15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism
[3] Although he resisted at first, the Grand Prince of Moscow—Vasily II of Moscow—eventually permitted the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'—Isidore of Kiev—to attend the council on condition that Isidore should return with "the rights of Divine law and the constitution of the holy Church" uninjured.
The union was proclaimed on 6 July 1439 in the document Laetentur Caeli [5][b] which was composed by Pope Eugene IV and signed by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund and all but one of the bishops present.
[10] After the exile of Isidore from Moscow in 1441, the question of the subordination of the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus' to the Church of Constantinople remained unclear for a long time.
Russian Grand Prince Vasiliy II supported the anti-unionists (those information are preserved his correspondence with the monks of Mount Athos).
[12] Gradually, the ranks of the pro-unionists were reduced and ten years after the Council of Florence, only four of the members of the Greek delegation remained faithful to the Union.
His position remained fragile and he fled Constantinople in 1451 after the death of Byzantine emperor John VIII Palaiologos (one of the initiators of the Union).
Vasily justified the unauthorized election of Jonah by extreme circumstances and asked for communion and blessings, but only if there would be an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in Constantinople:[10] We have done this from necessity, not from pride or insolence.
He succeeded because the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir, who was recently (in 1447) elected king of Poland, and Vasily II (his brother-in-law) were able to agree on this.
[19] Casimir IV was forced to cede to the demands of Pope Calixtus III and to recognize Gregory as Metropolitan, restoring the Union in Lithuania.
Jonah resisted this decision, and in 1459 he assembled the Council and demanded that its members swear allegiance to him or to his successor, as well as to sever relations with the Uniate Metropolitan Gregory.
In February 1467 Dionysius sent a letter to Moscow, in which he called all the Russian lands, and especially Great Novgorod, to accept Gregory as the only legitimate Metropolitan recognized by Constantinople.
[16] Grand Prince Ivan III of Russia refused to recognize Gregory the Bulgarian, which led to a rupture of relations between Moscow and Constantinople.
Thus, in 1393 Patriarch Anthony IV of Constantinople wrote to Grand Prince Vasily I of Moscow:[33] The holy emperor has a great place in the church, for he is not like other rulers or governors of other regions.
They convoked the ecumenical councils and confirmed and decreed the acceptance of the pronouncements of the divine and holy canons regarding the correct doctrines and the government of Christians.
Always and everywhere they speak loudly of' the one rightful basileus, whose laws, decrees, and charters are in force throughout the world and who alone, only he, is mentioned in all places by Christians in the liturgy.
[34]The basileus gave the Patriarchate of Constantinople an enormous prestige, although this position of Eastern Orthodox emperor was challenged; indeed, the rivalry for primacy with the basileus of the Byzantine empire was especially strong among the Eastern Orthodox Slavs in the Balkans, who sought autocephaly for their churches and gave their rulers the title of tsar (emperor).
In 1547, for instance, when Ivan IV was crowned tsar, not only was he anointed as the Byzantine emperor had been after the late twelfth century, but he was also allowed to communicate in the sanctuary with the clergy.
"[40] "The Russian Orthodox Church declared itself autocephalous in 1448, on the basis of explicit rejection of the Filioque, and the doctrine of "Moscow as the Third and Final Rome" was born.
This rejection of the Idea of Progress embodied in the Council of Florence is the cultural root of subsequent Russian imperial designs on the West.
"[18] When breaking off relations with Constantinople in 1467–1470, ambassadors of the Ecumenical Patriarch were forbidden to enter the possession of the Moscow Grand Prince Ivan III.
Together with the elders of Athos, among whom was the famous Maximus the Greek, he sent his ambassadors, Gregory (Metropolitan of Zichnai) and the patriarchal deacon, to the Grand Prince Vasily III.
The monks of Athos who accompanied the ambassadors reported that they fulfilled the request to pray for the childbearing of Princess Solomonia in the monasteries of the Holy Mountain.
The story of this embassy in the Moscow chronicles was seriously reworked, and some documents were withdrawn, but the original evidence is preserved in the materials of the trial of Maximus the Greek.
In addition, Muscovites recalled precedents—the proclamation of autocephaly of the Serbian and Bulgarian churches and similar miracles performed by the relics of the Patriarch of Bulgaria.
In honor of these healings, magnificent celebrations were arranged with the participation of the Grand Duke, Metropolitans, bishops and other members of the clergy, who had to show the "Greeks" the legitimacy of the Moscow autocephaly.
Even if they were not directly expressed, the very atmosphere of the continuous triumph of "Russian Orthodoxy" made useless any attempt to officially raise the question of the subordination of the Moscow autocephalous church to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
This ended for him with a trial and a very long imprisonment, despite the sympathetic attitude of a part of the clergy who, to the best of their strength, facilitated his fate and made it possible for him to continue his writings.
As a result of court intrigues, Metropolitan Daniel was dismissed, and Joasaph (Skripitsyn), abbot of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, was put in his place.
[43] On the other hand, the modern historian of the Church, Vladimir Lurie [ru], believes that in 1560–1561 the Metropolis of Moscow returned to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, while losing its self-proclaimed autocephaly.
Such a title meant administrative subordination, and beyond that it was specially noted in this letter that "he has power from us" (that is, from the Patriarch of Constantinople) and only in this way could he act as a hierarch.
