OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 12:54:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sign of the Cross according to the Old Rite  (Read 14460 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« on: April 30, 2010, 07:03:55 PM »

There is much available online about how one makes the sign of the Cross according to the Old Rite, but very little about when. In current practice, when to make the Sign of the Cross is generally a matter of personal preference. In the Old Rite, however, the Sign of the Cross, like bows and prostrations, is only made when called for in the rubrics of the service. Old Believers therefore tend to make the Sign of the Cross less often than we do - it is not done at every invocation of the Holy Trinity, for example, contrary to modern practice.

John Alden very kindly gave me a link to the Ustav (Typikon) in Slavonic and said the appropriate times for crossing oneself is indicated there. Unfortunately I am not able to read Slavonic, so I was wondering if anyone had access to anything in English or simply knew from personal experience/observation.

Thanks
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 07:09:51 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
DeathToTheWorld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 154



« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2010, 07:10:53 PM »

No, but have you ever purchased and used an Old Believer PrayerBook?

They are fantastic. Much better than the Jordanville Prayer Book.

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers  make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.



« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 07:16:41 PM by DeathToTheWorld » Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

St Gregory of Sinai
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2010, 07:21:22 PM »

No, but have you ever purchased and used an Old Believer PrayerBook?

I have, it's a wonderful publication. It indicates when to do the Sign of the Cross at certain points during the morning and evening rules, but not for the Divine Services (Vespers, Compline, Midnight, Matins, the Hours, Liturgy). I also got hold of a .pdf with the Church of the Nativity, Erie's full text of the Divine Liturgy, but there is no mention of when the congregants should cross themselves.

Quote
But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers  make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.

Indeed, but that all pertains to how one makes the Sign of the Cross. I'm specifically looking for information on when it is to be done during the Divine Services according to Old Rite practice.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2010, 10:38:19 AM »

The Psalter by Patriarch Joseph (1646) contained instructions of when to perform "bows" (which would include the sign of the cross since I don't think that Old Believers bow without doing so, nor do I believe that they make the sign of the cross without bowing).  Excerpts for this work or contained in the original edition of the Old Orthodox Prayer Book.  The new edition does not have this information.  If you cannot find the old edition of the Prayer Book, I may be able to scan the section from mine.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2010, 11:52:19 AM »

Thank you for your reply. The 2nd edition of the Prayer Book does have excerpts from the Psalter concerning bows, although I'm not sure they are as extensive as the 1st edition. There are certain points during the morning and evening rules when the sign of the Cross is prescribed without a bow (e.g. before 'O Heavenly King' and the Creed). Is that applicable only to the domestic rule?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 11:53:43 AM by Orthodox11 » Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2010, 12:03:22 PM »

No, but have you ever purchased and used an Old Believer PrayerBook?

They are fantastic. Much better than the Jordanville Prayer Book.

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers  make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.


Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

The reforms changed it to the right way to conform with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches...

There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 12:04:22 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2010, 12:51:03 PM »

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

Which Fathers? 

Quote
There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

How do you make the basis for that? The Church disagrees with you since the Old Rite is accepted. I know their are some Old Rite churches in Russia that are under the Moscow Patriarchate. Here in America, we have the Church of the Nativity in Erie under the ROCOR.
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2010, 01:16:39 PM »

The main importance is that orthodox adhere to the deposit of Faith.  Don't get caught up on externals.  Even the EP told pat. Nikhon Russian practise wasn't violating that ..too bad the letter arrived after pat. Nikhon started his transformation of the liturgicon.  Point being that it makes no sense to argue about such things like how many fingers to use to sign your self.  What us important is to take that fighting energy and carry out the commandments Christ set forth in Matthew chapter 25
Logged

88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2010, 01:35:53 PM »

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

Which Fathers?  

Quote
There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

How do you make the basis for that? The Church disagrees with you since the Old Rite is accepted. I know their are some Old Rite churches in Russia that are under the Moscow Patriarchate. Here in America, we have the Church of the Nativity in Erie under the ROCOR.

