Author Topic: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)  (Read 97219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #180 on: April 02, 2013, 03:19:09 PM »
I have a question for вєликаго concerning the priestless old Believers. 

Have you ever encountered any evidence that priestless fanaticism was aided by either the Romanovs or the Patriarchate of Constantinople in order to discredit the Old Faith generally?

No. But I do find it a good question.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Putnik Namernik

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 482
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #181 on: April 02, 2013, 03:26:47 PM »
I think our conversation has persuaded me to follow the Lipovan Synod for the long term including baptism and marriage.

Wow, that was quick.

I have had an interest in the Old Orthodox Church for over ten years including travelling to Erie for the sole purpose of speaking with Fr. Pimen and other clergy there about the Church and using the prayer book which they publish at home as my personal prayer book.  My friend's conversation has supplemented other things.  

However, I do not think you are so naive.  I perceive you already realize that I am not brand new to the Old Orthodox Church.  In my opinion, the real issue is likely that some of what I posted disturbs your confidence in the genuineness of your own faith as you now understand it.  On that note, I must commend Putnik Namernik as he strikes me as someone with a love for the truth

Thank you for the link you posted previously.  I did not know thath there we Old Believers in the Balkans at that time. I am asking for mere informative reasons for I do not wish to remain ignorant of things.  Thank you for the kind bolded words. I do not believe that Iconodule's doubts his faith...However it can be overwhelming to all of us when we see so many jurisdictions and disputes which have happened among the Orthodox...

For me there can be only one Truth and that is Jesus Christ.  I have found Orthodoxy to be the true way of interpreting Jesus's words not just in theory but in practice for I had a fortune to venerate the holy body of numerous Saints (St. Basil of Ostrog for an example whose miracles never stop...). It is my hope that Orthodoxy becames reunited one day where the whole world east (Russia) and west (America) become brothers and sisters in Christ but not through modifiation of one's beliefs in order to accomodate the wider range of Christians...not at all...but to all believe in Christ in apostolic way passed to us from our forefathers.  This is by no means my way of imposing this to others or labeling them as heretics...it is just my mear hope that we can all be saved through our Saviour Jesus Christ.  May God help us for only he can!

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #182 on: April 02, 2013, 03:31:27 PM »
A.)Yes, Greeks were heretics-uniates.
That description makes a lot of historical sense.  

A.)The communion was interrupted until restoration of the Orthodoxy in Constantinople.
 
By "restoration of Orthodoxy in Constantinople," I take it that he means shortly after the Synod of Florence when they correctly reiterated the truth.

I do not think anyone except Frankists would argue that the Patriarchate of Constantinople did indeed briefly exit the Church during the time of the Synod of Florence, but to assert that they never came back seems to conlict with too much of what I have read.

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #183 on: April 02, 2013, 03:34:03 PM »
Thank you for the link you posted previously.  I did not know thath there we Old Believers in the Balkans at that time. I am asking for mere informative reasons for I do not wish to remain ignorant of things.  Thank you for the kind bolded words. I do not believe that Iconodule's doubts his faith...However it can be overwhelming to all of us when we see so many jurisdictions and disputes which have happened among the Orthodox...

For me there can be only one Truth and that is Jesus Christ.  I have found Orthodoxy to be the true way of interpreting Jesus's words not just in theory but in practice for I had a fortune to venerate the holy body of numerous Saints (St. Basil of Ostrog for an example whose miracles never stop...). It is my hope that Orthodoxy becames reunited one day where the whole world east (Russia) and west (America) become brothers and sisters in Christ but not through modifiation of one's beliefs in order to accomodate the wider range of Christians...not at all...but to all believe in Christ in apostolic way passed to us from our forefathers.  This is by no means my way of imposing this to others or labeling them as heretics...it is just my mear hope that we can all be saved through our Saviour Jesus Christ.  May God help us for only he can!
Amen, brother.

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #184 on: April 02, 2013, 04:39:57 PM »
it can be overwhelming to all of us when we see so many jurisdictions and disputes which have happened among the Orthodox...
This multiplication of jurisdictions is not overwhelming to me partially because my faith has followed the "Matthewite" Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Church ever since I converted to the Orthodox Church.  The Matthewite view of the Oecumenist Encyclical of 1920 and the Greek schism of 1924 is that the New Calendarist simply left out of the true Church at that time.  For a while, this sufficed to explain most of the problems in Orthodoxy in the twentieth century.

However, as time passed I discovered discrepancies in the "Orthodox Church's" past as well (especially in the 1600's - 1800's) which were quite out of step with Christian tradition and uncanonical.  Some people including even monastics and clergy have argued to me on occasion that the mere antiquity of such errors is justification in itself for disallowing modern criticism of these things.  Yet I am reminded of Fr. Leonid Ouspensky's opening words in 'Theology of the Icon' that the mere fact that an error has persevered for centuries does not make a wrong thing right.  I believe the highlighted words in the quote below explain why I am not overwhelmed at the multiplication of "Orthodox" jurisdictions:
 
Saint Metropolitan Jonas of Moscow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_of_Moscow

"Saint Jonas was the Metropolitan of Moscow from 1448 to his death in 1461. He was the first independent (rather autocephalous to be more precise - Dionysii) Metropolitan of Moscow and all Rus', having been appointed without the approval of the patriarch in Constantinople as was the norm."

"Metropolitan Without Consent after Isidore had been condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1441, for his support of Catholicism and the union of the Eastern and Western Churches agreed upon at the Council of Florence-Ferrara, the metropolitan throne sat vacant for seven years, and Jonah became Metropolitan only on December 15, 1448 without the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.  This signified the establishment of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church."

- Wikipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very pertinent.

The term autocephalous settles the matter.  I understand from this that the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not in fact officially fall into schism until 1666 when it fell out of the Orthodox Church at the same time as the Patriarchate of Moscow.  

The synod of Florence signified an oecumenist disease that heavily pervaded the Phanarian Greek speaking bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the fifteenth century.  The Church of Russia became autocephalous in 1448 to prevent its own level of spirituality from becoming infected by the Greek bishops.  The holiness which this arrangement secured for Russia was undone when Patriarch Nikon acted as a puppet for the Phanar.  The majority of Ottoman Greek bishops from the 1600's onwards effectively became religious ministers of the Ottoman system with no spirituality what so ever.  They lived opulently like their pasha friends with whom they spent the days smoking pipes.  Not every Greek bishop lived this way, especially in the earlier phases of the Ottoman empire before the 1600's, but the apostasy and westernization of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek speaking Churches of the Ottoman empire progressed with time.  By the 1700's, the majority of Greek clergy thought less of God than of a new Greek identity that was in fact totally fabricated on the european model.  These schismatics followed old wive's tales (one of which is nationalism), and they forgot about Orthodox Christian faith.  

