Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)

[mike]

the "Stoglav" ... in that council they excommunicated those who used three finger sign of cross, and confirmed it was heresy.

That anathema has already been rescinded.

By whom?

By the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971.

I believe you are and вєликаго are referring to two different things.
If I am not mistaken, the Russian Orthodox Chrch in 1971 rescinded the anathema against the two finger cross of 1666/7.

вєликаго, however, was talking about the Stoglav Synod of which anathematized the three finger cross.

My bad.

[вєликаго]

But if he had "only form of bishopric" then he was not really a bishop,

I'm not sure that is true. But I am sure he was without Grace.

 in which case neither were the "new ritualist" bishops who consecrated him- before his chrismation by your group, he was merely a layman in fancy clothes and so were the bishops who consecrated him.

The canons say that heretics of the second order (including bishops etc), who lack grace, are able to be received full rank after a confession of faith, and renunciations of the previously held heresies.

 If the Old Believer chrismation could fill the "empty form" of a new ritualist episcopal ordination, then it could also fill the empty form of an old believer layman dressing up as bishop and performing such an ordination.

What canon or other source of valid authority do you have to suggest this? Your comment is in opposition to established canons.

[Iconodule]

But if he had "only form of bishopric" then he was not really a bishop,

I'm not sure that is true. But I am sure he was without Grace.

How can those without grace ordain bishops? If he was really a bishop, then the mysteries of the "new ritualists" are effectual, in which case you cannot say they are graceless. If they are graceless, then he could not really be a bishop, which means the Old Ritualists might as well have dressed a layman up in bishop's vestments and done the consecrations themselves.

Again, you said the Metropolitan's consecration had the "form" of a valid consecration but not grace. What does that mean? How did his consecration have the "form" any more than I would if I dressed myself in bishop's vestments and started consecrating "bishops" according to Orthodox service books?

The canons say that heretics of the second order (including bishops etc), who lack grace, are able to be received full rank after a confession of faith, and renunciations of the previously held heresies.

This is quite different from your communion going from a state of having no (zero) bishops to suddenly establishing a new hierarchy by receiving a "heretical" bishop. How can a communion which is dependent on "heretics" to provide its bishops be the One Church of Christ?

What canon or other source of valid authority do you have to suggest this?

What canon or other source of valid authority do you have to suggest that a graceless communion can ordain real bishops? Of course there is no canon that says laymen can ordain bishops, but if, as you say, the "new ritualists" are graceless, then Metropolitan Ambrose was not a real bishop until his chrismation by your communion, and so he was a layman and so was the bishop who ordained him before.

[вєликаго]

 If he was really a bishop, then the mysteries of the "new ritualists" are effectual, in which case you cannot say they are graceless.

The rituals of the "new ritualists" are only "effectual" in providing the empty form.

 If they are graceless, then he could not really be a bishop, which means the Old Ritualists might as well have dressed a layman up in bishop's vestments and done the consecrations themselves.

Again, on what authority do you suggest that such a thing might as well be done? There is no canon that says what you say here, that I am aware of; there is, however, a canon that explains how to receive heretic bishops.

Again, you said the Metropolitan's consecration had the "form" of a valid consecration but not grace. What does that mean? How did his consecration have the "form" any more than I would if I dressed myself in bishop's vestments and started consecrating "bishops" according to Orthodox service books?

Again, see the canon already mentioned.

[Iconodule]

 If he was really a bishop, then the mysteries of the "new ritualists" are effectual, in which case you cannot say they are graceless.

The rituals of the "new ritualists" are only "effectual" in providing the empty form.

Then laymen can also provide the "empty form".  It seems strange that you would label Met. Ambrose's consecration as "empty" since the survival of your entire church depends on that "empty form."

 If they are graceless, then he could not really be a bishop, which means the Old Ritualists might as well have dressed a layman up in bishop's vestments and done the consecrations themselves.

Again, on what authority do you suggest that such a thing might as well be done? There is no canon that says what you say here, that I am aware of; there is, however, a canon that explains how to receive heretic bishops.

You're right, there is no such canon! But according to your own reasoning, such a thing might as well be done. If Met. Ambrose was graceless, then he was really just a layman in fancy clothes. Therefore, your line of bishops comes from a layman and according to you, a layman can consecrate bishops.

Again, you said the Metropolitan's consecration had the "form" of a valid consecration but not grace. What does that mean? How did his consecration have the "form" any more than I would if I dressed myself in bishop's vestments and started consecrating "bishops" according to Orthodox service books?

Again, see the canon already mentioned.

The canon says nothing about grace or lack thereof. It mentions the reception of certain heretics by chrismation. It also does not deal with the unprecedented situation of a Church without any bishops  entirely depending on heretics to provide its clergy and apostolic succession.

It's one thing to receive a heretical bishop into Orthodoxy, and allow him to remain a bishop; it's another thing to pin the very survival of your communion upon him and the "empty form" of his consecration.

[вєликаго]

Then laymen can also provide the "empty form".

Where does any canon say this?

You're right, there is no such canon! But according to your own reasoning, such a thing might as well be done.

You apparently are not following my "reasoning".

The canon says nothing about grace or lack thereof. It mentions the reception of certain heretics by chrismation.

