Russia before the Second Coming by Sergey Fomin - Chapter III

Chapter III: The Rising Fire

This chapter of Russia Before the Second Coming delves into Russia's rise as the leader of the Orthodox Christian world during the 15th and 16th centuries, as well as the first significant spiritual crisis between Tsar Alexey I and Patriarch Nikon of Moscow. For a comprehensive understanding, be sure to read Chapters I and II of this book.

---

Chapter III: The Rising Fire

"…The worldwide atmosphere has been tainted since as early as the 17th century.…"¹

To the Great Prince of Moscow, Basil III Ivanovich (1479- 1533):
"From the highest and all-powerful right hand of God, by whom Tsars reign and the mighty are exalted, and the strong write righteousness, to you, the most radiant and exalted Sovereign, great prince, Orthodox ruler, Christian Tsar and master of all, who holds the reins of the Holy God's Throne, of the Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church of the Most Holy Theotokos, of Her Honorable and Glorious Dormition, who shines forth instead of the Roman and Constantinople Churches. For the Church of the old Rome fell into unbelief and the Apollinarian heresy, and the Church of the Second Rome, the city of Constantine, was struck by the swords and axes of the Hagarenes (Muslims), who shattered its doors.²

Now, the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of your sovereign Third New Rome, of your kingdom,³ shines brighter than the sun in the Orthodox Christian faith throughout the entire world. And let your dominion, pious Tsar, know that all the kingdoms of the Orthodox Christian faith have come into your one kingdom. You are the only Christian Tsar under heaven. Do not transgress, O Tsar, the commandments laid down by your forefathers: the great Constantine, the blessed Vladimir, the great God-chosen Yaroslav, and the other blessed saints, whose root reaches even unto you... Guard and heed, pious Tsar, for all Christian kingdoms have come into your one, for two Romes have fallen,⁴ and the third stands, and a fourth there shall not be: your Christian kingdom shall not be given to another, according to the Great Theologian."⁵

In the letter to the Pskov chronicler Munehin:
"All Christian kingdoms have come to an end and have converged into the one kingdom of our sovereign, according to the prophetic books, that is, the Russian kingdom: for two Romes have fallen, but the third stands, and there shall not be a fourth. The Christian kingdoms have been submerged by the unbelievers, but only the kingdom of our sovereign stands by the grace of Christ."⁶

Patriarch Jeremiah II (Tranos, 1595) of Constantinople - to Tsar Feodor Ioannovich (1561-1582):
"Truly, in you, pious Tsar, the Holy Spirit abides, and such a thought will be brought to fruition by you from God, for Ancient Rome fell through the Apollinarian heresy, and the Second Rome, Constantinople, is in the possession of the descendants of the Hagarenes, the godless Turks: but your great Russian kingdom, the Third Rome, has surpassed all in piety, and all pious kingdoms have gathered into your kingdom, and you alone under the heavens are called the Christian Tsar throughout the whole world by all Christians."⁷

Patriarch Nikon of Moscow and All Rus (1605 - 17 August 1681) understood the Third Rome ‘as a task to be accomplished, rather than something already fulfilled.’⁸ According to Professor Michael Zyzykin:
"We can attribute his (Patriarch Nikon's) system to the hierocratic system, wherein the state sets for itself, as a distant ideal never to be fully realized, the transformation into the Church; this system is opposed to the Protestant one, which dissolves the Church into the state, as was the case under Peter I. Nikon warned the state against liberating itself from ecclesiastical principles."⁹

Nicholas Kapterev, Church historian (1912): "Alexey Mikhailovich considered himself the successor of the ancient Greek emperors not only in matters of faith and piety but also as the lawful heir to their kingdom. He believed that he or his successors were destined to one day rule over Constantinople and all the Orthodox peoples suffering under Turkish yoke... The Tsar was not averse to the idea of becoming the liberator of the Orthodox nations from the Turkish yoke and of possessing Constantinople as his inheritance, and he viewed ecclesiastical union as the first and necessary step towards future political unity."¹⁰