The apostasy of the Patriarchaate of Constantinople in 1666 explains many factors which are otherwise inexplicable such as the Frankist Synod of Bethlehem of 1672 and an heretical Synod of Constntinople of 1727 which has never been rescinded.  The Patriarchate of Constantinople also began a long term interaction with the protestant Anglican hierarchy in the late 1600's.  "Bishop" John Wesley was ordained a bishop by a Greek bishop in the 1770's and subsequently founded the Methodist Church which traces its hierarchical origins to the apostate Greeks of this era.  Many queer things occurred in the 1700's which indicate the character of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at the time.  That this Patriarchate in fact became heretical of the second degree, or schismatic, explains all of this.    

What I wanted to say about the Rudder (the Pedalion) is that it is an indication of the depth of the Greek apostasy.  Any decent scholar in this area is aware that the Rudder has errors - particularly with regard to iconography since the opinions in the Rudder advocate western iconography.  The Rudder is not a compendium of the records of the Seven Oecumenical Synods.  It is a book of the opinions of one monk.  I feel compelled to add that I think that the writings of the Kollyvades were generally good, and they generally represented the best of the Ottoman Orthodox Christians.  A good and representative example of their political attitude is that of Monk Nikodemos himself who argued that the revolution against the Ottomans was wrong and a mistake.      

An interesting after thought of this analysis is the observation that the Bishopric of Rome fell in the year 999 (the year of three popes which included the first Frankist pope), and the Bishopric of New Rome fell in the year 1666.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 04:50:48 PM by Dionysii »

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #185 on: April 02, 2013, 05:44:02 PM »
"The history of this controversy is a fascinating one in its own right, but at the same time it provides
insight into the inner workings of the Russian Orthodox Church. This practical value of that
knowledge should not be underestimated -- the Russian church at that time was no different from
the other Orthodox churches, and the Orthodox churches of today do not operate any differently.
Today's Orthodox hierarchs don't have armies at their command, but they and their willing minions
often use what power they do possess in the same way as their predecessors described in these
pages. Besides that, this is an excellent illustration of how the Eastern Orthodox Church has
always resolved -- or failed to resolve -- its theological issues
."

- from the introduction to 'Heresy on Mount Athos' by Tom Dykstra of Saint Vladimir's Seminary (OCA)

'Heresy of Mount Athos:Conflict over the Name of God Among Russian Monks and Hierarchs, 1912–1914'
By Tom Dykstra
http://www.pravoslav.de/imiaslavie/english/dykstra/dikstra.htm

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #186 on: April 02, 2013, 06:18:06 PM »
"The history of this controversy is a fascinating one in its own right, but at the same time it provides
insight into the inner workings of the Russian Orthodox Church. This practical value of that
knowledge should not be underestimated -- the Russian church at that time was no different from
the other Orthodox churches, and the Orthodox churches of today do not operate any differently.
Today's Orthodox hierarchs don't have armies at their command, but they and their willing minions
often use what power they do possess in the same way as their predecessors described in these
pages. Besides that, this is an excellent illustration of how the Eastern Orthodox Church has
always resolved -- or failed to resolve -- its theological issues
."

- from the introduction to 'Heresy on Mount Athos' by Tom Dykstra of Saint Vladimir's Seminary (OCA)

'Heresy on Mount Athos: Conflict over the Name of God Among Russian Monks and Hierarchs, 1912–1914'
By Tom Dykstra
http://www.pravoslav.de/imiaslavie/english/dykstra/dikstra.htm


EDIT:  For the record, I have not given Tom Dykstra a title as I have no knowledge that he is a member of the clergy.  
I cite his name exactly as I find it in the book which he wrote which I have linked.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 06:18:43 PM by Dionysii »

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #187 on: April 02, 2013, 06:52:41 PM »
I asked you to refer to clergy with their respective titles. It doesn't matter if you respect them or not. Putting them in brackets is not acceptable. 7 days of warning - MK.[/color]
I have taken pains and extra time to adhere to what you have wanted.
You have never said to me before that brackets were unacceptable. 
If you would have said that beforehand, then I would not have done that, but I cannot read your mind.

Be that as it may.  May God bless you.

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #188 on: April 02, 2013, 06:59:55 PM »
It doesn't matter if you respect them or not.
I aksed another member of this board if Michael Kalina acts like this towards everyone or have I been singled out, and they responded that this forum is very hostile towards positive expressions reguarding Old Believer Christians.  

That being the case, I would humbly suggest that you heed your own advice.
Have a good day.

If you wish to complain about a moderatorial action taken against you, the proper avenue to follow is to appeal the action via private message to the moderator who took the action. Public argument with or complaint about a moderatorial action is not tolerated on this forum and will be met with harsher discipline than this if you continue.

Considering that you are relatively new here and don't yet have much of a rap sheet with us, I am only extending your warning from 7 days to 30. If, however, you choose to argue with this warning publicly, you will be placed on post moderation, where each of your posts will need to be screened by a moderator before it will appear on the forum. Again, if you feel this action is unfair, please appeal it to me via private message.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 12:39:19 AM by PeterTheAleut »

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #189 on: April 03, 2013, 07:55:36 AM »
In my opinion, the real issue is likely that some of what I posted disturbs your confidence in the genuineness of your own faith as you now understand it.

What about calling themselves American?
When referring to clergy or hierarchs, you are required by the forum rules to use their correct titles and not just names.

Knowing that I am persecuted for the sake of Jesus Christ is a high point of my week. :)  Recognizing that such evils as these are an indication of blessing from God confirms to me that I am on the right path.  

Internet exchanges obviously make a huge impression on you.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 07:55:55 AM by Iconodule »
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #190 on: April 03, 2013, 11:35:31 AM »
This following selection from Vladimir Moss book New Zion in Babylon The Orthodox Church in the Twentieth Century gives an interesting look into the history of the Old Believers in the early Twentieth Century. It gives what I see as damning testimony against the Novozybkov Hierarchy ...

I do not come to this conclusion about the Novozybkov hierarchy from what you have quoted here. 
I understand that the biography of its founding Bishop is commendable. 
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. 
I would like to know more about the Bela Krinitsa Synod with respect to oecumenism. 

By the way, the things you have posted have truly been most educational and are most appreciated. 

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #191 on: April 03, 2013, 11:36:27 AM »
My friend, from Russia said that "Orthodoxy in Constantinople was restored only after the Turkish conquest in 1453."

But then he explained how, "The Greeks were not excommunicated by the Russians because of 3 fingers but in Greece even in 1470s 2 finger sign of cross was dominant...."
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 11:37:38 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #192 on: April 03, 2013, 11:49:55 AM »
My friend, from Russia said that "Orthodoxy in Constantinople was restored only after the Turkish conquest in 1453."
Yes, the restoration of Orthodoxy in Constantinople shortly after the Synod of Florence was my understanding as well.
It appears that God used the Ottomans to disempower the unionists.  

"The Greeks were not excommunicated by the Russians because of 3 fingers but in Greece even in 1470s 2 finger sign of cross was dominant...."
Good to hear.  
This arouses my interest in the history of the Phanar and historical trends towards apostasy from the late 1500's to 1667.

