The synodic act on the heretic of Armenia, the monk Martin

The Synodic Act on the heretic of Armenia, the monk Martin (Church Slavonic: Собо́рное дҍѧ́нїе на єретика́ армѧни́на, на мни́ха марти́на) is a forged document (act) created at the beginning of the 18th century by Dimitry of Rostov shortly before his death to be used against the Old Rite, and it was actively used by the missionaries of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Synodal Period in an attempt to convert the Old Believers.[1] The main character of the Synodic Act is Martin Armenin or Martin the Armenian - a heretic and a monk. Martin Armenin was included as the name of a true person in many authoritative historical monographs and in liturgical texts by the Russian Orthodox Church.

"The synodic act on the heretic of Amenia, the monk Martin, in the summer from the creation of the world 6665, and from the flesh of the Nativity of Christ 1157 of the month of Iunia on the 7th day." The pictured manuscript is from the second half of the 18th century, and is located in the library of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. In the margin: "This act of the Council is translated from the Acts of the Council, which was written in Belorussian, and it was translated by His Eminence the Metropolitan of Rostov, Demetrius, in the very place that it was found in Kiev."

Today, the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes that the work is a forgery, as stated by Patriarch Kirill in the Russian Orthodox Encyclopedia.[2]

Background Information and Reasons for Creating the Forgery

In the middle of the 17th century, a series of reforms to the Russian Orthodox Church were made by Patriarch Nikon, with the goal of ensuring the future unity of the Orthodox Church. To this end, uniquely Russian rituals were declared heretical, and those who continued using these rituals were proclaimed heretics and anathematized. (Some then-saints were also included in these anathemas, such as Saint Anna of Kashin, whom had been previously glorified).

Dimitry of Rostov

Even before the start of the reform, Arseny (Sukhanov) had a debate with theologians of the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (ethnically Arab and Greek Christians, respectively, who followed the liturgical practices of the late Eastern Roman Empire) regarding how to fold the fingers while making the sign of the cross. These theologians reproached Arseny, claiming that the Russians were baptized with the sign of the cross in the same way as the Armenians, to which Arseny accurately replied that the Armenians preserved the more ancient tradition (despite the widespread belief at the time that the Armenians were monophysite heretics).[3] Later, even though this debate had already occurred, the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius dismissed the work of Arseny and announced at the Moscow Local Council in 1656 that those who continued baptizing with the two-finger sign of the cross were "arrogant imitators" of the Armenians' supposed "heresy". Historians today, such as the Russian historian B.A. Uspensky, go even further than Arseny and suggest that the Armenians – like the Russians – had in fact adopted the two-finger sign of the cross from the Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire before the 14th century.[4]

After the anathemas of the Synod of 1656 and the Great Moscow Synod, and the unsuccessful but brutal repressions of those who continued using the Old Rite a new direction was chosen to fight the Old Rite: the doubling of the taxes of Old Believers and the use of forgeries. Following this decision, the future Russian Orthodox saint Dimitry of Rostov created the Synodic Act.

The Forgery

Less than a year before his death, during the reign of Peter I, Dimitry of Rostov create the forged anti-Old Rite work The Synodic Act on the Heretic of Armenia, the Martyr Martin. The document claims that a monk and heretic named Martin, an Armenian, arrived in Russia from Constantinople in 1149, and pretending to be a Roman and a relative of the patriarch Luke Chrysoberges, began to preach in Russia various heresies. These heresies consisted of a combination of Armenian and Latin heresies (and according to the Acts, Martin learned this heresy Rome itself). Subsequently, adopted by the Russians, the heresy consisted of making the sign of the cross with two fingers, saying the Jesus Prayer instead of the name of the Trinity while making the sign of the cross, and using two alleluias instead of three alleluias. Especially for his heresy of making the sign of the cross with two fingers, he was condemned at the Council of Kiev in 1160, under the Grand Duke Rostislav Mstislavich and Metropolitan Constantine, both saints. Later, he was condemned at the Council of Constantinople during the following year, 1161, under Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges. Subsequently, Martin was burned.