Patriarch Paisios of Jerusalem, in a letter to Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich (1649):
"May the Most Holy Trinity exalt you above all Tsars and grant you the grace to ascend to the highest throne of the great Tsar Constantine, your forefather, and may you liberate the nations of pious and Orthodox Christians from the hands of the impious. May you be a new Moses, freeing us from captivity, just as he freed the sons of Israel from the hands of Pharaoh."¹¹

Notably, in 1666 AD, the Tsar requested to be sent from the East the Sudebnik (Code of Law) and the Chinovnik (Order of Service)¹² for all the royal ceremonies of the former Greek Emperors, which indicates practical preparation for coronation to the Throne of the Byzantine Emperors.¹³

Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich (after the departure of Patriarch Macarius III Ibn al-Za'im of Antioch) - to the boyars:
"I pray to God that before I die, I may see him (the Patriarch of Antioch) among the four patriarchs, serving in Hagia Sophia, with our patriarch as the fifth among them."¹⁴

Even 100 years before the Baptism of Rus', Patriarch Photios of Constantinople (820 - 891) developed and formalized the doctrine of the relationship between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, which found expression in the Epanagoge - a Byzantine legislative compilation of an official nature, excerpts of which were later included in the Slavic Kormchiya (Church-Slavonic book of Canons). The foundations of the public order of Byzantium are reflected in Chapter 7 of Title III of the Epanagoge:
"Since the state, like a human being, consists of parts and members, the most important and necessary members are the Tsar and the Patriarch, which is why the peace and prosperity of the subjects depend on the unity and agreement between the Tsar's and the Patriarch's authority."¹⁵

Thus, the discussion is about the Symphony between the Universal Emperor and the Universal Patriarch (the first in the diptychs, i.e., mentioned in the divine services). Michael Zyzykin believed:
"Symphony implies achieving agreement between the representatives of spiritual and secular authority in all matters, but it does not eliminate the obligation of each representative to submit to the other in the sphere of the other’s authority."¹⁶

"The Tsar," writes Professor Vladimir Sokolsky (1894), who studied the Epanagoge of Saint Photios, "is viewed as the legitimate supreme authority, a common good for all subjects, punishing not out of hatred but rewarding below out of friendship. The Tsar, as an impartial judge of disputes, gives each according to their merits (Epanagoge, II, 1). At the same time, one of the main tasks of Tsarist authority is to preserve and enhance public strength. The ultimate purpose of Tsarist authority is to do good, which is why the Tsar is called a benefactor. When the Tsar's activity regarding the creation of good deeds weakens, the very nature of Tsarist authority is perverted (Epanagoge, II, 2 and 3). The Tsar is a judge and guardian of Divine and Enlightened Law, encompassing all that is written in Sacred Scripture, established as dogma by the seven Ecumenical Councils, and defined by Roman laws. Finally, the most important duty of the Tsar is the protection of Orthodoxy and piety.

Chapter 5 of Title II details how the Tsar should believe in the Holy Trinity, confess the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the union in Christ of two natures, Divine and human, and correspondingly, two wills and two natures. The Tsar must stand out among all for his zeal for God. Thus, to summarize, the Tsar is a legislator, the highest ruler and judge of the people, and in relation to the Church, a guardian of piety and orthodoxy. The Tsar, in relation to his subjects, wields unlimited power, but this power is bounded by the religious and moral law established by the Supreme Legislator and Judge, Christ.

The position of the Ecumenical Patriarch of the New Rome is highly esteemed according to the Epanagoge. Chapter 8 of Title III recognizes the Patriarch as a member of the ecclesiastical and state organization equal to the Tsar. The Patriarch, as stated in Chapter 1 of this title, is the living and animated image of Christ, expressing the truth through deeds and words. The duties of the Patriarchal authority are recognized as: first, to preserve the piety and moral strictness of the lives entrusted to him by God; then, to convert all heretics (and heretics, according to both laws and canons, are those who do not have communion with the Catholic Church) to Orthodoxy and union with the Church as far as possible; and finally, to make the unbelievers, through the attraction of his luminous and miraculous deeds, followers of the faith (Epanagoge, 2).

