Author Topic: questions about the Old Believers  (Read 2944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 517
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
questions about the Old Believers
« on: January 22, 2019, 07:55:36 PM »
I'm trying to understand the beliefs of the Old Believers, and I have a few questions. Perhaps Briven, or maybe even one of my fellow new ritualists can help me.

1. Do Old Believers believe that the only acceptable worship is according to their rite? Meaning, for example, that the historical rites of the Roman Church or Ethopian Church are unacceptable.

2. Do Old Believers pray the liturgy in any languages other than Church Slavonic?

3. Do Old Believers that the world Orthodoxy is without grace?

4. What prevents intercommunion between Old Believers and the mainline Orthodox Church?

I do not wish for this to be a debate thread; I would like to know what Old Believers believe.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2019, 08:49:09 PM »
1.)

Some might. Priestless sects almost always do.
However, I personally and a lot of my fellow Old Believers believe any old and venerable rite is acceptable. We do not consider the reformed rite old and venerable. Also, I'm fairly certain the Ethiopian one would be considered unacceptable due to their beliefs, as well as the Latin Mass due to papism.

If either of these rites were in their pre-schism forms I'm sure they would be accepted.

2.) Yes. There was an English language liturgy in Moscow a few months ago. We don't consider Old Church Slavonic the only acceptable language. There have also been liturgies done in Romanian.

3.) Once again, depends. Priestless believe world Orthodoxy not only is without grace, it is the Antichrist.

My Church believes that apostolic succession travels through Eastern Orthodoxy as through any heretic or schismatic. It'ss a theologumenon whether their sacraments work, or are simply the "empty form", simply rituals without spiritual presence.

4.) Many reasons.

A.) Most solutions have the Old Believers being adopted under the ROC as a whole, which is problematic as that isn't a rejoining of communion, it's glorified Edinoverie, which historically slowly robbed Old Believers of their identity and tried to make them Nikonian.

The other solution has the Nikonians being adopted under the RPSC, which would involve extensive reforms within it and a suddenly much greater role for Metropolitan Cornelius, plus territorial issues with bishops.

B. ) The Ancient Orthodox Church demands the ROC MP completely rescind the reforms and acknowledge the Stoglav Sobor as canonical. The issue is, multiple Nikonian saints have forged documents claiming the Stoglav as heretical, and the Old Rite as a heresy of Armenia (Metropolitan Dmitri of Rostov's slander is the worst one). So if they were to anathematize the reforms, they would have to toss out several saints. Additionally, many Eastern Orthodox appreciate Nikon, which would have to be thrown out entirely.

C.) Development of doctrine in the Synodal church, including the concept of the Startsy cult. Old Believers think this is an innovation in the way it developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

D. )  The Old Believers do not want to enter into communion with a body which tortured and genocided their people for centuries.


Both sides are unwilling to give up what the other side demands.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 517
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2019, 10:41:09 PM »
Thanks for your replies, Briven! I understood most of it, especially the part about competing calendars of saints who anathamized each other being problematic, and the systematic persecution of the Old Believers hurting the possibility of a reunion.

I do have a few follow up questions about a couple things I don't quite understand:

However, I personally and a lot of my fellow Old Believers believe any old and venerable rite is acceptable. We do not consider the reformed rite old and venerable. Also, I'm fairly certain the Ethiopian one would be considered unacceptable due to their beliefs, as well as the Latin Mass due to papism.

If either of these rites were in their pre-schism forms I'm sure they would be accepted.

This brings me to a further question. Given that the Nikonian reforms were an attempt to bring the Russian practice in line with the contemporary Greek practice (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this point), then should the pre-Nikonian Russian Church have severed communion with the Greek Church (and, I suppose, all the other Churches) due to the their liturgy?

The other solution has the Nikonians being adopted under the RPSC, which would involve extensive reforms within it and a suddenly much greater role for Metropolitan Cornelius, plus territorial issues with bishops.

What is the RPSC? I couldn't find anything would make sense in context with a google search.

C.) Development of doctrine in the Synodal church, including the concept of the Startsy cult. Old Believers think this is an innovation in the way it developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

What was problematic about the startsies? I didn't realize there were any doctrines associated with them.

