The answer is based on the fact that historically the Tatars, having defeated Rus, had the possibility to restrict the freedom of the Russian Church, but did not do so, guided by their religious beliefs and the inviolable prescriptions of the Yasa.

Tatars' Religious Conscience: Preserving Church Autonomy

The answer is based on the fact that historically the Tatars, having defeated Rus, had the possibility to restrict the freedom of the Russian Church, but did not do so, guided by their religious beliefs and the inviolable prescriptions of the Yasa. That is, despite having the ability to affect the church in matters of spiritual and civil rights, the Tatars consciously allowed the church to exercise all the spiritual rights inherent to its nature and refrained from interfering in judicial and civil affairs of church life.

Historically, as noted in the source, the Tatars “had full possibility, as victors, to curtail the freedom of the Russian Church, but did not do so according to their principles” – which underscores that their actions were based on a strictly defined set of religious ideas and traditions (source: link txt). Moreover, another source describes that “the Church remained free, i.e., it received the opportunity to exercise all the spiritually inherent rights it could not relinquish even when persecuted. The sort of rights that the Russian Church had already acquired to some extent, the Tatars—as our new rulers—could have curtailed or abolished even when granting full spiritual freedom, according to their state calculations” (source: link txt). This emphasizes that despite having the political ability to intervene, the Tatars preserved the church’s internal autonomy.

It is also important to note that the Tatars had no interest in affecting the judicial or civil rights of the Church—their focus was primarily on controlling property rights and privileges; however, even in this matter, their actions were constrained by their own religious principles and the prescriptions of the Yasa (source: link txt).

Thus, the historical and religious basis for the question of whether Tatars could attend the Russian Church lies in the fact that the Tatars, despite holding power, strictly adhered to traditional religious prescriptions whereby church freedom, based on eternal spiritual rights, is not subject to arbitrary interference. This allowed for expanded participation in church life exclusively for those who met the established spiritual norms, making the issue of church attendance a matter of religious identity and tradition rather than state policy.

Supporting citation(s):
"Thus, the Tatars, having full possibility, as victors, to curtail the freedom of the Russian Church, did not do so according to their principles. The Church remained free, i.e., it received the opportunity to exercise all the spiritually inherent rights it could not relinquish even when persecuted." (source: link txt)

"The Church remained free, i.e., it received the opportunity to exercise all the spiritually inherent rights it could not relinquish even when persecuted. The sort of rights that the Russian Church had already acquired to some extent, the Tatars—as our new rulers—could have curtailed or abolished even when granting full spiritual freedom, according to their state calculations." (source: link txt)

"Thus, they had no interest in affecting, together with the civil court, the judicial rights of the Church. But they could have had every interest—to take control of its property rights and privileges. However, even this they were not allowed to do by their own religious ideas and the inviolable prescriptions of the Yasa." (source: link txt)