The Pan-Orthodox Synods of Constantinople which condemned the Gregorian calendar in the time of Patriarch Jermias indicates that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not generally receptive to union with the Papacy at that time.  From what I have read, I get the impression that the actions of the Ottomans helped preserve the integrity of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in spite of itself.  I specifically recall reading that on one occasion Patriarch Jeremias himself had condescended to consider an invitation from the Franks, and this is what caused the SUltan to depose him.  

The Union of Brest of 1596 united the Metropolia of Kiev with the Franks.  The Papacy's most likely strategy viewed their acquisition of the Metropolia of Kiev in 1595 as a wedge between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow which they could use to subvert both of them analogous to the way that the CIA has tried to use Georgia as a wedge between Russia and Iran.  

The next logical step for the Unia was to convert hierarchs to their cause whom they could use against the Orthodox Church, and they found their man in Metropolitan Peter Mogila.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 12:19:21 PM by Dionysii »

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #193 on: April 03, 2013, 12:07:18 PM »
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."

« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 12:18:18 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #194 on: April 03, 2013, 02:13:49 PM »
Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Orthodox Church - Novozybkov) has a dialogue with Bishop Kirykos of the Old Calendar Greek Orthodox Synod (Matthewite) during a prior visit to Greece to discuss theological differences.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ei=Km5cUZ3kL4GC8ATOvoGgDg&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://ancient-orthodoxy.narod.ru/%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&u=http://ancient-orthodoxy.narod.ru/life/Greece2008.htm&usg=ALkJrhimKbw-wh7oWsEdraPMI4EktGluUg

- from the Russian Old Rite Orthodox Church (Novozybkov) website

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #195 on: April 03, 2013, 02:43:22 PM »
My friend, from Russia said that "Orthodoxy in Constantinople was restored only after the Turkish conquest in 1453."
But then he explained how, "The Greeks were not excommunicated by the Russians because of 3 fingers but in Greece even in 1470s 2 finger sign of cross was dominant...."

Here is a page of links to Canons of various Church Synods from the Old Rite website of the Patriarchate of Moscow (Old Rite - Novozybkov) that might be useful.  Unfortunately, the link to the Stoglav does not seem to be working, or else we would have it in English courtesy of google.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ei=Km5cUZ3kL4GC8ATOvoGgDg&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://ancient-orthodoxy.narod.ru/%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&u=http://ancient-orthodoxy.narod.ru/doc.htm&usg=ALkJrhhPRSOMy6lP32qMvK1b4SQXjVi7nA

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #196 on: April 03, 2013, 02:56:48 PM »
My friend, from Russia said that "Orthodoxy in Constantinople was restored only after the Turkish conquest in 1453."
But then he explained how, "The Greeks were not excommunicated by the Russians because of 3 fingers but in Greece even in 1470s 2 finger sign of cross was dominant...."

Here is a page of links to Canons of various Church Synods from the Old Rite website of the Patriarchate of Moscow (Old Rite - Novozybkov) that might be useful.  Unfortunately, the link to the Stoglav does not seem to be working, or else we would have it in English courtesy of google.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ei=Km5cUZ3kL4GC8ATOvoGgDg&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://ancient-orthodoxy.narod.ru/%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&u=http://ancient-orthodoxy.narod.ru/doc.htm&usg=ALkJrhhPRSOMy6lP32qMvK1b4SQXjVi7nA

Thanks for the links. The Stoglav does not translate well, via google (in fact, its very unreadable).
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,117
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #197 on: April 03, 2013, 03:08:09 PM »
The Belokrinitsky hierarchy was started by the Greek Metropolitan Ambrose.  The Novozybkov hierarchy under Patriarch Alexander also appears to have originated from a single bishop who joined the Old Believers, though in this case it was a Russian “Nikonian” bishop, Abp Ambrose of Ufa.  From an ecclesiological perspective, I do not understand how either hierarchy can be considered to have apostolic succession from an Old Believer point of view.  The problem with all of the Old Believers is that they believe the Church can exist without bishops, and in the case of the Bolokrinitsky and Novozybkov, they believe that laypeople can essentially consecrate a bishop.  St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, states concerning the role of the bishop:

Quote
Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.
---
It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure.
---
…he who honoureth the bishop, is honoured of God; he who doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop, serveth the devil.

No bishop followed the Old Believers into their schism, and this initial schism gave birth to further schisms amongst them, as occurred with the Protestants.  Since the Old Believers were without bishops, and they considered Nikonian and Greek bishops to be heretics, then all Orthodox bishops were considered by the Old Believers to be heretics.  According to the first canon of St. Basil, those who are in schism lose the grace of the Holy Spirit and do not have the authority to bestow on others the grace of baptism or consecration/ordination.  When Metropolitan Ambrose was received by the group of Old Believers now known as the Belokrinitsky, they had no bishops to properly receive him.  The same is the case with the Novozybkov and Abp Ambrose of Ufa.  If, as heretics, they did not have the grace of the Holy Spirit, by whose episcopal authority were these heretical (according to the Old Believers) bishops received, and whose episcopal hands bestowed upon them the grace of the episcopacy?

Neither the Belokrinitsy nor the Novozybkov have episcopal continuity with the pre-Nikonian Orthodox Church.  For a heretical bishop to be received as a bishop by a local church, that local church must have a synod of bishops to receive that bishop into their Synod.  Only a synod of bishops has the authority to accept a heretical bishop into the Church and permit that bishop to retain his orders.  Clergy and laity cannot receive a bishop from heresy into the Church.  Furthermore, after these priestless Old Believers “received” these heretical (according to them) bishops, these bishops proceeded to establish their hierarchies by first performing single-handed consecrations in direct contradiction of the first canon of the Holy Apostles.
 
Clearly what caused the serious reaction of the Old Believers to the Nikonian reforms were the anathemas of the Stoglav Council.  Yet, the Stoglav Council was a local council, attended by only nine bishops.  This Council was not accepted by the universal Church.  Councils are not inherently infallible just because a few bishops get together and make some declarations.  It is the universal Church that affirms the authority of a Council by their acceptance of its declarations as expressing the mind of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, such a decision requires them to turn their backs on many of the Russian saints who considered the Old Believers to be in fact schismatics and outside of the Church, including St. Seraphim of Sarov, the Elders of Optina, St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), and countless other post-Nikonian saints of the Slavic world.  They would be also cutting themselves off from communion with St. John of San Francisco, St. Nektarios of Aegina, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Cosmas the Aitolean, and countless other saints that have shown forth in the post-Nikonian and Greek lands.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 03:12:27 PM by jah777 »

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #198 on: April 03, 2013, 03:19:02 PM »
The Belokrinitsky hierarchy was started by the Greek Metropolitan Ambrose.  The Novozybkov hierarchy under Patriarch Alexander also appears to have originated from a single bishop who joined the Old Believers, though in this case it was a Russian “Nikonian” bishop, Abp Ambrose of Ufa.  From an ecclesiological perspective, I do not understand how either hierarchy can be considered to have apostolic succession from an Old Believer point of view.  The problem with all of the Old Believers is that they believe the Church can exist without bishops, and in the case of the Bolokrinitsky and Novozybkov, they believe that laypeople can essentially consecrate a bishop.  St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, states concerning the role of the bishop:

Quote
Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.
---
It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure.
---
…he who honoureth the bishop, is honoured of God; he who doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop, serveth the devil.