I didn't say anything about the Old Rite, I was talking about the Old Believers, that is, those who are still separated from the Orthodox Church... There isn't anything really wrong with those who are a part of the Orthodox Church that practice the Old Rite... There is everything wrong with those who are schismatics and heretics and separate themselves from the Church...

Also, I'm not sure which Fathers, but Early Christian writings such as:
Quote
This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers. You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded. - Saint Theodoret, ca. 5th Century

Then Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century...
Quote
The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 01:38:11 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2010, 01:44:57 PM »

Thank you for your reply. The 2nd edition of the Prayer Book does have excerpts from the Psalter concerning bows, although I'm not sure they are as extensive as the 1st edition. There are certain points during the morning and evening rules when the sign of the Cross is prescribed without a bow (e.g. before 'O Heavenly King' and the Creed). Is that applicable only to the domestic rule?

Page 347 in the new Prayer Book.  I believe that this section is applicable during the Liturgy and not just for the the cell rule.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2010, 01:57:53 PM »

Actually, the Old Believers make the sign of the cross the incorrect way... If you read the Fathers or other early Christian writings (especially from the "Golden Age of the Church") it is clear that most Christians made the sign of the cross the way the Orthodox do today. I remember reading that even back then, the west made the sign of the cross the opposite way even before the schism.

Which Fathers?  

Quote
There is nothing right about the Old Believers, I feel sorry for Orthodox Christians who are deceived by them...

How do you make the basis for that? The Church disagrees with you since the Old Rite is accepted. I know their are some Old Rite churches in Russia that are under the Moscow Patriarchate. Here in America, we have the Church of the Nativity in Erie under the ROCOR.

I didn't say anything about the Old Rite, I was talking about the Old Believers, that is, those who are still separated from the Orthodox Church... There isn't anything really wrong with those who are a part of the Orthodox Church that practice the Old Rite... There is everything wrong with those who are schismatics and heretics and separate themselves from the Church...

Also, I'm not sure which Fathers, but Early Christian writings such as:
Quote
This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers. You should hold the other two fingers slightly bent, not completely straight. This is because these represent the dual nature of Christ, divine and human. God in His divinity, and human in His incarnation, yet perfect in both. The upper finger represents divinity, and the lower humanity; this way salvation goes from the higher finger to the lower. So is the bending of the fingers interpreted, for the worship of Heaven comes down for our salvation. This is how you must cross yourselves and give a blessing, as the holy fathers have commanded. - Saint Theodoret, ca. 5th Century

Then Pope Innocent III in the 13th Century...
Quote
The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..

Actually, it is you that is incorrect.  If you read the writing of St. Theodoret, he says to hold three fingers equally.  He does not specify which ones.  The Old Russian sign of the cross holds three equally.  He also says that the remaining two should be SLIGHTLY bent.  This is how the Old Russian sign is made, with the index and middle fingers slightly bent.  The modern practice is to hold the remaining two FULLY bent.  I am not saying that either practice is wrong because I really don't think that God gives a rodent's posterior over trivial matters such as this.  I am saying that your "proof" fro the modern method is actually the proof for the ancient Old Rite method.  So much so that St. Theodoret is used as the basis for the Old Rite way in the Old Orthodox Prayer Book.

As to Innocent III, why would any Orthodox Christian care what he had to say?  He was not Orthodox.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,892



« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2010, 03:01:49 PM »

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2010, 04:08:56 PM »

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.
Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 04:10:46 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,892



« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2010, 05:14:00 PM »

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.
Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

People are interested in them because they embody certain ideals of Orthodoxy: rigid conservatism, an ideal of a literally unchanging faith of which ritual is not exempt, et cetera. If you studied the circumstances surrounding the Nikonian reforms you wouldn't take such a ridiculous stance, and anyone would have to concede that many innovations came later which altered the entire feel and savor of Russian Orthodoxy. Later on, the simple chants became complex polyphonic choral arrangements, the traditionally Byzantine iconography was replaced with western European Renaissance paintings, and Russian theology was infiltrated by all sorts of Latin devotions and heterodox theological formulae.