Authorship and publication of the work

The first mention of the imaginary Council on the never-existing heretic Martin is found in the book "Mirror of the Orthodox Confession" (1709 year) from the Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov, he writes: "To depict the same sign of the cross should be with three large fingers of the right hand, combined together. For so ordered by the Council, which was in Kiev about the monk Martin, and the holy patriarch of Antioch Makarius also teaches in reply to the interrogative message of the Patriarch of Russian Nikon".[5] In addition, Pitirim began his missionary activity only in 1707. Pitirim in his book "Prashchitsa dukhovnaya" (translated: "Spiritual sling") says that he helped to find him "The synodic act of the heretic of Armenin, the monk Martin". Dimitry of Rostov gave Pitirim, the list of "The synodic act of the heretic of Armenin, the monk Martin", who was with him and which he wrote off from the ancient original document that was in Kiev[6]

According to the official version, set forth by Archbishop Macarius Mirolyubov in the book "History of the Nizhny Novgorod Hierarchy", Pitirim at first had not the ancient document on hand, but only a copy with it. This is a copy that Pitirim valued, written by Dimitry of Rostov in the beginning of the XVIII century, did not convince the Old Believers during the dispute with Pitirim in 1711 in the existence of both the Council against Martin Armenin and the existence of Martin himself. The Old Believers suggested that Pitirim find an authentic ancient document. In 1717 Pitirim addressed this occasion with a request to Patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky and asked him to send the faithful monk to Kiev with the Tsar's decree for the sake of finding the original ancient document — Synodic Act and that the Kyivan bishop ordered to search in all book depositories without obstruction. Thanks to this petition, by the decree of Metropolitan Stephen in August 1717, the monk Theophylact of the Dormition Kerzhebel'mashskiy Monastery, administered by Pitirim, was sent to Kiev to find the true Synodic Act. September 3, 1717 Theophylact arrived in Kiev. Here they began to search for the Synodic Act on the orders of Kyiv Metropolitan Ioasaph Krakovsky in all libraries. The search was not left without success. The Synodic Act was found in the library of the ancient Пустынно-Николаевский монастырь and sent to Moscow along with nine other ancient books.[7]

Promotion of the Forgery by the Russian Orthodox Church
The section of St. Dimitry of Rostov's akathist which praises him for "discovering" the document that proved the Old Rite was heretical.

A book with a story about the alleged heretic Martin was printed with the blessing of the Most Holy Synod repeatedly, in 1721, 1726, 1752, and finally in 1913. In addition, Dimitry of Rostov was canonized, and at the end of the 18th century he was written by an akathist which included a section about Martin. The akathist was written by a priest of the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior, John Alexeyev. The text of the akathist was studied at three meetings of the Holy Synod in 1800 (July 2, July 13 and August 8). The synod then approved the text of the akathist and gave him the blessing to print it, which was done,[8] and it is still the akathist used for him today.[9]

A rough translation of the akathist to Dimitry of Rostov, fourth kontakion:

The storm of heresies, from the underworld through Aria in Greece, was revived in the latter days by the machinations of Martin Armenin; and through the [Old Believers] in the Fatherland, still attempts to silence and destroy the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You, the good shepherd, for the love of your sheep, you drove away these soul-destroying wolves, you tamed the storm of insanity, and you taught the faithful to say to the Trinitarian God: Alleluia.[9]

The Troparion in Tone VIII hints at his work against the Old Believers as well:

O lover of Orthodoxy and uprooter of schism, healer of Russia and new advocate before God, by thy writings thou didst heal the minds of the foolish. O blessed Demetrius, thou harp of the Spirit, entreat Christ God, that our souls may be saved.[10]

In addition, the non-existent Martin and his condemnation by the also non-existent Kiev Synod were taught as though they were real in the higher spiritual educational institutions, including the theological academy where the priesthood and bishops were educated, throughout the Synodal Period. The character of Martin was mentioned as though he existed by a large number of religious authors during this time, including but not limited to: Saint Metropolitan Arsenius (Matseyevich), Metropolitan Simon of Moscow,[11] Archbishop Nikephoros Theotokis,[12] the Optina elder Saint Joseph of Optina,[13] Archimandrite Jerome (Alyakrinsky), Saint Theophan the Recluse,[14] Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov),[15] and Saint Ignatius (Bryanchaninov).[16]

A number of secular historians, such as Sergey Solovyov,[17] also wrote about Martin Armenin as though he was a real historical person.