It's funny you should mention them, because I was just reading in The Arena by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, that the age of God-bearing elders to whom total obedience coud be given - like the startsi and the desert fathers - was over.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2019, 10:56:26 PM »
Thanks for your replies, Briven! I understood most of it, especially the part about competing calendars of saints who anathamized each other being problematic, and the systematic persecution of the Old Believers hurting the possibility of a reunion.

I do have a few follow up questions about a couple things I don't quite understand:

However, I personally and a lot of my fellow Old Believers believe any old and venerable rite is acceptable. We do not consider the reformed rite old and venerable. Also, I'm fairly certain the Ethiopian one would be considered unacceptable due to their beliefs, as well as the Latin Mass due to papism.

If either of these rites were in their pre-schism forms I'm sure they would be accepted.

This brings me to a further question. Given that the Nikonian reforms were an attempt to bring the Russian practice in line with the contemporary Greek practice (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this point), then should the pre-Nikonian Russian Church have severed communion with the Greek Church (and, I suppose, all the other Churches) due to the their liturgy?

There was never a formal decree of severed communion, but the Stoglav Council anathematized the three-finger sign of the cross, which meant communion was broken by the late 16th century. Additionally, one can find extensive evidence of the distrust of the Greek church from the 15th-16th-to-17th centuries, while the rite changed in Greece. One source states that in the 16th century, "so ended the era of ancient piety on Athos" as they switched to the new rite.

And remember, this process of new ritualization in Greece was slow, and the reforms only became institutionalized in 1666-1667. So only some Greeks we're anathematized until the Council came.


The other solution has the Nikonians being adopted under the RPSC, which would involve extensive reforms within it and a suddenly much greater role for Metropolitan Cornelius, plus territorial issues with bishops.

What is the RPSC? I couldn't find anything would make sense in context with a google search.

The RPSC is the Russian Orthodox Old Believers Church, which is the Belokrinitskya Hierarchy. It used to be called the Ancient Orthodox Church of Christ, but both of these are legal names. It is led by Metropolitan Cornelius within Russia, and is the priested canonical Church. RPSC.ru is their website.

C.) Development of doctrine in the Synodal church, including the concept of the Startsy cult. Old Believers think this is an innovation in the way it developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

What was problematic about the startsies? I didn't realize there were any doctrines associated with them.

It's funny you should mention them, because I was just reading in The Arena by St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, that the age of God-bearing elders to whom total obedience coud be given - like the startsi and the desert fathers - was over.


Bishop Ignatius, in this case, was right and wrong. He mischaracterized the old elders, but was correct that the 19th century elders were not true ones. This wasn't due to a lack of obedience, but an excess of it leading to strange behavior.

Here's a rather long article about this. I don't endorse this completely as it is published by a Fedoreevtsy sect (Priestless who don't marry and believe Antichrist is here), but it has a lot of useful information and critique. It also addresses the heretical ideas the Startsy cult supports, or at least the troubling doctrines it leads to.

http://www.staropomor.ru/nikon(8)/ezerov.html

 



Answers in italics.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 10:56:48 PM by Briven »
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 517
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2019, 10:29:12 PM »
There was never a formal decree of severed communion, but the Stoglav Council anathematized the three-finger sign of the cross, which meant communion was broken by the late 16th century. Additionally, one can find extensive evidence of the distrust of the Greek church from the 15th-16th-to-17th centuries, while the rite changed in Greece. One source states that in the 16th century, "so ended the era of ancient piety on Athos" as they switched to the new rite.

And remember, this process of new ritualization in Greece was slow, and the reforms only became institutionalized in 1666-1667. So only some Greeks we're anathematized until the Council came.

I gotcha. Do you know if there any record of intercommunion happening between the Old Believers and any Churches outside Russia? After the Nikonian reforms.