No bishop followed the Old Believers into their schism, and this initial schism gave birth to further schisms amongst them, as occurred with the Protestants.  Since the Old Believers were without bishops, and they considered Nikonian and Greek bishops to be heretics, then all Orthodox bishops were considered by the Old Believers to be heretics.  According to the first canon of St. Basil, those who are in schism lose the grace of the Holy Spirit and do not have the authority to bestow on others the grace of baptism or consecration/ordination.  When Metropolitan Ambrose was received by the group of Old Believers now known as the Belokrinitsky, they had no bishops to properly receive him.  The same is the case with the Novozybkov and Abp Ambrose of Ufa.  If, as heretics, they did not have the grace of the Holy Spirit, by whose episcopal authority were these heretical (according to the Old Believers) bishops received, and whose episcopal hands bestowed upon them the grace of the episcopacy?

Neither the Belokrinitsy nor the Novozybkov have episcopal continuity with the pre-Nikonian Orthodox Church.  For a heretical bishop to be received as a bishop by a local church, that local church must have a synod of bishops to receive that bishop into their Synod.  Only a synod of bishops has the authority to accept a heretical bishop into the Church and permit that bishop to retain his orders.  Clergy and laity cannot receive a bishop from heresy into the Church.  Furthermore, after these priestless Old Believers “received” these heretical (according to them) bishops, these bishops proceeded to establish their hierarchies by first performing single-handed consecrations in direct contradiction of the first canon of the Holy Apostles.
 
Clearly what caused the serious reaction of the Old Believers to the Nikonian reforms were the anathemas of the Stoglav Council.  Yet, the Stoglav Council was a local council, attended by only nine bishops.  This Council was not accepted by the universal Church.  Councils are not inherently infallible just because a few bishops get together and make some declarations.  It is the universal Church that affirms the authority of a Council by their acceptance of its declarations as expressing the mind of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, such a decision requires them to turn their backs on many of the Russian saints who considered the Old Believers to be in fact schismatics and outside of the Church, including St. Seraphim of Sarov, the Elders of Optina, St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), and countless other post-Nikonian saints of the Slavic world.  They would be also cutting themselves off from communion with St. John of San Francisco, St. Nektarios of Aegina, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Cosmas the Aitolean, and countless other saints that have shown forth in the post-Nikonian and Greek lands.


"Hieromartyr" Andrew, Archbishop Of Ufa "Archbishop Andrew said the following to Clement before the chrismation: 'It is not your hand that is being lain upon me, but the hand of that patriarch who consecrated your ancient chrism: when you read the proclamation, and when I recite the heresies and confession of faith before chrismation, then I immediately become your bishop and can commune with you. But since I am your bishop, that means that a priest cannot anoint a bishop.'" [Source= http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/andrew-archbishop-and-hieromartyr-of-ufa.html]

I'm not endorsing this man, whom I have some respect for, and have a mind to learn more about; I have read as much about this man as I could -- and I think that this quote has, at the least, if not more, a small amount of truth in it.


« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 03:49:51 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #199 on: April 03, 2013, 03:42:27 PM »

The next logical step for the Unia was to convert hierarchs to their cause whom they could use against the Orthodox Church, and they found their man in Metropolitan Peter Mogila.


Thank you jah777 for articulating what I was thinking far more succinctly than could I.

Point of information: To those of us not associated with the Old Believer groups being discussed in this thread, the quoted statement regarding St. Peter Mohyla , Metropolitan of Kyiv and Halich needs clarification. While aspects of St. Peter's life and works remain controversial, to those of us in communion with the canonical Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow, Metropolitan Peter Mohyla is a Saint and Defender of Orthodoxy. He is specifically commemorated on January 1st and jointly with all Sainted Patriarchs of Kyiv on October 6th.

I am not challenging the right of the participants to this discussion to not regard him as a Saint or most of us as Orthodox. However, given that the canonical Orthodox world does not view many of the names mentioned by them as saints, I would be remiss in not pointing out our disagreements on these matters.

The history of the Russian Church is indeed full of very high points and many deep valleys of suffering and even despair. No faction is faultless in this history. By our modern standards the treatment of dissidents,including the Old Believers, is not defensible. We should all pray that God is ultimately more understanding of our shortcomings and more forgiving of us than we, who profess the Orthodox Faith, often are of each other.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 03:46:27 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #200 on: April 03, 2013, 04:09:29 PM »
Internet exchanges obviously make a huge impression on you.
You may have a point in a sense. I think a little less of this might do me some good.   :)

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #201 on: April 03, 2013, 04:11:13 PM »
The next logical step for the Unia was to convert hierarchs to their cause whom they could use against the Orthodox Church, and they found their man in Metropolitan Peter Mogila.

St. Peter Mohyla , Metropolitan of Kyiv and Halich needs clarification. While aspects of St. Peter's life and works remain controversial, to those of us in communion with the canonical Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow, Metropolitan Peter Mohyla is a Saint and Defender of Orthodoxy. He is specifically commemorated on January 1st and jointly with all Sainted Patriarchs of Kyiv on October 6th.

“Of course, there is another basic issue.  How are we to distinguish Apostles from sham apostles, Prophets from false prophets, Martyrs from those who are not true martyrs, Holy Ascetics from those who are not true holy men, saints from pseudo-saints?  The same rule applies here as in all human affairs.  Genuine scientists are discerned by those who have the same knowledge.  In other words, true saints can be discerned by true saints.  Saints recognize other saints.  When someone has the gift of discernment of spirits, which constitutes true Orthodox theology, he can discern whether or not spirits come from God, and distinguish what is created from what is uncreated.  This is something charismatic, not institutional.” 

“If there is one change in our times which epitomizes secularization, it is the loss of the criteria for Orthodox spirituality and sanctity.  As a result no distinction is made between true servants of God and ‘good’ people such as can be found within all religious traditions.  This actually represents an alteration to the Orthodox faith and an experience of demonic spirituality, with terrible consequences for the individual who honours someone as a saint, whereas the so-called saint is himself in need of God’s mercy.”

- From ‘Hesychia and Theology’ by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
  (Chapter One, Part Six – The Gift of Discernment)

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #202 on: April 03, 2013, 04:28:30 PM »
Even though Fr. Georges Florovsky is critical of Russian Old Believers, when I read what he wrote about Metropolitan Peter Mogila in 'Ways of Russian Theology', I got the historical impression that Metropolitan Peter Mogila paved the way for the apostasy of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow in the 1660's.