I will look for the canon that explains how heretics of the second order, are without grace; and as such, the aforementioned mentioned canon implies this.

[Iconodule]

You're missing the point, so let me make this a little more straightforward:

Was the new ritualist bishop who consecrated Met. Ambrose A a true bishop or B a layman?

If you answer A, then the new ritualists have grace. If you answer B, you are saying that laymen can provide the "empty form" of episcopal consecration.

And if you answer "I don't know" then you can't say definitively if we have grace or not.

[вєликаго]

You're missing the point,

I think its the other way around.

Was the new ritualist bishop who consecrated Met. Ambrose A a true bishop or B a layman?

I have answered this question many times, so enough said, but if you really need me to repeat my self here, I will, at your request, do so.  

If you answer B, you are saying that laymen can provide the "empty form" of episcopal consecration.

I wont insert this meaning (the meaning from this quote of yours') into the canon, as it appears you have. It is clear (by the writings of Saint Basil the Great etc) that there is a distinctions with regards to the different heretics -- heretics of the second rank, as repeated here, have an empty form, and if they repent of the heresies, that cause them to be accounted a heretic of the second rank, they can be received, God willing, in the rank they hold, and at that point receive Grace. You might be tempted to "reason" that this is a form of Grace, but, this is incorrect thinking, on account that the saints staunchly declare that they, the heretics of the second rank, have no Grace.

On a side note: it appears to me, that your use of laymen, is wanting.

[Iconodule]

I wont insert this meaning (the meaning from this quote of yours') into the canon, as it appears you have. It is clear (by the writings of Saint Basil the Great etc) that there is a distinctions with regards to the different heretics -- heretics of the second rank, as repeated here, have an empty form, and if they repent of the heresies, that cause them to be accounted a heretic of the second rank, they can be received, God willing, in the rank they hold, and at that point receive Grace. You might be tempted to "reason" that this is a form of Grace, but, this is incorrect thinking, on account that the saints staunchly declare that they, the heretics of the second rank, have no Grace.

On a side note: it appears to me, that your use of laymen, is wanting.

St. Basil's first canon clearly states that the clergy of heretics and schismatics are laymen. In this regard, he does not distinguish between different "ranks" of heretics. So I guess your answer to my question is B.

St. Basil's opinion is that all schismatics and heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc. The only reason he allows for reception by chrismation for some groups is that some of his brother bishops have already allowed this, and he doesn't want to gainsay their decisions or imperil anyone's salvation. So St. Basil's perspective was already not universally accepted by other bishops. Which leads to a very important point about St. Basil, St. Cyprian, and other Fathers who spoke on this question: They were speaking as bishops of a Church that had bishops, bishops who had the authority to apply or relax canons as they saw was needed, and who were receiving people from peripheral sects- not pinning the existence of their communion on this reception. This is completely different from the situation of the Old Ritualists, who depended entirely on those they deemed "heretics" for their priests, bishops, and apostolic succession.  

So, you can talk as much as you like about filling "empty forms" with grace, but the fact remains that, according to your own reasoning, and the very canons you cite for your support,  you must regard Ambrose as having been a layman. Therefore, your church's line of bishops derives from laymen who had the "empty form" of episcopal orders. So I might turn your own question back at you: Where is the canon that allows laymen to not only consecrate bishops, but create a whole line of episcopal succession?

Met. Ambrose obviously saw the absurdity of his situation in some sense- hence he tries to say that it is really the ancient Patriarch who is receiving him, and not the priest, because he knows that a mere priest does not have the authority to receive him as a bishop. And then, as a newly minted bishop, he forbids priests to anoint bishops, even though that is just what happened...

Lastly, this talk of filling "empty forms" of baptism or ordination is of fairly recent vintage- I doubt you can locate it before the 20th century- and it originated from "new ritualists" such as St. Justin Popovich who were trying the reconcile the teaching of St. Cyprian with the church's practice of receiving Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc. by chrismation or even mere confession of faith. So not only are you entirely dependent on us for your orders, but for your ecclesiology as well.

[вєликаго]

St. Basil's opinion is that all schismatics and heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc. The only reason he allows for reception by chrismation for some groups is that some of his brother bishops have already allowed this, and he doesn't want to gainsay their decisions or imperil anyone's salvation. So St. Basil's perspective was already not universally accepted by other bishops. Which leads to a very important point about St. Basil, St. Cyprian, and other Fathers who spoke on this question: They were speaking as bishops of a Church that had bishops, bishops who had the authority to apply or relax canons as they saw was needed, and who were receiving people from peripheral sects- not pinning the existence of their communion on this reception. This is completely different from the situation of the Old Ritualists, who depended entirely on those they deemed "heretics" for their priests, bishops, and apostolic succession.

He does speak about the differences, but I will re-read it, you may have a minor point here, but I still do not see how this should change anything? In the end, even in this post of yours', he still allows it, by way of "economia"; and in the end, its still the position of the ancient church that heretics of all orders are without grace, even to the point that (even if this quote is inaccurate) they the "heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc", but that "economia" can, and has, been applied here.  -- and, for the record, I never argued this, but actual have been saying something akin to this, except that "economia" still covers this, and, ultimately Saint Basil accepts this. And all these facts are recorded in councils and are not, as you state below, something  that "originated from new ritualists".

