The history of Russia is so distorted that historians, faced with sources that could shed light on the real past of Russia, are silent about them, so as not to be obstructed by their colleagues, who are constantly reminded of corporate unity. Representatives of the Institute of Science are becoming more and more like lackeys of the world government, and not like citizens of their states. For some incredible reason, we know much more about the 16th century of Russia than about its 17th century! What do we know about the Troubles? What do we know about the Sundering? We will talk about him now …
… According to the official version of history, on July 10, 1658, Patriarch Nikon suddenly announced that he was leaving the patriarchate. He leaves the capital and leaves for the Resurrection Monastery. Monk Nikon remains, he says, a self-removed and at the same time acting patriarch. According to Canon 82 of the Carthaginian Council, the bishop should not retire from his diocese to his dominion for a period of more than 3 weeks, because he must “teach the clergy and the people piety” (Basil., Rule 89). If he remains out of the pulpit for more than 6 months, he loses his honor and episcopal dignity. Did the hierarchs of Russia know about these rules of the Church? Of course they did. If Patriarch Nikon had decided to leave the see, he would have been deposed in six months. It has always been and will be so in an Orthodox country! If this did not happen, then in the country there is a split. Consequently, among the hierarchs there appeared thosethose who are hostile to the rules by which the Church lives - those who are her enemies. Who is responsible for this split? Let's figure it out …
Here is what Kartashev writes about that time:
But the Tsar is the external bishop of the Church who convenes the council and presides over it, who KNOWS THE RULES BY WHICH THE CHURCH LIVES. How did it happen that Monk Nikon was in an "indefinite position" for 8 (!) Years? Would the Tsar have allowed such a thing? Can the Tsar really "experiment"? After all, church life is not a game. A. Kartashev, I have to admit, "played too much." He pretended not to understand ANYTHING of what was happening in the 17th century! He forgot that he is a scientist, not a writer. The tsar would not have convened a council to overthrow a guilty bishop. If the CATHEDRAL did happen, then it only follows that it was decided to overthrow the legitimate patriarch by violent means, having previously eliminated the legitimate President of the local council. From this it follows that the "wolf council" could take place only after the death of the Anointed One. It took place in January 1676. It was in this year that the trial of the Orthodox Patriarch could have taken place!
By the way, the closure of the Monastic Order, led by Patriarch Nikon, took place in 1676. It turns out that the materials of the Tsar's correspondence with the Patriarch have also been preserved. The surviving letter from 1669 is signed: "Humble Nikon, by the grace of God, the patriarch, testifying with the fear of God and signed with his own hand" [Benjamin, archimandrite. Life of His Holiness Nikon, Patriarch of All Russia. Edition of the Stavropegic Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery. - M.: Printing house and chromolithography I. Efimov, 1878. S. 344-345]. A letter with a blessing from Patriarch Nikon to the Tsar for Easter in 1668 has also survived. But the most interesting letter from the Tsar is dated January 29th, 1676. In this letter, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich asks Patriarch Nikon for forgiveness. In fact, prayers for the salvation of the soul. Such letters are written in case of poisoning with poisons, when they know for surethat ALREADY NOT TO MEET … And the monarch asks the prayers of the ACTING FIRST HIERARCH. THIS IS A THOUSAND-YEAR TRADITION OF HOLY RUSSIA - NEW ISRAEL, THE THIRD ROME. A. Kartashev knew about it, but pretended not to understand anything. This, alas, is the moral character of the Russian intellectual of the 19th and 20th centuries. - the appearance of a pathetic traitor. We know this about the "wolf cathedral":
Ligarid was a papist!
Thus, we must come to the conclusion: after the assassination of the Tsar, a "wolf", Latin council was convened. The legitimate Orthodox patriarch was deposed. Old state acts began to be rewritten. At the beginning of 1676, Tsarevich Fyodor Alekseevich was still a teenager 13 years old. They crowned the kingdom only after reaching 15 years. It is clear that the prince fell under the influence of boyars-conspirators, who were indifferent to questions of faith.
But you ask yourself: if the Latins came to power, then somewhere there must be evidence of that. that the Russians were forced to put on themselves the sign of the cross in Latin - with all five fingers - simply with their five fingers. After all, all the lives of Russian saints, legends and chronicles were copied in favor of the Latins! Those. an Orthodox Russian saint MUST, according to a falsified Latin text, TEACH THE ORTHODOX TO BE BAPTIZED WITH FIVE THONES and blaspheme Patriarch Nikon !!! You ask: “Wouldn't anyone have noticed such a forgery ?! But what about the luminaries - Rybakov, Likhachev and Gumilev, finally?"
So after all "did not notice" for a very long time, dear reader …
In the "Life of Archpriest Avvakum" we read the words of this "fiery shepherd":
But there is a fake! There were no Eastern Patriarchs at this council! The Orthodox have always baptized themselves with three fingers, and the Latins are baptized with five!
For example, a pilgrim of the 18th century (Leonty) says in his notes: “Videh of the brave warrior Ilya of Muromets, in incorruption under a golden veil; growth like today's big people; his left hand was pierced with a spear, the ulcer is all known; and the right one is depicted with the sign of the cross. An interesting fact is that St. Elijah rests in a prayer position, folding the fingers of his right hand as is customary now in the Orthodox Church - the first three fingers together, and the last two bending to the palm. In the period of the struggle against the Old Believer schism (XIX centuries), this fact served as strong evidence in favor of the three-finger folding.
But now it is already becoming clear that the main schismatics were the Latins, the schismatics, who staged a coup in Moscow in 1676. And they are already crossing themselves with five fingers. And now it is already clear that the split was not due to the fact that the Russian people did not want to impose the sign of the cross on themselves with three fingers. Not because the people were holding on to the "old days" - two-fingered. The so-called "Old Believers" is a project of the special services of the West, as well as the Pugachev uprising. However, this is a completely different time, a different era …
Author: Evgeny Koparev