'Ways of Russian Theology'
Volume 1, Chapter 2 "Encounter With the West"
By Fr. Georges Florovsky
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap2.html

It would be interesting to know more of the attitude of the Kollyvades towards Metropolitan Peter Mogila.  Especially considering that they were closer to him in time, I do not take it is a given that they would venerate a man with such a controversial history as a Saint without any prior investigation. 

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #203 on: April 03, 2013, 04:37:14 PM »
Two paragraphs about Metropolitan Peter Mogila quoted directly from 'Ways of Theology' by Fr. Georges Florovsky:

"Peter Mogila's attitude to the problems of the Roman Catholic Church was clear and simple. He did not see any real difference between Orthodoxy and Rome. He was convinced of the importance of canonical independence, but perceived no threat from inner "Latinization." Indeed, he welcomed it and promoted it in some respect for the very sake of securing the Church's external independence. Since Mogila sought to accomplish this within an undivided "universe of culture," the paradox was only further heightened. Under such conditions, Orthodoxy lost its inner independence us well as its measuring rod of self-examination. Without thought or scrutiny, as if by habit, western criteria of evaluation were adopted. At the same time links with the traditions and methods of the East were broken. But was not the cost too high? Could the Orthodox in  Poland truly afford to isolate themselves from Constantinople and Moscow? Was not the scope of vision impractically narrow? Did not the  rupture with the eastern part result in the grafting on of an alien and, artificial tradition which would inevitably block the path of creative development? It would be unfair to place all blame for this on Mogila. The process of "Latinization" began long before he came on the scene. He was less the pioneer of a new path than an articulator of his time. Yet Peter Mogila contributed more than any other, as organizer, educator, liturgical reformer, and inspirer of the Orthodox Confession, to the entrenchment of "crypto-Romanism" in the life of the West Russian Church. From here it was transported to  Moscow in the seventeenth century by Kievan scholars and in the eighteenth century by bishops of western origin and training.

THE ORTHODOX CONFESSION

"The Orthodox Confession is the most significant and expressive document of the Mogila era. Its importance is not limited to the history of the West Russian Church, since it became a confession of faith for the Eastern Church (though only after a struggle, and its authoritative character is still open to question). Who the author or the editor of the Confession really was remains uncertain. It is usually attributed to Peter Mogila or Isaia Kozlovskii.  More than likely it was a collective work, with Mogila and various members of his circle sharing in the composition. The exact purpose of the Confession also remains unclear. Originally conceived as a "catechism," and often called one, it seems to have been intended as a clarification of the Orthodox faith in relation to the Protestants. In fact, it is now widely assumed that Mogila's Confession was prepared as a rejoinder to the Confession of Cyril Lucaris, which appeared in 1633 and whose pro-Calvinist leanings stirred disquiet and confusion in the whole Orthodox world. In 1638 - after certain collusion and pressure from Kome - both Lucaris and his Confession were condemned by a synod in Constantinople.  These events may explain why when Mogila's Confession came out the Greek Church was drawn to it and, after editing by Syrigos, conferred on it the Church's authority."

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovsky_ways_chap2.html

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #204 on: April 03, 2013, 05:51:49 PM »
with all Sainted Patriarchs of Kyiv on October 6th.

???
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #205 on: April 03, 2013, 05:55:12 PM »
I came across yet another peice of evidence which points to the fact that the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow did in fact fall into schism prior to the eighteenth century:  these Patriarchates abandoned the Orthodox Church Calendar in the early 1700's.

"The Byzantine Creation Era, also known as the 'Creation Era of Constantinople' and the 'Era of the World' was the Calendar officially used by the Eastern Orthodox Church from AD 691 to 1728 in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by the Byzantine Empire from AD 988 to 1453, and in Russia from AD 988 to 1700."

"Derived from the Septuagint version of the Bible, it placed the date of creation at 5,509 years before the Incarnation, and was characterized by a certain tendency which had already been a tradition amongst Hebrews and Jews to number the years from the foundation of the world (Latin: Annus Mundi / Ab Origine Mundi [AM]).  Its year one, the date of creation, was September 1, 5509 BC to August 31, 5508 BC."
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Byzantine_Creation_Era
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 05:56:34 PM by Dionysii »

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #206 on: April 03, 2013, 06:01:06 PM »
I didn't know counting years since Christ's birth is heretic.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline orthonorm

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,715
  • Ad Aluminum!
  • Faith: DSM 5
  • Jurisdiction: Apostle to the Church of ASD
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #207 on: April 03, 2013, 07:47:25 PM »
To use a phrase from Malcolm X, the Paleologues were the "house negros" of Byzantium. 

Fascinating stuff, but I had to just point this out.

Hilarious.

I really have no idea what I am reading, but I can't stop.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,656
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #208 on: April 03, 2013, 07:49:13 PM »
I didn't know counting years since Christ's birth is heretic.

Of course not, because you're the heretic or haven't you figured that out yet?
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #209 on: April 03, 2013, 08:42:53 PM »
No bishop followed the Old Believers
Bishop Paul of Kolomna

No bishop followed the Old Believers into their schism
The Old Orthodox Christians were not the ones who went into schism.  

this initial schism gave birth to further schisms amongst them.
The initial schism was caused by the Greek bishops and Patriarch Nikon.  Subsequently, the only schism that the priested Old Ritualist Church had was with the priestless.  Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that the schismatic Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow did not have a hand in that.  

Since the Old Believers were without bishops...
Is the Lord Jesus Christ not a Bishop of the Church?

For a heretical bishop to be received as a bishop by a local church, that local church must have a synod of bishops to receive that bishop into their Synod. Only a synod of bishops has the authority to accept a heretical bishop into the Church and permit that bishop to retain his orders.  Clergy and laity cannot receive a bishop from heresy into the Church.

Upon what authority is this statement based - other than your own opinion?  Although I am no master of Canon law, from what I do understand I am rather inclined to reject this statement as false, and the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor reinforces my conviction.

If this were indeed true exactly as you state it, then it would alsp invalidate the origins of any synod originating in the Greek Old Calendarist Church.  Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and the two bishops that he repented with were not received by any bishops of whom I am aware when they were received by Greek Orthodox Christians who had remained faithful to the Patristic Church Calendar that held sway in Greece prior to 1924.  

