vasily III (†1533), then Helena (†1538) (chapter 5, question 31 , p. 275). Chapter 75 (pp. 352–353) indicates measures to improve the deanery in monasteries and to perform prayers for monastic depositors. At the same time, the text quotes the speech of the sovereign: “And so they caught a lot from me, the king, throughout the monastery...” The Council orders the monasteries to the sovereign not to suffer any more cold, “unless the need is great.” The Council returns to this issue again, giving an “Answer about alms and about the friend of many monasteries” (ch. 97, pp. 372–373). First, it describes how rugi was given under Vasily III, then under Elena Glinskaya, and finally, during the childhood of Ivan the Terrible. Therefore, the materials say: “And tell the pious king to search about this.” Speaking about carrying out such an audit, the Council emphasizes: “Which will be a wretched monastery and churches can live without that rug, and that, sir, in your royal will, but which will be a wretched monastery and holy churches will no longer be able to live without your rug, and it will not be impossible for you, to the pious king, it is worthwhile and righteous to reward such people” (chapter 97, p. 373).

The hundredth chapter of the materials is a review of them by the former Metropolitan Joasaph. Chapter 101 is dated May 11, 1551. It says that the Churches should henceforth not acquire estates without the knowledge of the Tsar. Moreover, a study of the official material shows that in May a revision of various monastic charters was carried out. S. M. Kashtanov counted 246 letters that have survived to this day. He characterizes this event as follows: “The purpose of the May revision of the Tarkhanov was not to consider individual specific charters, but to broadly implement the principle of centralization of state finances by limiting the main tax privileges” of the monasteries. The certificates of the end of the reign were confirmed and Vasily III, since in them, as a rule, monasteries were not exempted from basic travel and trade privileges. In the signature on the charter, the metropolitan house “was allowed duty-free travel only once a year.” All this allows us to draw another conclusion. Although we do not have a list of abbots of the monasteries who were in Moscow in 1551, we have the right to say that this was the most representative church meeting for the entire previous period.

The Council abolished the jurisdiction of monasteries over secular power (Chapter 37, p. 340). Confirming the jurisdiction of the clergy of the highest hierarchy, Stoglav makes an important reservation: “And at any time the metropolitan will not be helped, otherwise in his place he commands the judge of the archimandrites, and abbots, and abbesses, and archpriests, and the entire priestly and monastic rank in spiritual matters to the ruler of Sarsk and Podonsk with all the archimandrites and abbots, conciliarly, according to the same sacred rule” (chapter 68, p. 341). This clause is very important, since it is known that Metropolitan Macarius was by that time at an advanced age and even wanted to resolve the issue of his retirement. His multifaceted church, cultural and educational activities required a lot of effort and time, and his administrative burden was not small. “The judicial power of the Metropolitan over the abbots is recorded in letters to Trinity-Sergiev, Simonov, Moscow Novospassky, Chudov, Bishop of Serpukhov, Troitsky Makhrishchsky, Fedorovsky Pereslavl-Zalessky, Troitsky Danilov, Vladimirsky Rozhdestvensky, Vladimirsky Spassky, Chukhlomsky Kornilyev, Toropetsky Troitsky monasteries, St. Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir." Reviewing the multifaceted church-administrative and cultural-educational activities of Saint Macarius, one has to be amazed at his skill and organizational abilities. Therefore, it seems very providential that at the Council of the Hundred Heads the elder hierarch was begged to remain on the high priestly throne, and this served for the good of the Church.

Examining some issues of an iconographic nature, the Stoglavy Council prescribes: “The painter should paint icons from ancient images, as the Greek painters wrote and as Andrei Rublev and other notorious painters wrote” (chapter 41, issue 1, p. 303). In Chapter 43, the Council (pp. 314–315) dwells in great detail on the importance and holiness of icon painting, emphasizing tall image icon painter: “It is proper for a painter to be humble, meek, reverent, not an idle talker, not a laugher, not quarrelsome, not envious, not a drunkard, not a robber, not a murderer” (chapter 43, p. 314). Master icon painters must, without hiding their secrets, pass on their skills to their students. The highest supervision over icon painting is entrusted to the hierarchy. Archbishops and bishops must, according to the above-mentioned principle about “deans,” choose “special master painters within their borders and order them to look at all the icon painters” (chapter 43, p. 315). As sources show, in pursuance of this cathedral instruction in Moscow, “four icon painters were installed over all icon painters, and they were ordered to supervise all icon painters.” Characterizing the activities of the Stoglavy Council, V. G. Bryusova emphasizes that “in the conditions of expansion of the borders of the Moscow state, direct management of local icon-painting workshops became practically impossible; instructions on an all-Russian scale were needed, which were carried out by the Stoglavy Council in 1551.” According to N. Andreev, the conciliar definitions on icon painting reflected the views of Metropolitan Macarius himself. And Father Dimitri Stefanovich notes: “Among other decisions, these are one of the most successful and beneficial. Evidence of their fruitfulness can be seen in the fact that in the iconographic originals of the second half of the 16th century. and throughout the 17th century. Chapter 43 is very often found as a guide for icon painters.”