So, you can talk as much as you like about filling "empty forms" with grace, but the fact remains that, according to your own reasoning, and the very canons you cite for your support,  you must regard Ambrose as having been a layman. Therefore, your church's line of bishops derives from laymen who had the "empty form" of episcopal orders.

I've already told you that he was a bishop by form, but without grace.

So I might turn your own question back at you: Where is the canon that allows laymen to not only consecrate bishops, but create a whole line of episcopal succession?

As far as the whole laymen aspect, I have not commented much about it, because it would be my "own reasoning"; and this has nothing to do with my "own reasoning" I'm only sharing with you, the official position.

Lastly, this talk of filling "empty forms" of baptism or ordination is of fairly recent vintage- I doubt you can locate it before the 20th century- and it originated from "new ritualists" such as St. Justin Popovich who were trying the reconcile the teaching of St. Cyprian with the church's practice of receiving Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc. by chrismation or even mere confession of faith. So not only are you entirely dependent on us for your orders, but for your ecclesiology as well.

I already quoted the canon, here, speaking about the reception of heretics of the second rank, and although much of this quote of yours' is, in a way, very informative -- it is ultimately inaccurate.

[Dionysii]

It is clear (by the writings of Saint Basil the Great etc) that there is a distinctions with regards to the different heretics -- heretics of the second rank, as repeated here, have an empty form, and if they repent of the heresies, that cause them to be accounted a heretic of the second rank, they can be received, God willing, in the rank they hold, and at that point receive Grace. You might be tempted to "reason" that this is a form of Grace, but, this is incorrect thinking, on account that the saints staunchly declare that they, the heretics of the second rank, have no Grace.

You answer his questions well. I will take time later to read over your posts in this particular section more slowly. 

[jah777]

He does speak about the differences, but I will re-read it, you may have a minor point here, but I still do not see how this should change anything? In the end, even in this post of yours', he still allows it, by way of "economia"; and in the end, its still the position of the ancient church that heretics of all orders are without grace, even to the point that (even if this quote is inaccurate) they the "heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc", but that "economia" can, and has, been applied here.  -- and, for the record, I never argued this, but actual have been saying something akin to this, except that "economia" still covers this, and, ultimately Saint Basil accepts this. And all these facts are recorded in councils and are not, as you state below, something that "originated from new ritualists".

But, again, only a synod of bishops has the authority to receive schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to apply economia in the reception of schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to bestow the grace of Apostolic Succession upon another bishop, and only a synod of bishops has the authority to fill with grace and complete a consecration which was correct in form but devoid of grace since it was performed outside of the Church.  When the Belokrinitsky hierarchy was started by Metropolitan Ambrose, and the Novozybkov hierarchy was started by Abp Ambrose of Ufa, there were no bishops among the Old Believers to receive them, no bishops to lay hands on them, no bishops to bestow grace upon them, and no bishops to bestow upon them Apostolic Succession.  The claim that a heretical bishop who has been ordained by bishops who have been cut off from the Church for two hundred years, can walk up and consecrate himself as a bishop of the Church by his own words and an old bottle of chrism is blasphemous.   

[podkarpatska]

He does speak about the differences, but I will re-read it, you may have a minor point here, but I still do not see how this should change anything? In the end, even in this post of yours', he still allows it, by way of "economia"; and in the end, its still the position of the ancient church that heretics of all orders are without grace, even to the point that (even if this quote is inaccurate) they the "heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc", but that "economia" can, and has, been applied here.  -- and, for the record, I never argued this, but actual have been saying something akin to this, except that "economia" still covers this, and, ultimately Saint Basil accepts this. And all these facts are recorded in councils and are not, as you state below, something that "originated from new ritualists".

But, again, only a synod of bishops has the authority to receive schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to apply economia in the reception of schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to bestow the grace of Apostolic Succession upon another bishop, and only a synod of bishops has the authority to fill with grace and complete a consecration which was correct in form but devoid of grace since it was performed outside of the Church.  When the Belokrinitsky hierarchy was started by Metropolitan Ambrose, and the Novozybkov hierarchy was started by Abp Ambrose of Ufa, there were no bishops among the Old Believers to receive them, no bishops to lay hands on them, no bishops to bestow grace upon them, and no bishops to bestow upon them Apostolic Succession.  The claim that a heretical bishop who has been ordained by bishops who have been cut off from the Church for two hundred years, can walk up and consecrate himself as a bishop of the Church by his own words and an old bottle of chrism is blasphemous.    

It seems that we shall have to get off of the carousel here by agreeing that we will never find common ground on these points. I believe that my bishops and priests of the canonical Church in communion with ancient Patriarchates have sacramental grace. As to others, I can not say and leave that to God. It is not helpful to call each other heretics in the context of this discussion, I am comfortable with using the term schismatic but that's just my opinion.

[Iconodule]

He does speak about the differences, but I will re-read it, you may have a minor point here, but I still do not see how this should change anything? In the end, even in this post of yours', he still allows it, by way of "economia"; and in the end, its still the position of the ancient church that heretics of all orders are without grace, even to the point that (even if this quote is inaccurate) they the "heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc", but that "economia" can, and has, been applied here.  -- and, for the record, I never argued this, but actual have been saying something akin to this, except that "economia" still covers this, and, ultimately Saint Basil accepts this. And all these facts are recorded in councils and are not, as you state below, something  that "originated from new ritualists".