Saint Maximos—as recorded in the January volume of the Great Synaxaristes:
 
… Troilos and Sergios then posed another question: “Then we are to understand that thou wilt not enter into communion with the throne of Constantinople?” Father Maximos replied, “I will not commune.” They inquired further, asking, “For what reason wilt thou not commune with the patriarchate?” Father Maximos answered them with a serious countenance, saying with a sigh, “On the one hand, there is nothing more onerous than the reproach of one’s conscience; but, on the other hand, there is nothing more desirable than the approval of one’s conscience.” They pressed the holy man to give them an answer for his lack of communion with them. Father Maximos then explained: “I cannot enter into communion with the throne of Constantinople, because the leaders of that patriarchate have rejected the resolutions of the four œcumenical synods. Instead, as their rule, they have accepted the Alexandrian Nine Chapters. Thereafter, they accepted the Ekthesis of Patriarch Sergios and then the Typos, which rejects everything that was proclaimed in the Ekthesis, thereby excommunicating themselves many times over. Together with having excommunicated themselves, they have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the Lateran Council held in Rome. What Mysteries can such persons perform? What spirit comes upon what they celebrate or those ordained by them?” The saint’s visitors then asked, “Then thou alone wilt be saved, while everyone else perishes?” Father Maximos said, “When Nebuchadnezzar made a golden image in the province of Babylon, he summoned all those in authority to come to the dedication of the image [Dan. 3:1, 2]. The holy Three Children condemned no one. They did not concern themselves with the practices of others, but looked only to their own business, lest they should fall away from true piety. When Daniel was cast into the lions’ den, he did not condemn those who prayed not to God that they might obey the decree of Darius [Dan. 6:12 ff.]. Instead, he concentrated on his own duty. He preferred to die than to sin against his conscience and transgress God’s law. God forbid that I should judge or condemn anyone or that I should claim that I alone shall be saved! I should much prefer to die than to betray the Faith in any way or go against my conscience. … Were the universe to enter into communion with the patriarch, I should never commune with him. Take heed of the words of the Holy Spirit through the apostle: ‘Even if we, or an angel from out of heaven, should preach a gospel to you besides what Gospel we preached to you, let such a one be anathema [Gal. 1:8].’” The envoys then asked, “Is it truly needful to confess two wills and operations in Christ?” Father Maximos replied, “It is absolutely needful, if we are to remain Orthodox in doctrine. … Though I do not wish to grieve our dutiful emperor who is a good man, yet I fear God’s judgment by keeping silence about those things which God commands us to confess. …”
http://wordpress.symeon-anthony.info/?page_id=127

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, They would be also cutting themselves off from communion with ... St. Nektarios of Aegina, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Cosmas the Aitolean, and countless other saints that have shown forth in the post-Nikonian and Greek lands.
Lenexa has written elsewhere in this forum that the Bela Krinitsa Fathers have a sincere reverence for the Kollyvades.  
I have posted a link in this thread describing a dialogue between Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Novozybkov hierarchy) and the Greek Old Calendaist Matthewites.  

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, such a decision requires them to turn their backs on many of the Russian saints who considered the Old Believers to be in fact schismatics and outside of the Church, including ... the Elders of Optina, St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), and countless other post-Nikonian saints of the Slavic world.
Where do the Optina Elders condemn the Old Believers as schismatics?  I have the lives of the Optina Elders and value them, and  
I perceive most or all of the Optina Elders to have had better discernment than to speak in that way.

I would sincerely like to know of any statement by Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky asserting that the Old Believers are schismatics.  
I understand that the hesychast revival among Nikonians was enabled by the Russian Old Orthodox Christians who had preserved the genuine Christian Church whose spirituality, knowledge, and culture upon which that revival was based and utilized as an holy example to imitate.  
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 08:48:21 PM by Dionysii »

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #210 on: April 03, 2013, 08:52:40 PM »
No English translation of the "Stoglav"; and yes 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?

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #211 on: April 04, 2013, 01:10:40 AM »

Lenexa has written elsewhere in this forum that the Bela Krinitsa Fathers have a sincere reverence for the Kollyvades.  
I have posted a link in this thread describing a dialogue between Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Novozybkov hierarchy) and the Greek Old Calendaist Matthewites.  


I have been told with 100% authority that schismatics are not part of the church, period; and they do not have grace.


Quote from: jah777

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, They would be also cutting themselves off from communion with ... St. Nektarios of Aegina, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Cosmas the Aitolean, and countless other saints that have shown forth in the post-Nikonian and Greek lands.

This quote from a different friend, applies here, "We do not want communion with such heretics"!
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 01:11:25 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #212 on: April 04, 2013, 01:28:27 AM »
I have been told with 100% authority that schismatics are not part of the church, period; and they do not have grace.

I think it is difficult for people to part with what they are familiar.  
You speak bluntly, but you say the truth.  
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 01:29:17 AM by Dionysii »

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #213 on: April 04, 2013, 07:34:06 AM »

Lenexa has written elsewhere in this forum that the Bela Krinitsa Fathers have a sincere reverence for the Kollyvades.  
I have posted a link in this thread describing a dialogue between Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Novozybkov hierarchy) and the Greek Old Calendaist Matthewites.  


I have been told with 100% authority that schismatics are not part of the church, period; and they do not have grace.

Metropolitan Ambrose was a "schismatic" from your POV until he decided to join you and consecrate bishops for you. If he was graceless, how can you have a hierarchy now?

Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #214 on: April 04, 2013, 07:38:21 AM »

"Hieromartyr" Andrew, Archbishop Of Ufa "Archbishop Andrew said the following to Clement before the chrismation: 'It is not your hand that is being lain upon me, but the hand of that patriarch who consecrated your ancient chrism: when you read the proclamation, and when I recite the heresies and confession of faith before chrismation, then I immediately become your bishop and can commune with you. But since I am your bishop, that means that a priest cannot anoint a bishop.'" [Source= http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/andrew-archbishop-and-hieromartyr-of-ufa.html]

This is nonsensical. If it was really "the hand of that patriarch that consecrated your ancient chrism", then the Old Believers could have made anyone of their own a bishop instead of taking a bishop from the "Nikonian" church. Obviously they saw some latent validity in the bishop's consecration by the state church, so the notion that the state church is graceless doesn't make sense.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #215 on: April 04, 2013, 07:41:50 AM »
Since the Old Believers were without bishops...
Is the Lord Jesus Christ not a Bishop of the Church?

Again, if that were sufficient, then why didn't the Old Believers start consecrating their own bishops from day 1, instead of waiting for bishops from the Nikonian "heretics"?
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #216 on: April 04, 2013, 08:54:04 AM »
It seems to me that grace, at least at one level, has as much to do with humility, charity and faith as it has with "ancient chrisms." Frankly, to me as one raised in the mainstream of Orthodoxy in the west, the back and forth here between the thread's protagonists seems lacking in those virtues and exhudes a latent arrogance coming from a seemingly prideful mindset regarding their self projections and view of "us." Proverbs tells us that "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Forgive me if I am harsh here, but to many of us, this discussion is unsettling in its tone and differs little in style or impact from the didactic style of 'sedevacantist'. It only convinces those already convinced.

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #217 on: April 04, 2013, 09:30:08 AM »
It seems to me that grace, at least at one level, has as much to do with humility, charity and faith as it has with "ancient chrisms."
Concur with this part. 

As to your accusation towards participants of either side "lacking virtues, etc", I do respectfully disagree.

