AHC/WI : No Raskol

When becoming Patriarch of Moscow, Nikon decided to revise the liturgical books so that they would be in line with the rest of the Orthodox world: among the introduced changes : the numbers of fingers used while crossing would pass from two to three, the numbers of alleluia from two to three, processions would be held counterclockwise instead of clockwise, Jesus would be spelled Іисусъ [Iisus] instead of Ісусъ [Isus] and the Nicene Creed was alterated.

Some Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) members, including the archpriest Avvakum and the bushop Paul of Kolomna, led the movement against such reforms, considering "Greeks" shoul not have any authority on Slavonic texts and that their fall under Catholic or Muslim domunation has been caused by heretical practices.

In 1666 Nikon is deposed but his reforms are confirmed, creating a turnoil among raskolniks or Old Believers, who preached the Antichrist ruled Russia, resisted against State forces (see Stenka Razin and Pugatchev, who were related to Old Believers) and fled abroad (10% of the population), in Siberia and the forrests, or simply burned themselves to escape a world seen as ruled by Satan.
Later, they would see the Peter the Great's reforms - beard cutting, Western education for nobility and clergy, head tax - as satanic, and preached he was the Antichrist.

The Raskol weakened the ROC and discredited the Moscow Patriarcate, allowing Peter the Great to replace it by the Holy Synod.

So,
  1. How to prevent the Raskol from occuring?
    Would a less brutal behaviour from Nikon help the adoption of the religious reforms?
  2. What would be the effects of the schism not occuring?
    Old Believers tended to predominate the market trade and, in the XIXth, were involved in industrialisation.

(Subsidiary question : was the quasi-disappearence of the Raskol during the XXth century caused by the fact the Old Believers tended to be merchands or rich farmers, both category targeted by the Soviets?)

(Some of my informations about Raskol are tired from Antoine Leroy-Beaulieu books about Russia)
 
Interesting questions. I dont know nearly enough to comment intelligently.

But the reforms seem pretty reasonable to me, mostly. I wonder if a compromise might work, like changing the spelling of Jesus back to the original (the backwards N letter is a direct decendant of the Greek Eta, and in mediæval fonts are identical in the two scripts), but making the change in fingers optional (at least for anyone lower than a bishop, say), and dropping the direction change of pecessionals, for which I can see no clear reason.
 
Interesting questions. I dont know nearly enough to comment intelligently.

But the reforms seem pretty reasonable to me, mostly. I wonder if a compromise might work, like changing the spelling of Jesus back to the original (the backwards N letter is a direct decendant of the Greek Eta, and in mediæval fonts are identical in the two scripts), but making the change in fingers optional (at least for anyone lower than a bishop, say), and dropping the direction change of pecessionals, for which I can see no clear reason.

Maybe such changes would keep the opposition from radicalising itself.

There are sources indicating some, including Nikon, were open to let the Old Believers practice their ceremonies while being ROC members; a separate wing, the Edinoverie, was eventually created, under Catherine II.

And will the non-occurence of Raskol keep other sects from existing?
 
Bump.

Let's follow the two way raskol could have been avoided or, at last, greatly reduced:
  1. As Dathi THorfinnsson proposed, make the changes gradual or less extensive instead of the OTL brutality: would the fact a great proportion of faithfuls stay TTL make the ROC less weak or would the Bezpopovtsy, i.e. "priestless", still exist for more radical opposition - the OTL Popovtsy could be appeased with these TTL proposition?
  2. Reforms are cancelled, as happened with Maxim the Greek: how would rapports with the larger Orthodox world would be?
 
Top