The purpose of the existence of Patriarchal authority is stated by the Epanagoge as the salvation of the souls entrusted to the Patriarch, living in Christ, and co-crucifixion with the world (Epanagoge, III, 3). The characteristics of Patriarchal authority are defined as follows: The Patriarch should be instructive, treating all equally, both the high and the humble; he should be meek in administering justice, admonishing the disobedient, and speaking, without hesitation, in defense of truth and dogmas before the face of the Tsar. Just as the Tsar has the authority of interpreting of legal norms, the Patriarch, and only he, has the authority of interpreting the rules established by the Holy Fathers and Holy Councils (Epanagoge, III, 5).

Subsequent periods further developed the principles outlined by Saint Photios in the Epanagoge. Byzantium is a church-state body with two heads - the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Ecumenical Tsar. According to Greek views, this church-state body is gradually to encompass the entire Orthodox world, and the Ecumenical Patriarch and Ecumenical Tsar are to become, in reality, the Patriarch and Tsar of all Orthodox Christians throughout the Universe.
Rulers of other Orthodox countries and peoples can never be compared in dignity and rights concerning the Church with the holy Tsar, the autocrat ‘concerned with the external construction of the Church throughout the Universe.’ They are merely local rulers, and in matters of church affairs, their will must submit to the universal will of the holy Autocrat."¹⁷

Antionius IV, Patriarch of Constantinople (1393):
"The Holy Tsar occupies a high place in the Church; he is not like other local princes and rulers. Tsars, from the beginning, established and confirmed piety in the Universe; Tsars gathered Ecumenical Councils; they also confirmed by their laws the observance of what the divine and sacred canons say about the true doctrines and the proper conduct of Christian life, and they struggled greatly against heresies; finally, Tsars, along with Councils, through their decrees established the order of episcopal sees and set the boundaries of metropolitan districts and episcopal dioceses. (...) To this day, the Tsar receives the same decree from the Church, is anointed with the same rite and with the same prayers as the great lord and Emperor of the Romans, that is, of all Christians. In every place where Christians are named, the name of the Tsar is mentioned by all Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and Bishops, and no other princes or local rulers have this privilege. (...) Listen to the supreme Apostle Peter, who speaks in the first epistle: ‘Fear God. Honor the king,’ he did not say ‘kings,’ so that no one would start referring to those called kings among different peoples, but ‘the king,’ indicating that there is only one King in the universe.¹⁸ (...) For if some other Christians have assumed the title of Tsar, all these examples are something contrary, unlawful, more a matter of tyranny and violence.”¹⁹

The same Ecumenical Patriarch Antonius IV writes to Grand Prince Vasily Dimitrievich (1393):
"We, the keepers of the Divine laws and canons, are obliged to act towards all Christians, especially towards great people - princes of nations and local rulers, as befits your nobility (...) And as I am appointed the universal teacher for all Christians, it is my imperative duty, should I hear anything about your nobility that harms your soul, to write to you about it, as your father and teacher, instructing and persuading you to correction. (...) Do you not know that the Patriarch occupies the place of Christ, from Whom he is enthroned on the sovereign throne (...) Therefore, my son, I write, exhort, and advise your nobility, that you should also honor the Patriarch as Christ Himself.”²⁰

Professor Vladimir Sokolsky explains the special position of the Ecumenical Patriarch based on Byzantine legislation as follows: In the Epanagoge (III, 8), it is stated that "the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople, adorned with the Kingdom, is recognized by the synodal decrees as the first, and that, according to the holy laws, disputes arising in other Patriarchates are referred to this throne for resolution. (...) Other Patriarchs do not hold the same significance as is assigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Epanagoge. The remaining Patriarchs are merely local hierarchs. They are so referred to in the Epanagoge. (...) This perspective is a distinctive view of Photius and his followers. Generally, the Greeks held a different view, according to which all five Patriarchs were considered equal to each other. The Greeks compared the Church to the human body, and the five Patriarchs to the five senses.”²¹