As for such an important type of church art as singing, conciliar judgments are known exclusively in the context of worship and deanery.

Stoglav speaks of the importance and necessity of spiritual education and training, so that “priests and deacons and clerks can teach schools in the houses of the school” (chapter 26, p. 291). As we see, the Council entrusts the solution to this problem to the clergy. This council resolution is of great importance. “School in Rus' is here for the first time is the subject of concern for the whole Council, the Tsar and the Russian hierarchs. We do not have exact data to what extent the Council's decisions on the establishment of schools throughout Rus' were implemented; but that the conciliar orders did not remain a dead letter, the “instructions” sent to the dioceses convince us of this.”

The Council of the Hundred Heads paid great attention to the correction of book production. From the materials we learn that books in the 16th century. were made for sale. The Council ordered that rewritten books be checked against the original, identifying and correcting errors. Otherwise, he gives instructions to confiscate the incorrect books “for free without any reserve, and, having corrected them, they gave them to churches that would be poor in books” (chapter 28, p. 292).

Stoglav's materials contain links to quotes from the canonical rules of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers, from the Holy Scriptures and liturgical texts, the works of Saints Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Metropolitan Nikita of Herakleia, Saints Isaac the Syrian, Simeon the Divnogorets, and the texts of the decrees of the emperors Constantine and Manuel Komnenos, Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, the teachings of the Russian Metropolitans, Saints Peter, Cyprian, Photius, St. Joseph of Volotsky, etc. Therefore, the conciliar chapters acquire a more narrative, edifying character, while relying on the ancient and Russian church theological and canonical traditions.

Academician D.S. Likhachev notes: “A strong artistic current was introduced into the “actions” of the Stoglavy Council. Stoglav is a fact of literature to the same extent as a fact of business writing.” This can be clearly shown in the following example. When writing the second chapter in the tsar’s speech, “the compiler of Stoglav did not have the text of this speech at hand and he himself reproduced it from memory, having processed it literary,” writes S. O. Schmidt. In fact, the basis for this chapter was taken from the text “From the Sixth Day it was chosen about the living” from the canonical monument “The Righteous Measure”. N. Durnovo says that “The Righteous Standard” was actively used in creating the text of the entire Stoglav. IN Ancient Rus' often this is how new ones were compiled literary works. It is interesting that Saint Macarius, as you know, had the manuscript “The Measure of the Righteous.” Thus, we see that Stoglav as a literary monument meets the ancient Russian requirements for the etiquette of storytelling and the use of quotations.

Observations on the language of Stoglav’s resolutions enrich his characterization: “It combines various linguistic elements: Church Slavonic language, on the one hand, and the language of business writing, on the other. In this monument, a significant place belongs to the presentation of the speeches of the Council participants who arrived in Moscow from different regions of Rus'; it is replete with judgments and reasoning of the Church Fathers regarding the issues considered at the Council. These parts of Stoglav bring it closer to the monuments of a high literary language, basically Church Slavonic. At the same time, in Stoglav one can find elements of colloquial speech and, at the same time, not only cliches adopted by business writing, but the living colloquial speech of the participants of the Council, which to some extent seeped into the text of the book, despite its literary processing.” Obviously, such direction and unusualness, as well as the formal absence of signatures of the Council participants at the end of the acts, were the reason for doubts about their authenticity, expressed in the 19th century. during a polemic with the Old Believers.