Again, I said, "In this regard, he does not distinguish"- that is, all heretics and schismatics, whatever "rank" they may be, are laymen.

Which canon allows for a priest, without a bishop, to exercise economia? Which canon allows for a priest to ordain a bishop by chrismation, by claiming that the hand of  his "ancient patriarch" is actually the one anointing?

I admit, Met. Ambrose's explanation is very creative.

I've already told you that he was a bishop by form, but without grace.

The canons you cite speak of heretical or schismatic clergy being in fact laymen. There is no third category of "bishop by form, but without grace"- which of the Fathers or Councils use such a strange phrase? One is either a bishop or not. If Met. Ambrose was a bishop, then it makes no sense to say he was without grace- if the "new ritualists" had no grace they could not ordain bishops, period. If Met. Ambrose was not a bishop, then your communion traces its episcopal succession to a layman who had no authority to consecrate bishops.

As far as the whole laymen aspect, I have not commented much about it, because it would be my "own reasoning"; and this has nothing to do with my "own reasoning" I'm only sharing with you, the official position.

If that is the case, then I am only bringing out the logical conclusions of this "official position."

I already quoted the canon, here, speaking about the reception of heretics of the second rank, and although much of this quote of yours' is, in a way, very informative -- it is ultimately inaccurate.

Where's the canon talking about "empty forms" and "bishops without grace"?

[Iconodule]

He does speak about the differences, but I will re-read it, you may have a minor point here, but I still do not see how this should change anything? In the end, even in this post of yours', he still allows it, by way of "economia"; and in the end, its still the position of the ancient church that heretics of all orders are without grace, even to the point that (even if this quote is inaccurate) they the "heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc", but that "economia" can, and has, been applied here.  -- and, for the record, I never argued this, but actual have been saying something akin to this, except that "economia" still covers this, and, ultimately Saint Basil accepts this. And all these facts are recorded in councils and are not, as you state below, something that "originated from new ritualists".

But, again, only a synod of bishops has the authority to receive schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to apply economia in the reception of schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to bestow the grace of Apostolic Succession upon another bishop, and only a synod of bishops has the authority to fill with grace and complete a consecration which was correct in form but devoid of grace since it was performed outside of the Church.  When the Belokrinitsky hierarchy was started by Metropolitan Ambrose, and the Novozybkov hierarchy was started by Abp Ambrose of Ufa, there were no bishops among the Old Believers to receive them, no bishops to lay hands on them, no bishops to bestow grace upon them, and no bishops to bestow upon them Apostolic Succession.  The claim that a heretical bishop who has been ordained by bishops who have been cut off from the Church for two hundred years, can walk up and consecrate himself as a bishop of the Church by his own words and an old bottle of chrism is blasphemous.    

It seems that we shall have to get off of the carousel here by agreeing that we will never find common ground on these points. I believe that my bishops and priests of the canonical Church in communion with ancient Patriarchates have sacramental grace. As to others, I can not say and leave that to God. It is not helpful to call each other heretics in the context of this discussion, I am comfortable with using the term schismatic but that's just my opinion.

I for one am not calling the Old Believers heretics or even graceless. I think the practice of the Church through the centuries makes it very hard to say whether or not those outside of the Church have grace.

[podkarpatska]

He does speak about the differences, but I will re-read it, you may have a minor point here, but I still do not see how this should change anything? In the end, even in this post of yours', he still allows it, by way of "economia"; and in the end, its still the position of the ancient church that heretics of all orders are without grace, even to the point that (even if this quote is inaccurate) they the "heretics should be rebaptized, reordained, etc", but that "economia" can, and has, been applied here.  -- and, for the record, I never argued this, but actual have been saying something akin to this, except that "economia" still covers this, and, ultimately Saint Basil accepts this. And all these facts are recorded in councils and are not, as you state below, something that "originated from new ritualists".

But, again, only a synod of bishops has the authority to receive schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to apply economia in the reception of schismatic and heretical bishops, only a synod of bishops has the authority to bestow the grace of Apostolic Succession upon another bishop, and only a synod of bishops has the authority to fill with grace and complete a consecration which was correct in form but devoid of grace since it was performed outside of the Church.  When the Belokrinitsky hierarchy was started by Metropolitan Ambrose, and the Novozybkov hierarchy was started by Abp Ambrose of Ufa, there were no bishops among the Old Believers to receive them, no bishops to lay hands on them, no bishops to bestow grace upon them, and no bishops to bestow upon them Apostolic Succession.  The claim that a heretical bishop who has been ordained by bishops who have been cut off from the Church for two hundred years, can walk up and consecrate himself as a bishop of the Church by his own words and an old bottle of chrism is blasphemous.    

It seems that we shall have to get off of the carousel here by agreeing that we will never find common ground on these points. I believe that my bishops and priests of the canonical Church in communion with ancient Patriarchates have sacramental grace. As to others, I can not say and leave that to God. It is not helpful to call each other heretics in the context of this discussion, I am comfortable with using the term schismatic but that's just my opinion.

I for one am not calling the Old Believers heretics or even graceless. I think the practice of the Church through the centuries makes it very hard to say whether or not those outside of the Church have grace.