Over time, the Tsar of Moscow took the place of the Greek Tsar. Professor Vladimir Sokolsky writes:
"In 1561, the Grand Prince of Moscow Ivan IV, who had been crowned in 1547, was confirmed in the rank of Tsar by the synodal decree of the Ecumenical Patriarch Joasaph and the clergy of the Eastern Church. In this decree, the Moscow Tsar is viewed as holding the same relationship to the Church as the Greek Tsars once did. Remarkably, the Patriarch and the Synod call Ivan their Tsar. ‘Behold,’ reads the contemporary translation of the decree, ‘this our pious decree is unwavering and firmly given to the pious, God-crowned, and Christ-loving Tsar our Lord Ivan.’ Here, as can be seen from the quoted passage, the Church praises him in the same manner as it praised the Greek Tsars: pious, God-crowned, and Christ-loving. Furthermore, from the preceding negotiations and communications leading to the synodal act, it is evident that, at Ivan's insistence, his name began to be mentioned throughout the Orthodox world, exactly as the names of the Byzantine Tsars had been mentioned before.”²²

The ‘view of the Russian Tsar as the successor to the Byzantine Tsars and the Ruler of the entire Orthodox Christian world’ is reflected in the correspondence of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus II Notaras (1641-1707) with the Moscow government.²³

Patriarch Dositheus II viewed the Patriarch of Moscow as having, in certain cases, an ecumenical significance due to his closeness to the Head of the entire Orthodox world - the Tsar - and his ability to influence the Tsar in one way or another. Although the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not transferred to Moscow, and the ‘Moscow Patriarch was recognized only as the fifth Patriarch and was assigned by the decree of the Eastern Patriarchs the duty to be the first to hold and maintain the apostolic throne of Constantinople,’ nevertheless, his significance was entirely different from that of other local Patriarchs. He was the Patriarch of the adorned city of Moscow, the Third Rome, and the Patriarch in the presence of the Ecumenical Tsar.²⁴

Nevertheless, the Moscow Patriarch, being only fifth in the ‘duo,’ strictly speaking, did not have rights in symphony with the Tsar. The emerging Russian symphony (not officially enshrined) could exist as long as the bond of love between the Tsar and the Patriarch was preserved. It is significant that the very case of Patriarch Nikon, reflected in the ‘Rules of the Four Patriarchs,’ confirmed the unequal status in the diptych of the local Moscow Patriarch and the Moscow Tsar, who was at the same time the Ecumenical Tsar and the direct heir of the holy Byzantine autocrats.²⁵

Professor Zyzykin suggested that Patriarch Nikon "nurtured the dream that the canonical status of the Moscow Patriarch would be reviewed in the future by the Highest Church Authority, and that the first place among the five patriarchal thrones in the Resurrection Church would belong to the Moscow Patriarch. However, neither from any of his statements nor from anywhere else is it evident that he was assigning this place to the Moscow Patriarch of his time. His hopes might have had some basis in the reasoning of the canons of the II and IV Ecumenical Councils, which promoted the Patriarch of Constantinople specifically as the Bishop of the New (Second Rome - S. Fomin) Rome; consequently, with the loss of the political status of their cities, the Patriarchs might, in the future, lose their precedence of honor."²⁶

Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich and Nikon, Archbishop of Novgorod, at the Tomb of the Miracle-Worker Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow by Alexander Litovchenko (1886)

Intriguingly, in his last published article (1944), Patriarch Sergius of Moscow and All Russia (Stragorodsky, 1867–1944) hinted at the possibility of soon considering the question of moving the Moscow Patriarchal Throne to the first place in the diptych. Such a statement at that time could, of course, have appeared only after coordination with Joseph Stalin, who had his own designs about Constantinople. Patriarch Sergius of Moscow wrote: