The issue of belonging of metropolitan Joasaph (Skripitsyn) to the circle of “non-possessors”
The article contains a critical analysis of the opinion prevailing in russian historiography that the metropolitan of All Russia Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike his predecessor Daniil, was a supporter of the so-called «non-possessors» - representatives of russian monasticism who called for renouncement...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
St. Tikhon's Orthodox University
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svâto-Tihonovskogo Gumanitarnogo Universiteta: Seriâ II. Istoriâ, Istoriâ Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://periodical.pstgu.ru/ru/pdf/article/8203 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The article contains a critical analysis of the opinion prevailing in russian historiography that the metropolitan of All Russia Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike his predecessor Daniil, was a supporter of the so-called «non-possessors» - representatives of russian monasticism who called for renouncement of monasteries from land estates. Based on the sources cited in the article, the author comes to the conclusion that the opinion that metropolitan Joasaph (Skripitsyn) belongs to the «non-possessors» should be recognized as unfounded. It seems that in the context of modern ideas about the controversy between "Josephites" and "non-possessors" it would be generally incorrect to raise the question of the "non-possessiveness" of Ioasaph (Skripitsyn). Russian monasticism in the second quarter of the 16th century. was not totally divided on the issue of attitude to the monastic lands into two irreconcilable camps. The presence in his midst of groups of "Josephites" and "nonpossessors" who occupied extreme positions on the issue of church land ownership does not mean that all the rest certainly had to decide on such a "party" affiliation. Joasaph (Skripitsyn), unlike Metropolitan Daniel and Vassian (Patrikeev), most likely was alien to such a biased view of both the problem of monastic lands and monasticism in general. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1991-6434 2409-4811 |