+1

[вєликаго]

Again, I said, "In this regard, he does not distinguish"- that is, all heretics and schismatics, whatever "rank" they may be, are laymen.

And yet he allows them to be received in their full rank (as Bishops) without re-ordination, even tho, according to your quote, that in his opinion, they should not. Bottom line, he allows it.

There is no third category of "bishop by form, but without grace"- which of the Fathers or Councils use such a strange phrase?

You are correct, this phrase is not used in any canon (I'm aware of), it was used by my friend, a Deacon in Russia, to explain to me our understanding of the canon. The phrase its self is not important. The fact that the canon allows the reception of heretics of the second rank, as bishops, who we know, from other ancient witnesses, to be invariable graceless, is enough.

[Iconodule]

Again, I said, "In this regard, he does not distinguish"- that is, all heretics and schismatics, whatever "rank" they may be, are laymen.

And yet he allows them to be received in their full rank (as Bishops) without re-ordination, even tho, according to your quote, that in his opinion, they should not. Bottom line, he allows it.

Again you are ignoring the context of the canon. Only a church with bishops can exercise this kind of economia. There is no canon that allows a priest to anoint a bishop. Met. Ambrose understood this- hence, he had to create this bizarre notion of the hand of the ancient patriarch anointing him through the priest's hand.

You are correct, this phrase is not used in any canon (I'm aware of), it was used by my friend, a Deacon in Russia, to explain to me our understanding of the canon. The phrase its self is not important. The fact that the canon allows the reception of heretics of the second rank, as bishops, who we know, from other ancient witnesses, to be invariable graceless, is enough.

Again, you call Met. Ambrose graceless, which means that in your view he was a layman before his chrismation by your group, which also means that the "new ritualist" bishop who consecrated him was also a layman. Therefore, you believe that a layman can confer the "empty form" of orders. Therefore, you might as well have had a layman from your own communion dress up in fancy clothes and create your line of bishops.

[Dionysii]

Although mundane at first, this becomes quite interesting - especially from 4:00 forward:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw72P6O_q-k
It's like a story book scene straight out of Russia from days long gone, but those days are not gone.

[Dionysii]

What do you think about Vladyka Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa? He became a member of the Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy while remaining a bishop of many "Nikonian" Orthodox Christians with the consent of Vladyka Meletii (Kartushin), the Archbishop of Moscow, They even consecrated a bishop, Vladyka Vasil (Guslinsky) together.

Vladyka Andrei was not completely truthful neither with us, nor with the Novozybkovsky christians, who he also attempted to join. While we thought that he joined us, he saw it as the fact that we joined him. Later this was realized... and that's why he ended up staying with the catacombists, forming the andrewite branch (who were basically yedinovertsy). That branch still exists in the eastern Russia (though dying out). I have not studied the issue enough to explain everything in detail but I can read up on it and get back at you. To be honest I don't have much interest in catacombists.

I have a question for вєликаго.
Was the Novozybkov hierarchy able to openly maintain a Church in Novozybkov from 1963 onwards?
It makes sense that their headquarters shifted most during the Khrushchev era which was the most fanatically anti-Christian, and they stayed in the same place for several decades after he lost power.

To what extent did the Old Orthodox synods of the Soviet era exist as a catacomb Church?  

I understand from Fr. Matthew Johnson's book that the politics of Old Orthodox Christians was more akin to the distributism of anarchists like Bakunin and Prince Kropotkin which is actually to the left of Lenin who only replaced one evil with another.  It seems to me that the politics of many Tikhonists was monarchism - not too progressive.  Were the Ancient Orthodox synods in any way spared some degree of the Soviet era suffering which catacombists of other faiths (such as the followers of Metropolitan Tikhon) endured due to their historical predispositions?  

[Dionysii]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw72P6O_q-k

Observe that everyone bows at the same time. 
This is something not to be found in Greek Old Calendarist churches - at least in my experieince.

[Dionysii]

Furthermore, (to my knowledge) Patriarch Alexander has not shown the warmth towards the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow which Metropolitan Cornelius has had.  The course of Patriarch Alexander seems more steady from my perspective. 

I respect the Bela Krinitsa hierarchy, but I am concerned about what I here about Metropolitan Cornelius's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate.  Has there been a shift in policy from that of his predecessors?  Considering the history of the Moscow Patriarchate as an instrument of the KGB and FSB and the recent history involving the subversion of ROCOR, the possibility that Metropolitan Cornelius is an oecumenist in compliance with the wishes of the FSB which itself would prefer to destroy the autonomy of Bela Krinitsa should be considered. 

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548809_340645932697595_88048640_n.jpg

This is a good example of the kind of thing that would incline me towards the Old Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow (Novozybkov synod).
Although I doubt that Metropolitan Cornilius has participated in any common prayer, I am sure that quite a few Bela Krinitsa parishioners would disagree with his participation in oecumenist meetings like this.

I do not perceive that the Bela Krinitsa synod was involved in oecumenist activities like this even ten years ago.  Correct me if I am mistaken.

[вєликаго]

Furthermore, (to my knowledge) Patriarch Alexander has not shown the warmth towards the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow which Metropolitan Cornelius has had.  The course of Patriarch Alexander seems more steady from my perspective.  