Blind obedience to bishops is not always the Orthodox Way. Reforms are not intrinsically bad, but the manner and spirit of reforms makes all of the difference.

Do you consider the "Miaphysites" to be Orthodox, but not the Old Believers? Because the Old Believers surely have a lot more in common with us than the "Orientals" do, so I wouldn't paint with such broad strokes.

Not any different than the non-Orthodox groups? I will strongly disagree.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 05:29:42 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2010, 05:31:05 PM »

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.
Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Old Believers interest me simply because they have kept liturgical practices and customs that reflect a more ancient usage than what is used in the Orthodox Church today. Their communities are like time capsules that allow us to look into the past and actually see these things in action rather than simply read about them in books and rely on artificial reconstructions.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2010, 05:41:37 PM »

Whne you form your hand into this position, which part of the hand do you touch your forehead with? The part where the three fingers come together? That seem awkward. Just in index finger? Also seems awkward.

I have seen it done with just the two fingers, or with all at once.  I tend toward the latter.  It is whatever you are used to.  I find no problem with it.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2010, 05:42:35 PM »

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.
Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Also, when I refer to the Old Believers, I'm referring to those who remained in schism, not those who were reunited to the MP.

Well, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.  Look at the history.  I suppose real Orthodox people burn people at the stake and put them in cold water until they die.  If someone did to my family what the "Orthodox Church" did to the Old Believers, I would never have anything to do with "Orthodoxy" again.  As to heresy, I have found nothing at all heretical regarding their teachings.  I find them far preferable to the modernist drivel that I have seen coming out of some of the current seminaries.  I have really had to compromise a lot of my beliefs to become part of "mainstream" Orthodoxy.  Often I wonder if that is right to do.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 05:50:43 PM by Punch » Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2010, 05:55:22 PM »

I really do not see what people find attractive about the Old Believers, everything screams cult and pharisee... Honestly I'm sick about hearing about them. Many of the Old Believers aren't even Orthodox and so I don't see why there is any interest in them. They are not right and never have been right, they committed heresy and have been schismatics ever since they split from the Church. They aren't any different from any other non-Orthodox groups out there.
Again, I do not really see why anyone has an interest in these people, I've only found them to be very pharisaic and self-righteous...

Old Believers interest me simply because they have kept liturgical practices and customs that reflect a more ancient usage than what is used in the Orthodox Church today. Their communities are like time capsules that allow us to look into the past and actually see these things in action rather than simply read about them in books and rely on artificial reconstructions.

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

I would say though that the three fingers is the older practice. From what I've read on the history of things, the Eastern Churches have crossed themselves in this way for a long time, so the Old Believers weren't holding onto anything that was "more Orthodox" than the Orthodox. Granted, many of the reforms were unnecessary, and sure, some were outright stupid and may have "westernized" it... However the reforms also brought the Russian Church closer in rites and worship to the other EO Churches. I read that the goal of the reforms was to bring the Russian Church closer to the Greek and Antiochian Churches, and was not actually an attempt to "westernize" or Latinize the Russian Church.

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2010, 11:55:47 PM »

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.
Logged
DeathToTheWorld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 154



« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2010, 12:25:13 AM »

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.



This guy is an Old Believer,here is the information that he has gathered about the siege of the monastery:

http://mymartyrdom.com/solov.htm


You could say that the guy who runs the website is a little 'out there'
(Maybe there is a good reason for him to be so?)

But here is a Old believer manuscript of the events:

http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/Russia/Texts/SolovVostFacs.htm

I think he's right on some matters, but he goes too far in others.

That website is not people with faint hearts and slack hands.

He seems very pessimistic.

I used to visit the site alot, but just as with all other conspiracy websites (I used to be obsessed with conspiracy theories), it is just a huge waste of my time and my thinking power.
It just draws you in, like a fish who has caught a hook.
I spoke with Met Jonah a few months ago about those kinds of websites and he said that it was like pornography that people are advertizing. I understand now what he meant.

I don't altogether condemn reading the things on that sight, just be warned.

It has truth, as well as exaggerations.



« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 12:34:22 AM by DeathToTheWorld » Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

St Gregory of Sinai
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2010, 03:29:20 PM »

It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.



This guy is an Old Believer,here is the information that he has gathered about the siege of the monastery:

http://mymartyrdom.com/solov.htm


You could say that the guy who runs the website is a little 'out there'
(Maybe there is a good reason for him to be so?)

But here is a Old believer manuscript of the events:

http://kodeks.uni-bamberg.de/Russia/Texts/SolovVostFacs.htm

I think he's right on some matters, but he goes too far in others.

That website is not people with faint hearts and slack hands.

He seems very pessimistic.

I used to visit the site alot, but just as with all other conspiracy websites (I used to be obsessed with conspiracy theories), it is just a huge waste of my time and my thinking power.
It just draws you in, like a fish who has caught a hook.
I spoke with Met Jonah a few months ago about those kinds of websites and he said that it was like pornography that people are advertizing. I understand now what he meant.

I don't altogether condemn reading the things on that sight, just be warned.

It has truth, as well as exaggerations.

The guy that runs that website occasionally comes on here and expresses his views...
It is interesting, but their ritual is dead, without being in the Church, it really doesn't mean anything. It is cool to see how things use to be, but it's simply sad to see that these people worship their rites and rituals more than God himself... Their churches seem to simply be a "Christian" reconstruction of the pharisaic way...

Again, the Old Believers just brought condemnation onto themselves when they refused to be a part of the church...

How do know their rituals are dead? Many are very faithful to God and they saw the reforms as not only against Orthodox but against Christ as well. Its easy to see why they would break away from the Church when the Church is ordering them to be burned at the steak for not accepting reforms. That is why many of them are not in communion; it is a lack of trust. The scars are deep. I don't see the reason in judging them the way you are by saying they have no real faith. As I've said though, not all Old Believers are out of the Church. Those who have joined the MP or ROCOR still practice the old faith with the older liturgy and doing the two fingers sign of the Cross. I cannot blame them for breaking communion with the Church really because of the ways the reforms were implemented.

I don't think you really understand, those that stayed in schism are not in the church... Therefore their "eucharist" is not valid, so they aren't truly receiving the body and blood of Christ... As well as the fact that they do not have the Holy Spirit working within their souls (though he can definitely work with them, though outside of their souls)...

Just because a group looks "alright" and may practice honestly and genuinely, doesn't make them right or okay. They are completely outside of the Orthodox tradition... Nothing about that is okay or alright.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 03:34:15 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,875



« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2010, 04:29:58 PM »

No, but have you ever purchased and used an Old Believer PrayerBook?

They are fantastic. Much better than the Jordanville Prayer Book.

But I read online that Pope Innocent III changed the whole practice of the sign of the cross.

I also read that when they changed the Old Rite in Russia, many Monks and Laity of the Old Believers were martyred because they did not want to change to the new rite. This was is 1666-1667 when they changed to the new-rite. The Year of the antichrist?

But the Old Believers  make the sign of the cross in the original way it was made to be done. The Pantocrator Icon from Sinai in the 6th Century confirms this, as do other icons.




I don't know why this is perpetuated.

He is not making the Sign of the Cross


nor the Old Ritualist sign of the Cross

but blessing in His name IC XC
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 04:31:10 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,892



« Reply #22 on: May 02, 2010, 04:43:26 PM »

but blessing in His name IC XC

Then why aren't His fingers making the "X" at the bottom? Looks like an Old Ritualist Sign of the Cross to me.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 04:43:59 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 02, 2010, 04:45:18 PM »

Then why aren't His fingers making the "X" at the bottom? Looks like an Old Ritualist Sign of the Cross to me.

I would say they do. No so expressly as on the drawing, but still.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2010, 05:01:49 PM »

As well as the fact that they do not have the Holy Spirit working within their souls . . .

Wow!  I doubt that you know who or not the Holy Spirit chooses to work within.  That is a level of arrogance that far surpasses anything the Old Believers could have done.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2010, 05:04:27 PM »

but blessing in His name IC XC

Then why aren't His fingers making the "X" at the bottom? Looks like an Old Ritualist Sign of the Cross to me.