Changing views

Old Believers argued that the Synodic Act and the heretic Martin were myths from the time of the document's publication, pointing out that it contains historical inconsistencies regarding the life of princes and metropolitans. But the opinion of the Old Believers was not taken into account, as they were the ones that it supposedly contained damaging information about. It was only later during the 19th century that Russian scholars started examining the Synodic Act critically. It turned out that in the 12th century, both in Russia and Byzantium, the sign of the cross was made with two fingers, and such a document would not have been made under any pretext at all. In addition, the very text of the "ancient" manuscript turned out to be a forgery of the 18th century.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin was the first of these 18th century critics. He was skeptical about the exposition of Martin's story and the fragments of the "Act" as it was relayed in a document called the "Prayshchitsa" (access to the manuscript was still sealed at that time).[18] In addition to pointing out various text anachronisms and signs that it had been written in a more recent period of Russian language history, he also pointed out the silence on the case of Martin in all available ancient sources. In 1854 permission was given to access the "ancient manuscript" and to study in detail was finally granted to researchers. After examining the document one of the researchers, Kapiton Ivanovich Nevostruev, called it a "compilation of the falsehood".[19][20]

Alexander Lvovich Sinai, Kapterev, Golubinsky, Gorsky, and other researchers on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church have corroborated the conclusions of Karamzin and Nevostruev. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes that the work is a forgery. As stated by Patriarch Kirill in the Russian Orthodox Encyclopedia, "there is no doubt about the falsity of the Synodic Act".[2]

The Text of the Synodic Act

The text of the Synodic Act can be read online in Russian.

Citations
  1. "Семейские - староверы Забайкалья". semeyskie.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  2. "Православная Энциклопедия под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла (электронная версия)". www.pravenc.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  3. "Портал-Credo.ru: Арсений Суханов. Прения с греками о вере. [история Церкви]". www.portal-credo.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  4. Успенский Б. А. Крестное знамение и сакральное пространство. Параграф 4. Обвинение старообрядцев в следовании армянской традиции
  5. Святитель Димитрий Ростовский. Зерцало православного исповедания. Часть первая
  6. Карлович В. М. Историческия изследования служащия к оправданию старообрядцев. Т. 2. 1883. стр. 189. Глава XI. О небывалом на Мартина еретика соборном деянии 1157 года.
  7. Макарий (Миролюбов) «История нижегородской иерархии, содержащая в себе сказание о нижегородских иерархах с 1672 до 1850 года.». издание книгопродавца Н.Г. Овсянникова, 1857. стр. 40
  8. Русский: Православные Русскiе акаѳисты, изданные съ благословенiя Святѣйшаго Синода / Православные русские акафисты, изданные с благословения Святейшего Синода, retrieved 2017-08-09
  9. "Тропарь, кондак, молитва и акафист св. Димитрию Ростовскому » Спасо-Яковлевский Димитриев мужской монастырь". www.rostov-monastir.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  10. "Hymns to St Demetrius". www.chrysostompress.org. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  11. Наставленіе правильно состязаться с раскольниками, сочиненное в Рязанской семинаріи по предписанію покойнаго Преосвященнаго Симона, Епископа Рязанскаго и Шацкаго (in Russian). В Сẏнодальной тип. 1839.
  12. "Окружное послание старообрядцам читать, скачать - архиепископ Никифор (Феотокис)". azbyka.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  13. "Просмотр документа - dlib.rsl.ru". dlib.rsl.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  14. "О старообрядцах. Cвятитель Феофан Затворник". ОдигитриЯ. 2011-09-12. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  15. "Просмотр документа - dlib.rsl.ru". dlib.rsl.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  16. Semenov, Matvěj Afanas'evič (1849). Istorija o raskolach v cerkvi rossijskoj: Ignatija archiepiskopa voronežskago i zadonskago (in Russian). [Dr.:] Fišer.
  17. "ГЛАВА ПЕРВАЯ ВНУТРЕННЕЕ СОСТОЯНИЕ РУССКОГО ОБЩЕСТВА ОТ СМЕРТИ ЯРОСЛАВА I ДО СМЕРТИ МСТИСЛАВА ТОРОПЕЦКОГО (1054-1228)". www.magister.msk.ru. Retrieved 2017-08-09.
  18. "Просмотр документа - dlib.rsl.ru". dlib.rsl.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  19. Kel'siev, Vasilij I. (1860). Sbornik pravitel'stvennych svredenij o raskol'nikach (in Russian). Trübner.
  20. Опроверженіе записки о русском расколѣ (in Russian). В тип. Семена. 1864.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.