I respect the Bela Krinitsa hierarchy, but I am concerned about what I here about Metropolitan Cornelius's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate.  Has there been a shift in policy from that of his predecessors?  Considering the history of the Moscow Patriarchate as an instrument of the KGB and FSB and the recent history involving the subversion of ROCOR, the possibility that Metropolitan Cornelius is an oecumenist in compliance with the wishes of the FSB which itself would prefer to destroy the autonomy of Bela Krinitsa should be considered.  

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548809_340645932697595_88048640_n.jpg

This is a good example of the kind of thing that would incline me towards the Old Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow (Novozybkov synod).
Although I doubt that Metropolitan Cornilius has participated in any common prayer, I am sure that quite a few Bela Krinitsa parishioners would disagree with his participation in oecumenist meetings like this.

I do not perceive that the Bela Krinitsa synod was involved in oecumenist activities like this even ten years ago.  Correct me if I am mistaken.

You are correct that many are against these types of activities. Some Bishops stand against it, and big Sobor coming to put an end to it.

[Dionysii]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548809_340645932697595_88048640_n.jpg

You are correct that many are against these types of activities. Some Bishops stand against it, and big Sobor coming to put an end to it.

This is good news.  

[Dionysii]

Is any one aware of a Novozybkov presence in the US or even in any countries other than Russia, Romania, and Georgia?

[podkarpatska]

Furthermore, (to my knowledge) Patriarch Alexander has not shown the warmth towards the Patriarch Kirill of Moscow which Metropolitan Cornelius has had.  The course of Patriarch Alexander seems more steady from my perspective.  

I respect the Bela Krinitsa hierarchy, but I am concerned about what I here about Metropolitan Cornelius's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate.  Has there been a shift in policy from that of his predecessors?  Considering the history of the Moscow Patriarchate as an instrument of the KGB and FSB and the recent history involving the subversion of ROCOR, the possibility that Metropolitan Cornelius is an oecumenist in compliance with the wishes of the FSB which itself would prefer to destroy the autonomy of Bela Krinitsa should be considered.  

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548809_340645932697595_88048640_n.jpg

This is a good example of the kind of thing that would incline me towards the Old Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow (Novozybkov synod).
Although I doubt that Metropolitan Cornilius has participated in any common prayer, I am sure that quite a few Bela Krinitsa parishioners would disagree with his participation in oecumenist meetings like this.

I do not perceive that the Bela Krinitsa synod was involved in oecumenist activities like this even ten years ago.  Correct me if I am mistaken.

You are correct that many are against these types of activities. Some Bishops stand against it, and big Sobor coming to put an end to it.

Without context that picture is meaningless. It could be ecumenical but it just as easily be some sort of political meeting dealing with the national or local government there or some humanitarian aid thing. It doesn't really matter to most of us but it seems as if you two are having a private discussion.

[Dionysii]

To update this thread I wanted to add that I recently came across a photo album online of the 2009 Pilgrimage lead by Metropolitan Cornelius here:
https://picasaweb.google.com/103958429917072850819/OldBeliever2009#
Perhaps the best photo from the album is below

Actually, that is probably not one of the better pictures in that collection.
Just the cross of Saint Avvakum would have been better.

[Gunnarr]

seems much more humble than Patriarch Kirill. At least thinner...

I like those vestments, very traditional.

[mike]

At least thinner...

Yeah, discussing one's look. Very tasteful.

[jah777]

seems much more humble than Patriarch Kirill. At least thinner...

Thinness is no sign of humility.  As the Fathers often remind us, the demons also do not eat.

[mike]

And he does not look fat

[Dionysii]

Actually, that is probably not one of the better pictures in that collection.
Just the cross of Saint Avvakum would have been better.

When I made that comment, I was actually being critical of Metropolitan Cornelius's apparently oecumenist lifestyle as depicted in the photo below which seems to be a departure from the Old Orthodox Christian tradition of his predecessors and a disservice to his parishioners.

[Dionysii]

"in Greece even in 1470s 2 finger sign of cross was dominant...."

He also, when referring to the two finger sign of the Cross, mentioned a "Greek Euchologions rewritten 1475 (published by Dmitrievsky in 19 c.) one may find: ει της ου σφραγίζει τοις δυσι δακτύλοις καθώς και ο Χριστος - ανάθεμα - the same as in the Stoglav."

I would like to know more about this Constantinopolitan Euchologion of 1475 reprinted by Dmitrievsky.
This early Ottoman treasure sounds like quite an authoritative liturgical book.  

It reminds me of some Matthewites in Kalamata, Greece who keep in print an iconographical book of 1458 which lists various Christian icons according to the proper name to be inscribed upon each of them.

----------------------------------------------------
I located this:

Aleksei Afanasevich Dmitrievsky (1856 - 1929) was the most important representative of Russian critical study of the liturgy. After training and teaching in the Kazan' Spiritual Academy, he was professor of liturgics and Christian archaeology at the Spiritual Academy of Kiev (1884–1907). His life's work was devoted to the sifting and editing of Greek and Slavic manuscripts of liturgical texts, leading to the three-volume “Description of the Liturgical Manuscripts Preserved in the Libraries of the Orthodox East.”
http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/religion-past-and-present/dmitrievsky-aleksei-afanasevich-SIM_03712?s.num=12&s.rows=50

I reckon that the most likely place such an Euchologion would exist in English translation will be in one of the annual volumes published by the Dumbarton Center For Byzantine Studies.  I will track down a comprehensive index of all their volumes back to the 1940's.  If I find it, I can order the volume through interlibrary loan and photocopy the whole thing and afterwards have it bound.