Same here.  One would thing that the iconographer would know the difference.  Jesus is either making a very sloppy ICXC,  or an Old Believers sign of the cross.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,892



« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2010, 05:28:16 PM »

Same here.  One would thing that the iconographer would know the difference.  Jesus is either making a very sloppy ICXC,  or an Old Believers sign of the cross.

Or the blessing gesture and the Sign of the Cross used to be the same thing, or the gesture was modified and perfected over time (BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS OMG!?!?!?!?), or any other variety of options.

Some patristics evidence that the Sign started as being simply traced over the forehead by the thumb in a "plus" shape, much like how unction is still applied. I think it's safe to say that rituals change, and sometimes that's just fine.
Logged
DeathToTheWorld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 154



« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2010, 05:34:27 PM »

The point of that Icon is to show the Original way the the sign of the cross was made.

It is, in fact, the sign of the cross. Anyone with eyes could see that.

He's not making the I C X C sign, that sign had not been created until later.

This is a 6th century AD Icon from Sinai.

It shows us how the Christians originally made the sign of the cross. And they blessed people in that way also.

Jesus is blessing us in that Icon. The two fingers represent the human and the Divine natures of Jesus Christ.

To me, the Old way of making the cross makes more sense. Because it very obviously reveals the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

Which the anti-christ will try to pervert at the end of times.

People have started to question the Divinity of Jesus. They say, ''No, Christ was only a great Philosopher, he was not God.''

Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

That is how the Fathers interpret that verse.

The temptation that will 'come upon all the world', is the question of Christ's Divinity.

Its very interesting to listen to these homilies on Revelation by this very wise man:

The words that come from this man's mouth are golden.

http://www.philokalia.org/apocalypse.htm
Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

St Gregory of Sinai
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2010, 07:56:53 PM »

As well as the fact that they do not have the Holy Spirit working within their souls . . .

Wow!  I doubt that you know who or not the Holy Spirit chooses to work within.  That is a level of arrogance that far surpasses anything the Old Believers could have done.

Actually no, that is what chrismation does, you are given the gift & seal of the Holy Spirit. Unless you have been chrismated in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit does not actually dwell within you. Instead, he still may be present, but it working outside of your soul.


The point of that Icon is to show the Original way the the sign of the cross was made.

It is, in fact, the sign of the cross. Anyone with eyes could see that.

He's not making the I C X C sign, that sign had not been created until later.

This is a 6th century AD Icon from Sinai.

It shows us how the Christians originally made the sign of the cross. And they blessed people in that way also.

Jesus is blessing us in that Icon. The two fingers represent the human and the Divine natures of Jesus Christ.

To me, the Old way of making the cross makes more sense. Because it very obviously reveals the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

Which the anti-christ will try to pervert at the end of times.

People have started to question the Divinity of Jesus. They say, ''No, Christ was only a great Philosopher, he was not God.''

Revelation 3:10
Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

That is how the Fathers interpret that verse.

The temptation that will 'come upon all the world', is the question of Christ's Divinity.

Its very interesting to listen to these homilies on Revelation by this very wise man:

The words that come from this man's mouth are golden.

http://www.philokalia.org/apocalypse.htm


So should we just all repent of our devilish ways and return to the old way? Also, it doesn't really matter what the old way used to be, it still would not make the Pomorsky more right than the EO Church... As mentioned earlier, if we wanted to make it the way the earliest Christians did, we would be tracing it on our foreheads.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,480



« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2010, 09:39:20 PM »



Actually no, that is what chrismation does, you are given the gift & seal of the Holy Spirit. Unless you have been chrismated in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit does not actually dwell within you. Instead, he still may be present, but it working outside of your soul.



So should we just all repent of our devilish ways and return to the old way? Also, it doesn't really matter what the old way used to be, it still would not make the Pomorsky more right than the EO Church... As mentioned earlier, if we wanted to make it the way the earliest Christians did, we would be tracing it on our foreheads.

