World religions. Рахимбергенова М.Х. - 32 стр.

tine world. Thus the infant Russian church was to receive not only its hierarchy,     added to the CALENDAR at the church councils of 1547 and 1549. The recog-
but also its doctrine, liturgy, canon law, art and music from the Byzantine patri-    nition of the early saints suggested a precocious maturity in the life of the newly
archate, a dependency of which it remained for six centuries.                         founded local church.
      The conversion of Vladimir’s people was accelerated by use of force. The             The stability of the young church was severely tested by the Mongol inva-
pace of consequent acculturation was also swift, revealing the recipients’ readi-     sion. Vladimir was sacked in 1238, Kiev two years later. This was the fate of
ness to benefit therefrom. Acculturation and conversion were in turn abetted by       almost every Russian city except NOVGOROD. More than two centuries were
the use of Church Slavonic for the translation of scriptural, liturgical, legal and   to pass before Mongol suzerainty was brought to an end. In the immediate af-
literary texts. Both the new “Cyrillic” alphabet and an imported corpus of trans-     termath of the invasion preachers, such as Metropolitan Kirill of Kiev and
lated work derived ultimately from the ninth-century mission of CYRIL AND             Bishop Seraption of Vladimir, saw the cataclysm as a punishment from God.
METHODIUS to Moravia, with Bulgaria, presumably, as Russia’s intermediary             Nevertheless, church leaders soon learnt that unsought and unprecedented gains
for them. Whether Bulgarian clergy made a direct contribution to the Kievan           could now accrue to the church. By 1257 it had become evident that the Mon-
conversion process remains unclear. The contribution may have been of some            gol conquerors were to levy taxes on all and sundry, with exemptions for
importance. But the Priselkov hypothesis (1913) that the late tenth-century dio-      church property and personnel alone. Such was the Mongols’ toleration of reli-
cese of Russia was directly administered from OHRID is generally discounted.          gious bodies, however alien to themselves. Thus the period of Mongol rule wit-
      A Byzantine metropolitan of all Rus took his seat in Kiev no later than         nessed a marked increase in the prosperity and status of the church. Not unre-
1037. Initially, the metropolitans were almost invariably Greek by origin and         lated is the flowering of Russian ICON painting at this time, reaching its apogee
speech, though later Greek and Russian primates appear to have alternated. For        in the work of Andrei RUBLEV (circa 1360–1430) and his contemporaries. Not
almost as long as the Byzantine Empire lasted, the metropolitan was to be its         unrelated also is the increase in the number and influence of monasteries and
agent. He was therefore capable of adopting an independent stance vis-à-vis the       monastic land-holdings, much of this involving outreach into virgin lands. No
local rulers when required. There were seven dioceses under his supervision in        less important were the spiritual achievements of monastic elders like
the early period, rising to fifteen by the midthirteenth century. Until the end of    SERGIUS of RADONEZH (1314–1392) and Nil of Sora, inspired by the recep-
that century, Kiev was the actual primatial see, and remained the metropolitan’s      tion of HESYCHAST teachings from ATHOS and the Byzantine world at large.
nominal seat even when displaced by the cities of VLADIMIR (1300) and then                 Nil is remembered also for his firm opposition to monastic land-holdings
MOSCOW (1308). Only when Kiev fell under Polish-Lithuanian rule did the               of any kind, an opposition which initially found favour with the land-hungry
metropolitan adopt the title “of Moscow and all Rus” (1458). A separate metro-        state authorities of the day. Monastic accumulation of tax-exempt properties
politanate of Kiev was established that same year under Roman auspices, later         and economic power was favoured by another and more prominent school of
coming once more under Constantinople (1470), but the coherence of the origi-         monks, the “possessors”. Their most effective spokesman was Iosif of Volotsk
nal metropolitanate was not re-established thereby.                                   (1439–1515). Under the auspices of such possessors, ambitious programmes of
      Some monastic foundations date back to the early eleventh century, if not       charitable work could be effectively promoted. For the present, the state de-
earlier. The most influential, the Kievan Caves monastery, was founded in             cided to align itself with the possessors and to refrain from interference with in-
1051. Generally the monasteries adhered to the Studite rule, borrowed from            herited immunities. Nevertheless, such immunities were to be increasingly chal-
Constantinople. By 1240 there were no fewer than sixty-eight monastic founda-         lenged, notably at the church councils of 1580 and 1584 .
tions. By contrast with foundations of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the         In the same period, Muscovite diplomacy and duplicity scored a palpable
early monasteries were almost invariably urban in location, well placed to con-       success. In 1589, with the reluctant consent of the patriarch of Constantinople,
tribute to the educational, cultural and philanthropic life of their secular envi-    the Russian metropolitanate was elevated to the dignity of a patriarchate, fifth
ronment. They also produced role models for the spiritual life, several of whom,      in seniority among the patriarchates of the East. This confirmed its hitherto self-
like Feodosii, abbot of the Kievan Caves monastery itself (1091), were later          determined status as an “autonomous” church (1448). It also compensated for
canonized. But the first saints to gain national recognition (1072) were two          the fall of Constantinople to the OTTOMANS (1453), and the associated dimi-
young princes, Boris and Gleb, the “PASSION BEARERS”, who chose to die                nution of its ecclesial standing from the Russian point of view. Indeed, there
as followers of Christ rather than to resist violence. Many Russian saints were       were Russians who argued at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
to be canonized over the succeeding centuries; no fewer than thirty-nine were         that two Romes, Rome proper and Constantinople, the New Rome, had already

                                        63                                                                                    64