I would thus own a Byzantine Euchologion issued by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1475 which anathematizes use of the three finger cross.  If I can mange to acquire this book, then I will subsequently try to make a translation into English.

[вєликаго]

"in Greece even in 1470s 2 finger sign of cross was dominant...."

He also, when referring to the two finger sign of the Cross, mentioned a "Greek Euchologions rewritten 1475 (published by Dmitrievsky in 19 c.) one may find: ει της ου σφραγίζει τοις δυσι δακτύλοις καθώς και ο Χριστος - ανάθεμα - the same as in the Stoglav."

I would like to know more about this Constantinopolitan Euchologion of 1475 reprinted by Dmitrievsky.
This early Ottoman treasure sounds like quite an authoritative liturgical book.  

It reminds me of some Matthewites in Kalamata, Greece who keep in print an iconographical book of 1458 which lists various Christian icons according to the proper name to be inscribed upon each of them.

----------------------------------------------------
I located this:

Aleksei Afanasevich Dmitrievsky (1856 - 1929) was the most important representative of Russian critical study of the liturgy. After training and teaching in the Kazan' Spiritual Academy, he was professor of liturgics and Christian archaeology at the Spiritual Academy of Kiev (1884–1907). His life's work was devoted to the sifting and editing of Greek and Slavic manuscripts of liturgical texts, leading to the three-volume “Description of the Liturgical Manuscripts Preserved in the Libraries of the Orthodox East.”
http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/religion-past-and-present/dmitrievsky-aleksei-afanasevich-SIM_03712?s.num=12&s.rows=50

I reckon that the most likely place such an Euchologion would exist in English translation will be in one of the annual volumes published by the Dumbarton Center For Byzantine Studies.  I will track down a comprehensive index of all their volumes back to the 1940's.  If I find it, I can order the volume through interlibrary loan and photocopy the whole thing and afterwards have it bound.

I would thus own a Byzantine Euchologion issued by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1475 which anathematizes use of the three finger cross.  If I can mange to acquire this book, then I will subsequently try to make a translation into English.

I support you in this, sounds like a great idea.

[Dionysii]

He also, when referring to the two finger sign of the Cross, mentioned a "Greek Euchologions rewritten 1475 (published by Dmitrievsky in 19 c.)

The book by Russian liturgical scholar Aleksei Dmitrievskii containing the Constantinopolitan Euchologion of 1475 that condemned the three finger cross perhaps seems to be 'Opisanie Liturgicheskikh Rukopisei' because of references to it such as this:

"Byzantine and post-byzantine prayer books (euchologia) of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries mention written prayers for the remission of sins of someone else.  The earliest examples are written prayers by a spiritual father on behalf of his deceased spiritual son that have the value of a safe conduct to heaven, as in Barberinus graecus 410, a manuscript of the fifteenth century, where the rubric explains:  'The spiritual father writes this prayer ona sheet and places it in the hand of the deceased because of the fear of the tax collectors in the air and the spiritual darkness of the age.'*"
"*(note) Compare also the fifteenth century euchologia with almost identical text in A.A. Dmitrievskii, Opisanie Liturgicheskikh Rukopisei, vol. 2, (Kiev, 1901) ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=jQTVaxwfjsIC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=Dmitrievskii+Euchologia&source=bl&ots=C0oKWfnwcv&sig=748LEh5boGNz4SiqX6NDmbQjTUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Q79tUfjeBYPe8ASE2oGIAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dmitrievskii%20Euchologia&f=false

[Dionysii]

'Evening Worship in the Orthodox Church' by Prof. Nicholas Uspensky of the Leningrad Theological Academy is a history of liturgy which views the liturgical changes of the seventeenth century as a conflict between two theologies. 

I regard 'Russian Church Singing' in two volumes by Johann von Gardner as the liturgical complement of 'The Theology of the Icon' in two volumes by Fr. Leonid Ouspensky.  Both books recount the history of their respective Russian arts (one for the ears and the other for the eyes) which were inherited from the Byzantines and subsequently died during the course of the seventeenth century. 

[Dionysii]

For what it's worth, I came across these Russian language websites which contain theological collections if any one was interested to make use of them.  For each one, I have listed the original URLs along with URLs which present the website in English courtesy of google translation:


Library of Patristic Literature
http://www.orthlib.ru
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.orthlib.ru/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.orthlib.ru%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651&sa=X&ei=iONtUY2DG4Gi8ASR9oHwBQ&ved=0CDYQ7gEwAA

Orthodoxy and Modernity - Electronic Library
http://lib.eparhia-saratov.ru
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://lib.eparhia-saratov.ru/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://lib.eparhia-saratov.ru%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651&sa=X&ei=zeZtUcGMN5Gq8AS4zIHwAg&ved=0CDYQ7gEwAA

Rus-Sky  (Apparently Russian Anti-Oecumenist)
http://rus-sky.com
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://rus-sky.com/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://rus-sky.com%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651&sa=X&ei=XudtUZrBEZTW8gTRk4CABA&ved=0CDMQ7gEwAA

[Dionysii]

He also, when referring to the two finger sign of the Cross, mentioned a "Greek Euchologions rewritten 1475 (published by Dmitrievsky in 19 c.)