I wish that I could believe the first paragraph.  Given that so many who are Chrismated have fallen so far into ecumenism and modernism, I find it easy to believe that the Holy Spirit works more in some of the heterodox and heathen than he does those that have been Chrismated.  They are at least seeking the Truth and not rejecting it.

As to the second, I don't really think it makes any difference how you do it.  Just don't burn someone else at the stake for doing it differently.  I prefer the old way.  I really don't care how anyone else does it since their practice has no bearing on my salvation.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2010, 10:48:43 PM »

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 10:52:38 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 904


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2010, 10:57:09 PM »

As well as the fact that they do not have the Holy Spirit working within their souls . . .

Wow!  I doubt that you know who or not the Holy Spirit chooses to work within.  That is a level of arrogance that far surpasses anything the Old Believers could have done.
Thanks for that Punch! I appreciate it I may not be chrismated yet but I accept the church and would like to think that the Holy Spirit was within me guiding me to His Holy Church.
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
DeathToTheWorld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 154



« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2010, 11:05:03 PM »

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.


Its the JEWS!

Here, you see what I mean.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/

I did not know we had priests who are super heroes fighting the Jews. laugh

Its Super Orthodox Priest Anti-Jew Hunter Man!
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 11:25:33 PM by DeathToTheWorld » Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

St Gregory of Sinai
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,875



« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2010, 11:08:26 PM »

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.


Its the JEWS!

Here, you see what I mean.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/
No, can't hang that on the Jews: the Orthodox did that all by themselves.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
DeathToTheWorld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 154



« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2010, 11:18:02 PM »

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.


Its the JEWS!

Here, you see what I mean.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/
No, can't hang that on the Jews: the Orthodox did that all by themselves.

The Devil will do anything to modernize the church. He accomplished this back in 1666, but the church is not destroyed, it shall never be destroyed.

Those men whom the devil was able to kill are Eternally glorified by God.

Christ said to Peter that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Logged

100. Like a bee one should extract from each of the virtues what is most profitable. In this way, by taking a small amount from all of them, one builds up from the practice of the virtues a great honeycomb overflowing with the soul-delighting honey of wisdom.

St Gregory of Sinai
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2010, 11:35:36 PM »

He works differently in them, as I said, in the heterodox, he is working outside of their souls, whereas with the Orthodox, he is able to work within the soul...

Again, you are assuming I disagree with the Old Rite, which I don't disagree with... I disagree with the Pomorsky and believe they are schismatics and borderline (if not outright) heretics. Their faith is pretty much Phariseeism and is in no way Orthodox.

Just because a few in the church make some mistakes (such as killing someone for their faith) doesn't mean you have the right to put that on the whole church. My Priest once quoted his spiritual father who said something like... "You must never denegrate the Church. Men may make her to look like a prostitute (substituted for another word), but remember that she is the bride of Christ."

Again, just because some men "in the Church" burned the Old Believers at the stake doesn't mean you can pin that on the rest of us in the Church. That is their sin alone and does not fall with the rest of us.

Also, from the reading I've done, it was mostly the Russian Empire that persecuted the Old Believers and not entirely the Church.


Its the JEWS!

Here, you see what I mean.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/
No, can't hang that on the Jews: the Orthodox did that all by themselves.

The Devil will do anything to modernize the church. He accomplished this back in 1666, but the church is not destroyed, it shall never be destroyed.

Those men whom the devil was able to kill are Eternally glorified by God.

Christ said to Peter that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.


Yet many of the reforms from 1666 are still with us today, are those parts of the reforms still bad? Also, What exactly is your perspective of the reforms? Because the Old Believers (Specifically the Pomorsky) seem to believe it was a "Great Apostasy" and that they alone retained the truth and that they are the only remaining true Orthodox, and that they alone worship the true way.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the Old Rite, especially since it was approved by the MP. However, as I've said many times before, my beef is NOT with the Old Believers or the Old Rite, but rather the Old Believers outside of the Church, such as those known as the Pomorsky.