The Hundred-Glavy Council speaks out against the willfulness of buffoons and gambling and appeals to the state authorities to take preventive measures against them (Chapter 41, Issues 19–20, p. 308). Much is said about the life of a Christian, when negative phenomena are prohibited, on the one hand, and on the other, instructions are given for a virtuous life. This permeates the entire text of the materials. Prescribing the need to read the Explanatory Gospel of “Chrysostom” and other books during worship, Stoglav emphasizes the importance of this - “for teaching and enlightenment and for true repentance and good deeds for all Orthodox peasants for spiritual benefit” (chapter 6, p. 278) .

This concern of Stoglav for the life of a Christian found continuation and completion in another monument of ancient Russian writing, contemporary to this era - Domostroy, written by the priest Sylvester, an associate of Metropolitan Macarius. It is also important that, according to researchers, he took part in the creation of Stoglav. This monument gives “broad” recommendations - how to arrange your house so that entering it is “like entering heaven” (§ 38). In “Domostroy” a grandiose picture of an ideal family life and the ideal behavior of masters and servants unfolds before the reader. All this together testifies to the penetration of churchism into the structure of ancient Russian life and everyday life, to the churching of the world.

At the Council of 1551, some features were approved, which in the 17th century. were consigned to damnation. This refers to the doubleness of Alleluia (chapter 42, p. 313), double-fingering when making the sign of the cross (chapter 31, pp. 294–295), the decree on not cutting the beard (chapter 40, pp. 301–302), as for present time is kept in the Old Believer environment. Doubts about the correctness of singing Alleluia arose in Novgorod under Archbishop Gennady (1484–1504), and the custom of doubling Alleluia once existed in the Greek Church. Thus, Stoglav only unified the differences in liturgical practice that existed in the Russian Church. The same can be said about finger formation. As for barbering, it was certainly associated in Rus' with being like the Latins or with immorality and was at the same time a reason for criticism. F. Buslaev says the following about this: “The beard, which occupies such an important place in Greek and Russian scripts, has become, at the same time, a symbol of Russian nationality, Russian antiquity and tradition. Hatred of Latinism, which began in our literature even from the 11th century, and then, subsequently, the closest acquaintance and clash of our ancestors with Western peoples in the 15th and especially in the 16th centuries they contributed to the Russian people developing the concept that a beard, as a sign of alienation from Latinism, is essential feature every Orthodox Christian, and that shaving the beard is an unorthodox matter, a heretical invention to seduce and corrupt good morals.”

After the end of the Council, the active Metropolitan sends out decrees and mandate letters with its resolutions. In the letter sent to the Simonovsky Monastery, there is a note: “Yes, with the same letter, send the teaching chapter to the monastery, and write out the same cathedral books: chapter 49, chapter 50, chapter 51, 52, chapter 75, 76 -I, 67th, 68th, chapter 31 of royal questions, chapter 68.” This indicates the energetic dissemination of the decisions of the Council throughout the cities and monasteries. And indeed the texts of other such orders, sent, for example, to Vladimir and Kargopol, have reached us. Stoglav's materials were also reflected in contemporary writings and various monuments of subsequent times.

Researchers note positive value Stoglav in the life of the Russian Church. His predecessor in correcting shortcomings in Rus' was, according to E. Golubinsky, Vladimir Cathedral 1274. The comparison of Stoglav in the international context is also characteristic. E. Golubinsky compares it with the Council of Trent, which took place almost simultaneously in the Roman Church. The historian notes that the Hundred-Glavy Council, in its purpose and significance, was “incomparably higher than the Roman Catholic Council.” Archpriest Pyotr Rumyantsev, who worked a lot in Russian churches abroad, describes how in Sweden “on February 11, 1577, the king opened the national assembly with a famous speech, partly reminiscent of the speech of Ivan the Terrible at the Council of the Hundred Heads.”

The frankness with which Stoglav speaks about shortcomings with the aim of eradicating them is also noted. F. Buslaev says that in Stoglav “everything new and alien is sealed with the mark of curse and eternal death; nevertheless, everything that is our own, dear, from time immemorial, following antiquity and tradition, is holy and saving.” K. Zauscinsky speaks with praise about the measures taken by Stoglav to correct society, since “spiritual means, exhortations and convictions are placed in the foreground; punishment is mostly limited to church penance, and only in very rare cases is it given to the king, his “royal commandment and thunderstorm.” The historian Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov; †1882) calls the Hundred-Glavy Council the most important “of all the Councils that have hitherto been in the Russian Church.”

The Stoglavy Council is contemporary with the Sudebnik of 1550. This clearly shows the intensity of the work of the legal thought of Ancient Rus' at that time. Considerations are expressed that the Code of Law was approved at this Council. Therefore, the wonderful Russian canonist A.S. Pavlov says that “The Council Code of 1651 represents an experience in the codification of all current Russian law.” Unlike the Sudebnik, the Council decrees, as noted earlier, are at the same time a monument to literary and theological thought.

The decisions of the Stoglavy Council had a great influence on church and public life. Many questions received ecclesiastical understanding for the first time there. “If we make a general assessment of the decisions of the Stoglavy Council from the point of view of church-historical and church-legal, then we can easily notice that the fathers of the Council touched upon different sides church and public life, they sought to eliminate all the conspicuous shortcomings in this life, to resolve all the issues that worried the Orthodox person of that time. As a source for studying church life in the 16th century, Stoglav is irreplaceable.”

The Council also received high praise for the study of Father Dimitri Stefanovich, whose work is still perhaps the most important on this occasion. He writes: “...Stoglav, both as a literary and as a legislative monument, is a rare and outstanding phenomenon in the history of Russian church law: this is one of the turning pillars that left a strong imprint on an entire era, a monument in which many of the works of the previous time found their successful completion, and which for the immediate and even distant subsequent times had the significance of valid and governing law.” “The Hundred-Glavy Council, according to N. Lebedev, represents not only one of the most remarkable actions of the All-Russian Metropolitan Macarius, but also one of the most important events in Russian history.” In an extensive set of conciliar decrees, the decisions of the Council are not only stated, but also commented on, supported by the authority of previous Councils and the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, etc. The Hundred-Glavy Council is closely interconnected in its content, language, and direction with contemporary literary monuments. The materials of the Cathedral are a striking monument to the aspirations of Russian society in the mid-16th century. for correction and updating. Therefore, Stoglav is an irreplaceable source of information about the life of Russian society in the 16th century.

Application

“In the summer of 7059, February 17, by order of the pious Tsar and Christ-loving Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of All Russia, the autocrat and with the blessing of the Right Reverend Macarius, Metropolitan of All Russia and the Most Reverend Archbishops and Bishops and the entire Holy Council of the Russian Metropolis, the priests and deacones of the elders were elected to the Tsar the existing city of Moscow in both cities and the settlement for Neglinn and in Chertoria of the three elders of Dimitrievskaya priest Theodore on Vozdvizhenskaya street, and from John the Baptist from Orbat priest Leonty, and from Chertoriya from the Olekseev monastery from the maiden from the border from the Transfiguration of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ priest Dmitry; and on Bolshaya Posad and beyond the Yauza two elders: Predtechinsky priest Grigory and Kotelnikov, and from Saint Gabriel // priest Andrei from Myasnikov, and across the river for Moscow they elected the Arkhangelsk priest from Runovka as elders, and in new city and in the old one they elected priest Joseph from the New City from the conception of St. Anna. And there are 113 churches beyond Neglimnaya and in Chertolia, and 120 priests, and 73 deacons, and all the priests and deacons behind Neglimna and in Chertolia are 193 people. And on Bolshie Posad and beyond the Yauza there are 107 churches, and there are 108 priests, and 70 deacons, and all the priests and deacons on Bolshie Posad and beyond the Yauza there are 178 people. And in the Old City there are 42 churches, and there are 92 archpriests and priests, and 38 deacons, and 39 priests, and 27 deacons, and all the priests and deacons in both cities are 196 people. And all the churches in both cities and in the villages are 6 hundred 42 churches and how to count the churches of the elders and fiftieth and tenth priests and deacons according to those holy churches and the entire Moscow kingdom of both cities and Zapolia as much as it can accommodate according to your judgment” (GIM. Collected A . S. Uvarova 578/482", in pp. 308–309).

List of abbreviations

VI - Questions of History,

State Historical Museum - State Historical Museum,

ZhMNP – Journal of the Ministry of Public Education (St. Petersburg),

ZhMP – Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate,

OLDP - Society of Amateurs ancient writing(St. Petersburg),

PDPI - Monuments of ancient writing and art (St. Petersburg),

PLDR – Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus',

SKiKDR - Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus',

TODRL – Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature,

KhCh – Christian reading (SPDA),

CHOIDR - Readings at the Society of Russian History and Antiquities.

For a bibliography of editions of conciliar acts and studies about Stoglav, see SKiKDR (for a list of abbreviations, see the end of the article). Vol. 2 (second half of the XIV-XVI centuries). Part 2. L-Y. L., 1989, pp. 426–427. It should be noted that the introduction to the said French publication by Stoglav (Le Stoglav ou les cent chapitres. Ed. E. Duchesne. Paris, 1920) was published somewhat earlier by the author in a separate article ( Duchesne E. Le Concile de 1551 et le Stoglav // Revue historigue. Paris, 1919, pp. 99–64).

Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 2. Legislation of the period of formation and strengthening of the Russian centralized state. M., 1985, p. 258; Stoglav. Kazan, 1862, ss. 18–19. Further, the text of this monument is quoted on a line indicating the page of the modern edition.

For information about the bishops participating in the Stoglavy Council, see Lebedev N. Hundred-Glavy Cathedral (1551). The experience of presenting his inner story. M., 1882, pp. 36–47; Bochkarev V. Stoglav and the history of the Council of 1551. Historical and canonical essay. Yukhnov, 1906, ss. 11–29; Priest D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav. Its origin, editions and composition. On the history of monuments of ancient Russian church law. St. Petersburg, 1909, ss. 60–63; Russian legislation X-XX. T. 2, pp. 404–406. Some researchers tend to see the participants of the Council as representatives of parties (“acquisitive” or “non-acquisitive”), and in its materials – the results of struggle, compromises and groupings. A. M. Sakharov, A. A. Zimin, V. I. Koretsky write: “Metropolitan Macarius, who presided at the Council, relied on the overwhelming “Josephite” majority. Only Bishop Cassian of Ryazan expressed the “non-covetous” opposition” (Russian Orthodoxy: milestones of history. M ., 1989, p. 117). In our opinion this problem reflects not so much a historical phenomenon as a historiographical one. On this matter see Ostrowski D. Church Polemics and Monastic Land Acquisitin in Sixteenth-Century Muscovy // The Slavonic and East European Revew. 1986. Vol. 64. No. 3. July, pp. 355–379; Kurukin I.V. Notes on “non-covetousness” and “Osiphites” (historiographic tradition and sources) // Questions of source study and historiography of the history of the USSR. Pre-October period. Sat. articles. M., 1981, pp. 57–76.

Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors Russian state in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1978, p. 78. See also Priest D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav, p. 43.

Cm. Yakovlev V. A. On the literary history of ancient Russian collections. Experience of research “Izmaragda”. Odessa, 1893, p. 41; Popov K. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus and his creations. Kyiv, 1903, p. 6.

Priest Dimitri Stefanovich believes that the division of the cathedral materials into one hundred chapters is due to Metropolitan Joasaph, who talked “with Sylvester, Serapion and Gerasimov Lenkov,” who brought the materials to the Trinity Monastery ( Priest D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav, p. 90). But in our opinion, such a division is in connection with the contemporary monument, as discussed above.

Golubinsky E. History of the Russian Church. T. 2. Part 1, pp. 776–779. See also Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow. History of the Russian Church during the period of its division into two Metropolises. T. 6. Ed. 2. St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 233.

In this one can also see a certain tradition, going back to the origins of Byzantium, when, for example, in 325, none other than Emperor Constantine proposed the term “Consubstantial” (see. Lebedev A. P. Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Sergiev Posad, 1896, pp. 22–23).

The author made a statement about this intention in Old Russian writing on February 12, 1910 at the Society of Lovers of Ancient Writing (PDPI. T. 176. Reports on the meetings of the Imperial OLDP in 1907–1910 (St. Petersburg), 1911, reports for 1909–1910 , p. 25). In this context, we can also consider materials published by I. N. Zhdanov ( Zhdanov I. N. Essays. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1904, ss. 177–186).

Cm. Kazansky N. Stoglaviyat Gathering // Church Herald. Sofia, 21.IV.1987, br. 25–26, p. 14; Leonid Erzbischof von Jaroslavl und Rostov. Metropolit Makari von Moskau und ganz Ru?land. Hierarch in entscheidungsreicher Zeit // Stimme der Orthodoxie. 1963, No. 12, S. 38.