The book by Russian liturgical scholar Aleksei Dmitrievskii containing the Constantinopolitan Euchologion of 1475 that condemned the three finger cross perhaps seems to be
'Opisanie Liturgicheskikh Rukopisei' ...

I have ordered this book through interlibrary loan.  Paul Meyendorff in 'Russia, Ritual, and Reform' states that Aleksei Dmitrievskii did a significant amount of the background work towards a comprehensive study of the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon.  According to the libraries in the US which have this book, it appears to be a three volume work from 1895 which was reprinted in 1965.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/opisanie-liturgicheskikh-rukopisei-khraniashchikhsia-v-bibliotekakh-pravoslavnago-vostoka/oclc/6261114?ht=edition&referer=di


Does the 6 vol. compendium of English translations by William Palmer entitled 'The Patriarch and the Tsar' have any material worthwhile acquiring?

[Dionysii]

Robert Crummey has probably been the most highly regarded academic historian of the Ancient Orthodox Church in the past 50 years, but he has focused heavily on the priestless sects.  Fr. Matthew Johnson's more recent 'Sobornosti' book gives the much needed attention to the canonical priested Ancient Orthodox Church.

I just printed 'Russian Dissenters' by Frederick Conybeare (published in 1921) which is refreshingly balanced and provides pertinent historical information more equitably than Crummey's 1970 history of the priestless Vyg community.  As far English language histories of the Old Believers are concerned, I would say that Conybeare's book ranks second in importance after Fr. Matthew Johnson's 'Sobornosti'.

'Russian Dissenters'
By Frederick Conybeare
http://archive.org/details/russiandissenter00conyuoft

[Dionysii]

I was actually being critical of Metropolitan Cornelius's apparently oecumenist lifestyle as depicted in the photo below which seems to be a departure from the Old Orthodox Christian tradition of his predecessors and a disservice to his parishioners.

Lest I put my foot in my mouth, in order to be fair I want to mention that religious leaders in the Ottoman Empire were also leaders of their communities, and the Ottoman Empire held such meetings involving leaders of various religious communities.  These meetings did not involve religious communion or prayers between these religions.

The individual who first made me aware of the photograph above led me to believe that the meeting was an oecumenist religious gathering in the sense of the World Council of Churches.  I do think it is healthy to question such things, but I have received no confirmation that this is indeed a religious meeting. 

I have come across an article about this meeting in English which took place in 2012 and which Metropolitan Kornelius and Putin attended.
I do not in fact discern any specific evidence of movement towards intercommunion by Metropolitan Kornelius.

I believe that protest should have a valid reason.  Protest for the sake of protest is protestant, and I accordingly retract my uninformed prior comment about this photograph unless incriminating evidence actually surfaces.

Prime Minister Putin’s meeting with leaders of traditional religious communities in Russia
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/51565.htm

[Dionysii]

Kitezh
http://servantofprayer.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/the-legend-of-kitezh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitezh

[IlyinVladimir]

Some important pictures with info posting here:


Image of 'Austrian' (Belokrinitskie) clergy.



The miniature of the 13th century Byzantine manuscript., shows the divine service at Sophia of Constantinople. In front, in surplices and hats stand the singers, on the dais, - the emperor and the people. All hands are crossed on the chest, with hands hidden.



"Εἴ τις οὐ σφραγίζει τοῖς δυσὶ δακτύλοις, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστός, ἀνάθεμα" (He who does not cross with two fingers, as like Christ, is cursed) From ancient greek typicon.



Revolt of Solovetski monks against post-florentine greek reformists.



Old-Believer pomorian girls.


Old Orthodox wedding



Old Orthodox cathedral in Moscow.






Old Orthodox hieropriests, monks and bishops


Sorry for lots of images.

The experience of Old Orthodox service is very other-worldly - prayerly ambience , service last from 4-6 hours, sacred chants, people cross synchronically .. etc. Parishes (communities) function by the principe of sobornost (church democracy), priests are chosen by the community and bishops are not appointed if the parish does not like him. All this existed well in the ancient christian church , before corrupted by centuries of oppression and compromise by the greek and other churches, and by a tragedy in the russian church. Of course, the difference between 'new' Orthodox and 'old' Orthodox is much bigger than just 'twice' alleluia , it perhaps is to do with the difference in the symbol of faith - old believers use: 'Of his kingdom there is no end', whereas 'new' Orthodox place God's kingdom in the future, which is openly anti-canonical and close to heresy.

fragment of old orthodox service
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR5xNfQtOFc

[mike]

Why is this groom in sticharion?

[Orthodox11]

Why is this groom in sticharion?

I assume the idea is that, if you have been to some kind of clerical order, you attend all sacraments wearing the appropriate vestments, including your own wedding.

[mike]

Why is this groom in sticharion?

I assume the idea is that, if you have been to some kind of clerical order, you attend all sacraments wearing the appropriate vestments, including your own wedding.

Being an acolyte is a clerical order? Clerics can get married?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)