Here's a rather long article about this. I don't endorse this completely as it is published by a Fedoreevtsy sect (Priestless who don't marry and believe Antichrist is here), but it has a lot of useful information and critique. It also addresses the heretical ideas the Startsy cult supports, or at least the troubling doctrines it leads to.

http://www.staropomor.ru/nikon(8)/ezerov.html


Thanks, Briven. I was using bing translate, so I could've misunderstood some of it, but most of what was written seemed very Orthodox to my new-ritualist eyes. The problems listed about the startsi, such as removing crosses from the altar, having sexual relations with advice-seekers, the belief that fasting is no longer necessary, etc. are not the tradition we've been handed down - although they may have been serious problems in the past.

Only one thing didn't seem quite right; the author claimed that St. Seraphim of Sarov taught that the God's grace is only aquired through the Blessed Virgin; and that prayer, fasting, and the sacraments do not give us God's grace. In On the Aquisition of the Holy Spirit, a transcript of a conversation with St. Seraphim, he proclaims the same teaching as the man who wrote the article. That we aquire God's grace by participating in the sacraments, praying, fasting, etc.

The only practice the author condemns that has been incorporated into the new ritualist liturgy, as far as I know, is the blessing of the waters on Epiphany.

It's interesting that he also mention's St. Ignatius Brianchaninov condemning the same practices that he condemns. It's the same thing I was reading in The Arena. St. Ignatius wrote that "prophets" who gave people a bunch of worldly predictions and information, instead of things beneficial for their salvation, were spiritually deluded and led by demons.

Not that any of this will suddenly unite the Old Believers and world Orthodoxy, but I'm not sure that there's any disagreement over the startsi.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2019, 11:13:07 PM »
There was never a formal decree of severed communion, but the Stoglav Council anathematized the three-finger sign of the cross, which meant communion was broken by the late 16th century. Additionally, one can find extensive evidence of the distrust of the Greek church from the 15th-16th-to-17th centuries, while the rite changed in Greece. One source states that in the 16th century, "so ended the era of ancient piety on Athos" as they switched to the new rite.

And remember, this process of new ritualization in Greece was slow, and the reforms only became institutionalized in 1666-1667. So only some Greeks we're anathematized until the Council came.

I gotcha. Do you know if there any record of intercommunion happening between the Old Believers and any Churches outside Russia? After the Nikonian reforms.

There was one parish in Erie that went Edinoverie. I'm not sure this counts as intercommunion as it was simply submitting to ROCOR.

Here's a rather long article about this. I don't endorse this completely as it is published by a Fedoreevtsy sect (Priestless who don't marry and believe Antichrist is here), but it has a lot of useful information and critique. It also addresses the heretical ideas the Startsy cult supports, or at least the troubling doctrines it leads to.

http://www.staropomor.ru/nikon(8)/ezerov.html


Thanks, Briven. I was using bing translate, so I could've misunderstood some of it, but most of what was written seemed very Orthodox to my new-ritualist eyes. The problems listed about the startsi, such as removing crosses from the altar, having sexual relations with advice-seekers, the belief that fasting is no longer necessary, etc. are not the tradition we've been handed down - although they may have been serious problems in the past.

Only one thing didn't seem quite right; the author claimed that St. Seraphim of Sarov taught that the God's grace is only aquired through the Blessed Virgin; and that prayer, fasting, and the sacraments do not give us God's grace. In On the Aquisition of the Holy Spirit, a transcript of a conversation with St. Seraphim, he proclaims the same teaching as the man who wrote the article. That we aquire God's grace by participating in the sacraments, praying, fasting, etc.

The only practice the author condemns that has been incorporated into the new ritualist liturgy, as far as I know, is the blessing of the waters on Epiphany.

It's interesting that he also mention's St. Ignatius Brianchaninov condemning the same practices that he condemns. It's the same thing I was reading in The Arena. St. Ignatius wrote that "prophets" who gave people a bunch of worldly predictions and information, instead of things beneficial for their salvation, were spiritually deluded and led by demons.

Not that any of this will suddenly unite the Old Believers and world Orthodoxy, but I'm not sure that there's any disagreement over the startsi.

That article isn't perfect. It's an example of something that divides us, in terms of the level of obedience to Startsy. I think Bishop Ignatius is correct and I would agree with him.