Zimin A. A. I. S. Peresvetov and his contemporaries. Essays on the history of Russian socio-political thought of the mid-16th century. M., 1958, p. 99. For further considerations on this matter, see Cherepanova O. A. Observations on Stoglav’s vocabulary (Vocabulary associated with the concepts of spiritual and cultural life) // Russian historical lexicology and lexicography. Vol. 3. Interuniversity collection. L., 1983, p. 21.

Priest D. Stefanovich. About Stoglav, ss. 85–86. Since the author quotes verbatim only the beginning of the decree, but not the end, below, in the appendix, we present the texts of the decree based on the same manuscript in full.

History of the Stoglavy Cathedral

The Stoglavy Council, held in the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow from February 23 to May 11, 1551, is the most important event not only in the history of Russia, but also of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Note 1

The name “Stoglavy” comes from the number of parts (individual chapters) included in it. At its core, it represented a specific legislative act that regulated many areas of life and was binding on the church. However, some of the adopted introductions remained only on paper.

In addition to Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the participants of the Stoglavy Council were princes, high clergy, as well as representatives of the Boyar Duma.

All work took place in two stages:

• meeting to discuss issues,
• direct processing of the material.

In accordance with the structure of Stoglav:

• Chapters 1-4 contained information about the opening of the cathedral, participants, reasons and goals;
• the royal questions were in two parts, the first 37 are reflected in the 5th chapter, the second 32 - in the 41st chapter;
• the answers are in chapters 6-40 and 42-98;
• Chapter 99 talks about the embassy to the Trinity Monastery;
• Chapter 100 contains a response from Joseph, who offered a number of comments and additions.

Goals

The Council of the Hundred Heads was, first of all, necessary to resolve many significant issues in all aspects of spiritual life. These include strengthening spiritual discipline among the clergy, the scope of powers of the church court, the fight against the remnants of paganism and the vicious behavior of clergy, the need to unify church services and rituals, and regulate the order of building churches and painting icons.

The council was also called upon to discuss the problems of church administration, usury of monasteries, the election of deans - priestly elders, as well as worthy and competent altar servers.

The question was raised about the need to create religious schools for the purpose of training the clergy. All this would also contribute to increasing literacy among the population.

Solutions

The result of the Council of the Hundred Heads was the collection and systematization of the norms of the current church law.

The unrest that discredited the church was also recognized by the council, and in order to eliminate it, the positions of priestly elders were introduced, determined for each city individually. The positions of assistants to priestly elders - tens, elected from among the priests - were also introduced. Their responsibilities included monitoring the conduct of services in subordinate churches.

Note 2

A decision was made about “double” monasteries, where both men and women could live.

The Stoglavy Council condemned the remnants of paganism in the form of buffoonery, drunkenness and gambling, and also forbade communication with foreigners.

Note 3

But, of course, most of the decisions of the council concerned divine services.

For example, the double-fingered sign of the cross was legalized precisely then. Also important was the issue of the iconography of the Holy Trinity, namely in the discussion of the traditional Orthodox image of the Trinity in the form of three angels. However, there is no information about a definite answer, and most likely this question remained unresolved.

As for the Church Court, the result of the Council of the Hundred Heads was the determination of the relationship between spiritual and civil authorities. The principle of church independence in church affairs was applied. The “non-judgmental” charters were abolished, as a result of which all monasteries became subject to the jurisdiction of bishops. But secular courts could not judge clergy.

The council also discussed the issue of church land ownership, but it was not included in the Council Code. However, later the 101st chapter was added, entitled “The Verdict on Patrimonies,” in which the main decisions on the issue were enshrined.

The significance of the Stoglavy Cathedral

The Council of the Hundred Heads was a significant event, fixing the legal norms of the internal life of the Church. The development of a unique code of relationships between the clergy, society and the state became important. In the end, the Russian church now gained independence.

Note 4

The Zemsky and Stoglavy Sobors became equal.

Also, church-monastic land ownership was finally legally delineated, which was especially important for Ivan the Terrible, since the state was in dire need of free land to provide estates for the expanding military service class, and the church firmly defended its property integrity.

The Stoglavy Council was not entirely successful in terms of the emergence of discord between the Orthodox and Old Believers on many of the issues discussed. For a long time, disputes between representatives of the official church and schismatics continued. However, for its time, the holding of the Stoglavy Council was very important and relevant.