I am confident that at least most of us on both sides are not guilty of what you accuse us.  This conversation is quite important, and I for one greatly appreciate those of my opponents who condescended to make thoughtful and pointed remarks.  Neither have we condescended into personal grudges.  We are discussing something very important which is too seldom discussed.  On that note (even though I respectfully disagree), I want to thank Iconodule, among others, for bringing up good pointed questions.   

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,117
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #218 on: April 04, 2013, 09:54:09 AM »
No bishop followed the Old Believers
Bishop Paul of Kolomna

Thanks.  Of course, Bishop Paul was deposed by the Russian Church for supporting the Old Believers, but you are right that he was a Russian bishop who supported them.  Outside of Russia, did any other bishop support the Old Believers?  It doesn't seem that such support was even sought.

No bishop followed the Old Believers into their schism
The Old Orthodox Christians were not the ones who went into schism.

This is the same ill-logic used by the Greek Old Calendarists.  For both Old Believers and Old Calendarists, the Synod of a local church introduced changes which have been considered by many to have been unfortunate in hindsight.  These changes created a temptation among the faithful.  However, if some decide to cut themselves off, not only from the local church which introduced the temptation, but from the entire One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; and their reason is not one of dogmatic heresy; then they are the schismatics.  In fact, they are not only schismatics but could be considered heretics as well for elevating certain externals in the life of the Church to the place of dogma.  The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of Greece did not create any schisms, rather part of their local church chose to leave of their own free will.   

Since the Old Believers were without bishops...
Is the Lord Jesus Christ not a Bishop of the Church?

No, the Lord is not a bishop.  St. Ignatius of Antioch and many Fathers spoke of how the human, consecrated bishop with Apostolic Succession and true Orthodox faith is the center of the Church.  It is through the bishop that the grace received by the Apostles on Pentecost is transmitted to us to bring us to salvation through the mysteries of the Church.  The Old Believers for two hundred years had no bishops, no clergy, no mysteries, no communion with any other local Church, and no grace from the Holy Spirit.  From where did the priestly Old Believer today claim to receive this Apostolic grace?  From an old bottle of chrism?!  Yet, this chrism belonged to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  Schismatics can’t anoint themselves with the Church’s chrism and start pretending to be bishops with Apostolic succession.

For a heretical bishop to be received as a bishop by a local church, that local church must have a synod of bishops to receive that bishop into their Synod. Only a synod of bishops has the authority to accept a heretical bishop into the Church and permit that bishop to retain his orders.  Clergy and laity cannot receive a bishop from heresy into the Church.

Upon what authority is this statement based - other than your own opinion?  Although I am no master of Canon law, from what I do understand I am rather inclined to reject this statement as false, and the life of Saint Maximos the Confessor reinforces my conviction.

Well, you can start with the first canon of the Holy Apostles:
Quote
A Bishop must be ordained by two or three other Bishops.

A heretical bishop cannot simply travel somewhere and declare that he is now Orthodox and a bishop of a certain area.  He must request to be received by a local synod.  Just as a bishop cannot by himself consecrate a bishop without two or three other bishops, a heretical bishop (who is not a bishop at all), cannot be received by one bishop without two or three others.

Here are a few applicable canons, though not exhaustive
Quote
Canon 16 of the Council of Antioch
If any Bishop without a see impose himself upon a church without a Bishop and seize the throne thereof without the approval of a complete Synod, he shall be cast out, even though all the laity whom he has seized should choose to keep him. A complete Synod is one at which the Metropolitan too is present.

Canon 19 of Antioch
No Bishop shall be ordained without a Synod and the presence of the Metropolitan of the province. He must be present in any case, and it were better that all the fellow ministers in the province should attend the Synod too; accordingly, the bishop in the metropolis should be summoned to it by letter. And it were better that all of them should respond, but if this be found difficult, at least a majority of them ought in any case to be present or to join in the voting by means of letters, and thus let the prebend be granted by a majority of votes of those present or joining by letter. If any ordination has been obtained otherwise than has been defined and prescribed, let it be of no effect. But if a prebend has been granted in accordance with the Canon provided, and some persons should object to it on account of their having a quarrel of their own, let the majority vote prevail.

Canon 23 of Antioch
No Bishop shall be permitted to appoint another as his successor in office, even though he be approaching the end of his life. But if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void and of no effect. The ecclesiastical law shall be kept which declares that only with a synod and the decision of bishops, and not otherwise, may a worthy one be promoted to take over the authority held by the one who has been laid to rest in sleep.

Canon 109 of Antioch
It has pleased the Council also to decree that rule whereby the populaces who never had had Bishops of their own are nowise to be allowed any, except by special permission to be derived from the whole Synod, or Council, of each province and from the primate, and with the consent of him under whose administration the said church was established.


Canon 23 of Antioch, quoted above, says that a bishop cannot appoint his successor without the agreement of the synod of bishops, yet the Old Believers teach that a heretic can ordain himself bishop using an old bottle of chrism if doing so agrees with at least a few laypeople?  To further the understanding of this insanity, the bishops received by these priestless lay Old Believers were heretics who have been separated from the Church for 200 years.  As such, these heretical (according to them) “bishops” had neither a true baptism, nor a true ordination to the diaconate, nor a true ordination to the priesthood, nor a true episcopal consecration.  Yet, by anointing himself with chrism, such a man receives a “fast pass” through all of the sacraments (baptism, ordination to diaconate, and ordination to the priesthood) and is suddenly a bishop without the blessing or consent of any earthly bishop?!  How else can this be considered but utter foolishness.

If this were indeed true exactly as you state it, then it would alsp invalidate the origins of any synod originating in the Greek Old Calendarist Church.  Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina and the two bishops that he repented with were not received by any bishops of whom I am aware when they were received by Greek Orthodox Christians who had remained faithful to the Patristic Church Calendar that held sway in Greece prior to 1924.

Exactly.  This is why, when Met Chrysostom of Florina went to Jerusalem in 1936, expecting the Patriarch of Jerusalem to sympathize and support the Old Calendarist schismatics, he was instead received by the Patriarch as a simple monk.  The Patriarch did not recognize him as a bishop since the Church of Greece deposed Met Chrysostom for going into schism.  The Patriarch further educated Met Chrysostom about the canons of the Church, explaining that the Church of Greece is a local church, and a local church cannot be declared schismatic by a few bishops from that local church.  Only a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council, made up of several local churches, can decide the fate of a single local church.  This is why Met Chrysostom returned to Greece declaring this teaching that the Church of Greece was only potentially but not actually schismatic, as its fate depended on the decision of a Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Synod.  It should be pointed out, though, that all of the bishops who left the Church of Greece to join the Old Calendarists (Met Chrysostom of Florina, Met Germanus of Demetrias, etc.) eventually repented and sought to be reconciled with the Church of Greece.  Of course, Bp Matthew, who was consecrated in schism and therefore did not receive the grace of consecration (Canon 1 of St. Basil), broke off from the Old Calendarist bishops once Met Chrysostom began to declare that, according to the canons, they had no authority to declare the Church of Greece to be schismatic.