The level of Startsy cults (not using cult derogatorily here) have surely decreased since the Revolution, but many types of those elders still exist today due to the Optina and Moldovan legacy. Interestingly, the Optina fathers often held very strong anti-Old Rite views, to the extent that Starets Ambrose refused to accept anyone who crossed themselves with two fingers, as it showed insufficient "obedience", even if they strongly denounced Old Believers.


Another issue I neglected to bring up is the strange position of the ROC on Old Believers.

No Old Believer would take Communion from the ROC, to preface this.

But they recently implemented a new rite for the reception of Old Believers into the ROC as heretics of the second order (schismatics). This despite their repudiation of the 1666-1667 council as illegitimate in 1971 (A decision that a lot of today's ROC bishops think was renovationism at work), and despite Metropolitan Hilarion, a signer of this new rite, and his willingness to allow Catholics to take Communion from the dominant church.

So the other issue with intercommunion is that they have simply strengthened their condemnation of the Old Believers by approving new rites labeling us heretics and schismatics.


Also, regarding the water-blessing on Epiphany, we find it extremely troubling. The non-Russian form already seems problematic with it's strange similarity to baptism (Trinitarian formula involved), but the Russian form we believe is horrifying. The carving of a cross on the ground is already strictly forbidden by the ancient canons, and swimming in it is even worse and impious.

This is another sticking point amongst many.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2019, 11:24:54 PM by Briven »
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 517
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2019, 04:18:10 PM »
Thanks Briven! Last question: are there any English language books about the Old Believers that you'd recommend? There's a handful on amazon, but not a whole lot of reviews.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2019, 04:39:11 PM »
Thanks Briven! Last question: are there any English language books about the Old Believers that you'd recommend? There's a handful on amazon, but not a whole lot of reviews.

That's really tough, yeah.

There's Life by Avvakum, which is a must-read. There's a Kindle edition on Amazon, as well as a University of Michigan translation available.

The following book by Paul Meyendorff addresses the actual liturgical reforms, and proves the innovatory nature of the Greek reforms, and the ancient nature of the Old Rite.

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Ritual-Reform-Liturgical-Reforms/dp/088141090X

Sobornosti by Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson addresses the nature of the reforms, the Old Rite, and the western captivity and Petrine era.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-raphael-johnson/sobornosti-essays-on-the-old-faith/ebook/product-17422888.html

The last two are by new ritualists. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of Old Believer written texts in English. I will endeavour to find some.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline IreneOlinyk

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 808
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2019, 04:53:40 PM »

No Old Believer would take Communion from the ROC, to preface this.

But they recently implemented a new rite for the reception of Old Believers into the ROC as heretics of the second order (schismatics). This despite their repudiation of the 1666-1667 council as illegitimate in 1971 (A decision that a lot of today's ROC bishops think was renovationism at work), and despite Metropolitan Hilarion, a signer of this new rite, and his willingness to allow Catholics to take Communion from the dominant church.

[/i]
[/quote]


Briven: are claiming that Metr. Hilarion of the MP has publicly stated or written that he approves of Catholics being allowed to take communion in the Russian Orthodox Church?






















































































Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2019, 05:17:12 PM »

No Old Believer would take Communion from the ROC, to preface this.

But they recently implemented a new rite for the reception of Old Believers into the ROC as heretics of the second order (schismatics). This despite their repudiation of the 1666-1667 council as illegitimate in 1971 (A decision that a lot of today's ROC bishops think was renovationism at work), and despite Metropolitan Hilarion, a signer of this new rite, and his willingness to allow Catholics to take Communion from the dominant church.

[/i]


Briven: are claiming that Metr. Hilarion of the MP has publicly stated or written that he approves of Catholics being allowed to take communion in the Russian Orthodox Church?
[/quote]

I wasn't quite clear. Rather, the Metropolitan believes it acceptable to give communion in unique situations, which he believes is not acceptable for Old Believers, as they are "schismatics and heretics of the second degree". According to him, in a public TV interview: "Another thing is that there are exceptional cases when, for example, a Catholic dies somewhere in a city where there is no Catholic priest at all, he invites an Orthodox priest. In this case, I think, an Orthodox priest should come and give communion to this person ."