Additionally, an Orthodox Church can "reform", but it's up to all the members of that Church to approve of the reforms, and I'd be willing to say that if other Orthodox Churches differ and disagree about the reform, then it's not and official Church decision. So become schismatics over "reforms" was stupid and pointless, especially considering that in entering schism, they cut themselves off from not just the Moscow Patriarchate & the Russian Church, but also the Antiochian Churches, the Greek Orthodox Churches, the Alexandrian Church, the Jerusalem Church, and all other Orthodox Churches out there.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 11:38:06 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #36 on: May 03, 2010, 02:59:13 PM »

What I do agree with Devin on is that many traditionalists (not just the Old Believers), in an attempt to avoid modernisation or other changes (many of which are fairly trivial) are willing to accept an ecclesiology that is anything but Orthodox.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2010, 03:07:00 PM »

What I do agree with Devin on is that many traditionalists (not just the Old Believers), in an attempt to avoid modernisation or other changes (many of which are fairly trivial) are willing to accept an ecclesiology that is anything but Orthodox.

What type of ecclesiology would that be? For example, are you thinking of the "light switch" ecclesiology, where someone is Orthodox and then--poof!--in the blink of an eye millions become heretics?
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #38 on: May 03, 2010, 04:31:11 PM »

What type of ecclesiology would that be? For example, are you thinking of the "light switch" ecclesiology, where someone is Orthodox and then--poof!--in the blink of an eye millions become heretics?

In the case of the priestless Old Believers, the rejection of relatively minor liturgical reforms led to them being without a priesthood, without Eucharist, etc. They rejected the three-fingered sign of the Cross and in turn adopted a seemingly Protestant understanding of the Church.

In the case of some old calendarist splinter groups, declaring all outside their group graceless schismatics and heretics, and then receiving ordinations from them to ensure their continuation. Would that not constitute an ecumenism far worse than anyone in 'world orthodoxy' has been guilty of? Self-contradictory stuff like that.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,981


black metal cat


« Reply #39 on: May 03, 2010, 04:32:54 PM »

Quote
In the case of some old calendarist splinter groups, declaring all outside their group graceless schismatics and heretics, and then receiving ordinations from them to ensure their continuation. Would that not constitute an ecumenism far worse than anyone in 'world orthodoxy' has been guilty of? Self-contradictory stuff like that.

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #40 on: May 03, 2010, 04:42:41 PM »

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 03, 2010, 04:49:59 PM »

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers.  I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation.  Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #42 on: May 03, 2010, 04:57:03 PM »

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers.  I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation.  Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did. 

My point was that they accepted clergy from churches they consider heretical and schismatic, an act of ecumenism far more serious than anything commited by the bishops they have walled themselves off from. Kicking a priest out of a parish happens often (lamentably,it is usually because the priest is too orthodox for the congregants), but is not a doctrinal issue, it just means the congregants need a visit from Chuck Norris to sort them out.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,922



« Reply #43 on: May 03, 2010, 05:10:08 PM »

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers.  I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation.  Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did. 

Thats horrible, why wasn't that Church closed or the people temporarily excommunicated? Shame on the Bishop for not acting to punish them...
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 03, 2010, 05:21:28 PM »

It would, but I'm not sure who is guilty of that? I know some received their bishops from ROCOR, but they thought ROCOR was Orthodox at the time, and were even in communion with them for a while.

I can cite the example of a parish a few hours from here, headed by a reader most of the time. They have on occasions received priests from other churches (churches they uncompromisingly lable heretical), until said reader decided they weren't Orthodox enough and sent them on their way. Of course, everyone in this parish is clearly nuts, but they're an example of how people can become so fanatical about one thing that they happily ignore other far more important things.

Such a thing is not relegated to Old Believers.  I know of parishes where priests have come home from errands to find their bags packed and the locks changed on the rectory door because they were not ethnic enough for their congregation.  Even the bishop knew about this before the priest did. 

Thats horrible, why wasn't that Church closed or the people temporarily excommunicated? Shame on the Bishop for not acting to punish them...

I can't answer that, as I do not know.  All I know is that this particular priest was, by all accounts, shamefully treated.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Tags: Old Believers sign of the Cross 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.161 seconds with 72 queries.