Saint Maximos—as recorded in the January volume of the Great Synaxaristes:

The story of St. Maximos is not relevant to the Old Believers.  St. Maximos, when he saw that heresy was being preached throughout the world, went to Rome where a Council of 105 bishops condemned the Monothelite heresy.  St. Maximus did say that “were the world to enter into communion with the patriarch, I should never commune with him.”  However,

1)   the whole world did not enter into communion with the heretical patriarch
2)   the whole world, according to St. Maximus, was not deprived of Orthodox bishops even for a moment
3)   the patriarch taught a dogmatic heresy concerning the person of Christ and was not simply changing a liturgical tradition or other external matter
4)   when St. Maximus saw that heresy was preached in one local church, he searched the world for an Orthodox synod of bishops and submitted to their authority rather than declaring his local church to be heretical and cut off from the body of Christ

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, They would be also cutting themselves off from communion with ... St. Nektarios of Aegina, St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Cosmas the Aitolean, and countless other saints that have shown forth in the post-Nikonian and Greek lands.
Lenexa has written elsewhere in this forum that the Bela Krinitsa Fathers have a sincere reverence for the Kollyvades. 
I have posted a link in this thread describing a dialogue between Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Novozybkov hierarchy) and the Greek Old Calendaist Matthewites.

Yes, I am familiar with Met Kyrikos’ Synod and their meeting with Pat Alexander.  However, do you not find it problematic for Old Believers to revere saints, and enter into dialogue with bishops, who cross themselves in a manner that they deem “anathema”.  If the three finger sign of the cross is not anathema, then doesn’t this call into question the entire history of the Old Believers?

For the Eastern Orthodox considering joining the Old Believers, such a decision requires them to turn their backs on many of the Russian saints who considered the Old Believers to be in fact schismatics and outside of the Church, including ... the Elders of Optina, St. Paisius (Velichkovsky), and countless other post-Nikonian saints of the Slavic world.
Where do the Optina Elders condemn the Old Believers as schismatics?  I have the lives of the Optina Elders and value them, and 
I perceive most or all of the Optina Elders to have had better discernment than to speak in that way.

I would sincerely like to know of any statement by Venerable Paisius Velichkovsky asserting that the Old Believers are schismatics. 
I understand that the hesychast revival among Nikonians was enabled by the Russian Old Orthodox Christians who had preserved the genuine Christian Church whose spirituality, knowledge, and culture upon which that revival was based and utilized as an holy example to imitate. 

I don’t have all of the quotes compiled, and there is so much that hasn’t yet been translated.  If I have some time, I will try to send some quotes, but I encourage you to also look into the matter, since it concerns your own salvation.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #219 on: April 04, 2013, 09:56:11 AM »

Lenexa has written elsewhere in this forum that the Bela Krinitsa Fathers have a sincere reverence for the Kollyvades.  
I have posted a link in this thread describing a dialogue between Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Novozybkov hierarchy) and the Greek Old Calendaist Matthewites.  


I have been told with 100% authority that schismatics are not part of the church, period; and they do not have grace.

Metropolitan Ambrose was a "schismatic" from your POV until he decided to join you and consecrate bishops for you. If he was graceless, how can you have a hierarchy now?



Snipped Quote from a correspondence with my friend, a Deacon in (and from) Russia, "He [Metropolitan Ambrosii] was a bishop on greek new ritualists. And he was accepted according to the order of accepting heretics and after accepting he became orthodox bishop. before his acception he has had only a form of ordination like as empty jug without water, in other words - he has had only form of bishopric without grace. But after chrismation he received Holy Spirit and his empty bishopric form was was filled up by grace."

Some words from our, Christ!

Luke 16:10"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."
Luke 16:8 "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 10:04:52 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #220 on: April 04, 2013, 10:10:43 AM »
It seems to me that grace, at least at one level, has as much to do with humility, charity and faith as it has with "ancient chrisms."
Concur with this part. 

As to your accusation towards participants of either side "lacking virtues, etc", I do respectfully disagree.

I am confident that at least most of us on both sides are not guilty of what you accuse us.  This conversation is quite important, and I for one greatly appreciate those of my opponents who condescended to make thoughtful and pointed remarks.  Neither have we condescended into personal grudges.  We are discussing something very important which is too seldom discussed.  On that note (even though I respectfully disagree), I want to thank Iconodule, among others, for bringing up good pointed questions.   

I apologize for my pointed words. I do not view the discussions here as devolving in any way to the recitation of any personal grudges.  I do have a general problem dealing with polemics as I find that they only tend to reinforce the previously held opinions or beliefs of the polemicists rather than aid in changing the mind of those who disagree. To me they are generally not persuasive in religion or politics. (I must confess that they tend to energize me when I am among those with whom I agree but they don't really allow me to learn or open my mind to the challenge of understanding those with whom I disagree.) I tend to relate more to apologetics in terms of the exchange of ideas.


Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #221 on: April 04, 2013, 10:22:15 AM »
Since the Old Believers were without bishops...
Is the Lord Jesus Christ not a Bishop of the Church?

No, the Lord is not a bishop.

I have no time and have to run into town on business for now, but thanks for clarifying your personal belief on that matter.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #222 on: April 04, 2013, 10:59:38 AM »
No English translation of the "Stoglav"; and yes 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.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #223 on: April 04, 2013, 11:00:35 AM »

Lenexa has written elsewhere in this forum that the Bela Krinitsa Fathers have a sincere reverence for the Kollyvades.  
I have posted a link in this thread describing a dialogue between Patriarch Alexander of Moscow (Old Rite Novozybkov hierarchy) and the Greek Old Calendaist Matthewites.  


I have been told with 100% authority that schismatics are not part of the church, period; and they do not have grace.

Metropolitan Ambrose was a "schismatic" from your POV until he decided to join you and consecrate bishops for you. If he was graceless, how can you have a hierarchy now?



Snipped Quote from a correspondence with my friend, a Deacon in (and from) Russia, "He [Metropolitan Ambrosii] was a bishop on greek new ritualists. And he was accepted according to the order of accepting heretics and after accepting he became orthodox bishop. before his acception he has had only a form of ordination like as empty jug without water, in other words - he has had only form of bishopric without grace. But after chrismation he received Holy Spirit and his empty bishopric form was was filled up by grace."

But if he had "only form of bishopric" then he was not really a bishop, 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. So the problem remains- why didn't the Old Believers simply consecrate their own bishops without waiting 150 years  for a "new ritualist" bishop to join them? 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.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Dionysii

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 642
Re: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy (Russian & Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite)
« Reply #224 on: April 04, 2013, 11:20:39 AM »
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 Church in 1971 rescinded the anathema against the two finger cross of 1666/7.

вєликаго, however, was talking about the Stoglav Synod which anathematized the three finger cross, and the Stoglav was not rescinded by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 - to my knowledge.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 11:24:34 AM by Dionysii »