This is hypocrisy as he allows Catholics out of communion with the dominant church who were not baptized canonically to take the Eucharist, while Old Believers, baptized with three immersions and canonically, must be received according to a rite.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Nathanael

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2019, 05:28:03 PM »
Thanks Briven! Last question: are there any English language books about the Old Believers that you'd recommend? There's a handful on amazon, but not a whole lot of reviews.

That's really tough, yeah.

There's Life by Avvakum, which is a must-read. There's a Kindle edition on Amazon, as well as a University of Michigan translation available.

The following book by Paul Meyendorff addresses the actual liturgical reforms, and proves the innovatory nature of the Greek reforms, and the ancient nature of the Old Rite.

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Ritual-Reform-Liturgical-Reforms/dp/088141090X

Sobornosti by Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson addresses the nature of the reforms, the Old Rite, and the western captivity and Petrine era.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-raphael-johnson/sobornosti-essays-on-the-old-faith/ebook/product-17422888.html

The last two are by new ritualists. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of Old Believer written texts in English. I will endeavour to find some.

I read the life of Life by Avvakum. It's the first Russian autobiography. It's very interesting historical paper, but for me personally it doesn't really show the spiritual greatness of Avvakum - but of course there are positive spiritual aspects in his life.
Wisdom from Elder Seraphim - All our troubles come from...:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6eL2pwtVKs

The Goal of an Orthodox Monk: 'Incarnation of Love':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZishdSrYWM

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,459
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2019, 05:43:29 PM »
This is hypocrisy as he allows Catholics out of communion with the dominant church who were not baptized canonically to take the Eucharist, while Old Believers, baptized with three immersions and canonically, must be received according to a rite.

I'm not sure if the exceptional case of communing a dying Catholic can be paralleled with the reception of an Old Believer. That said, the MP is not always consistent regarding who it will commune/ whose baptisms it accepts. Politics and vindictiveness can have a way of taking precedence over coherent ecclesial logic.

Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2019, 05:52:59 PM »
This is hypocrisy as he allows Catholics out of communion with the dominant church who were not baptized canonically to take the Eucharist, while Old Believers, baptized with three immersions and canonically, must be received according to a rite.

I'm not sure if the exceptional case of communing a dying Catholic can be paralleled with the reception of an Old Believer. That said, the MP is not always consistent regarding who it will commune/ whose baptisms it accepts. Politics and vindictiveness can have a way of taking precedence over coherent ecclesial logic.

Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

 The hierarchy derives from Christ, and passed through multiple heretics, Arians, Iconoclasts, and Monophysites, and schismatics. E very hierarchrch has a heretical ordination in their succession, unless they somehow magically had a perfect path.

This isn't a strange position, it's the permanent position of the Church that heretical and schismatic Bishops ought to be received as Bishops if they join the Church.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,459
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2019, 06:00:03 PM »
This is hypocrisy as he allows Catholics out of communion with the dominant church who were not baptized canonically to take the Eucharist, while Old Believers, baptized with three immersions and canonically, must be received according to a rite.

I'm not sure if the exceptional case of communing a dying Catholic can be paralleled with the reception of an Old Believer. That said, the MP is not always consistent regarding who it will commune/ whose baptisms it accepts. Politics and vindictiveness can have a way of taking precedence over coherent ecclesial logic.

Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

 The hierarchy derives from Christ, and passed through multiple heretics, Arians, Iconoclasts, and Monophysites, and schismatics. E very hierarchrch has a heretical ordination in their succession, unless they somehow magically had a perfect path.

This isn't a strange position, it's the permanent position of the Church that heretical and schismatic Bishops ought to be received as Bishops if they join the Church.

Heretical bishops could be received by an intact church with orthodox bishops with the authority to exercise economy. Not by wandering priests consulting canon books.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,459
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2019, 06:11:29 PM »
Moreover the idea of filling “empty forms” of sacraments assumes that the form is at least correct. But the whole point of the Old Believer schism is that the form is very much not correct.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2019, 06:33:32 PM »
This is hypocrisy as he allows Catholics out of communion with the dominant church who were not baptized canonically to take the Eucharist, while Old Believers, baptized with three immersions and canonically, must be received according to a rite.

I'm not sure if the exceptional case of communing a dying Catholic can be paralleled with the reception of an Old Believer. That said, the MP is not always consistent regarding who it will commune/ whose baptisms it accepts. Politics and vindictiveness can have a way of taking precedence over coherent ecclesial logic.

Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

 The hierarchy derives from Christ, and passed through multiple heretics, Arians, Iconoclasts, and Monophysites, and schismatics. E very hierarchrch has a heretical ordination in their succession, unless they somehow magically had a perfect path.

This isn't a strange position, it's the permanent position of the Church that heretical and schismatic Bishops ought to be received as Bishops if they join the Church.

Heretical bishops could be received by an intact church with orthodox bishops with the authority to exercise economy. Not by wandering priests consulting canon books.


The hierarchy remained established. Presbyters remained present and the Liturgy did not end.

According to the rules of the Church, priests must be subordinated to their bishops. But the very same rules allow priests to oppose their bishops if the latter erred into some misconception, openly advocate some heresy or create a schism. The Old Believer's priests acted correctly when they refused to submit to Nikon and the other bishops who had betrayed the old faith. These priests had the right to celebrate without their bishops, the right to consecrate the Holy Sacraments and to guide their flock. But they could not ordain successors for themselves, new priests, while they themselves could not live on forever. What could they do? Where could they find new priests? This is the issue with which the Old Believers had to struggle with soon after the schism and they found the answer in the rules of the Church. In the early days of the Christian Church such issues had to be struggled with and there had been cases in which entire local churches had found themselves without a bishop because all bishops had erred into heresy. Once they had joined the heretics, these bishops continued to celebrate, to consecrate other bishops and ordain priests.

The Ecumenical Councils had decreed that such bishops and priests should, after their repentance and renunciation of their errors, be received back into the Church as priests and bishops (8th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council). The Council also decreed that envoys should be sent to heretical clergymen to attempt to convince them to renounce the company of heretics and rejoin the Church of Christ (80th canon of the Carthage Council). Guided by these canons, the Ancient Orthodox Church decided to accept repenting clergymen ordained in the new rite Church with their ranks, as bishops and priests. Such clergymen were called “runaway” by the government because they literally had to run away and constantly hide to escape persecutions.

Additionally, councils were held in an organized manner. This was the Church, not a few priests in the wilderness.

Would you also call those priests during the Arian heresy without a single Orthodox bishop around who refused to submit to Arian bishops, persecuted for Orthodoxy, "wandering priests consulting canon books" when they received priests into the Church?

The antimins remained, the Chrism remained, and the Orthodox Church operated. Apostolic succession continued as it always had, through heretics across the world and through schismatics in Russia. St. Bishop Paul of Kolomna remained Orthodox to his death, burned to prevent further ordinations. So the Church miraculously survived.

An example from the life of St. Maximos the Confessor, a non-Bishop and monk. Even if all Bishops apostasize, the Church remains.

Saint Maximos - 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. …”



One more thing, regarding the empty form. The Old Believers never stated that the Nikonians did not have ordinations, they stated that they had cut themselves off from the Church. We never had a council anathematize Nikonianism, as they anathematized us 1666-1667.

Let me give you an example from canonical practice.
 The Nikonians generally acknowledge heretical/schismatic baptism, but deny their consecration. They therefore state that the Old Believers cannot be correct, as St. Ambrose, if the Nikonians were heretical, would not be an actual Bishop, ordained in a right with improper form and content. ("Empty form"). This is unfortunately the heresy of the Bishop Lucifer of Nalaritan in the 4th century. He recognized the baptism of the Arians(Who were referred to as precursors of the Antichrist and had multiple heresies and different forms in their ritual) and received them with anointing, but did not recognize that once they became Orthodox they would be priests and bishops, and reconsecrated them, something the Nikonians say the Old Believers should have done if they were correct.

Blessed Jerome said in response to the Luciferians:

"We do not contradict ourselves: either we accept together with the people and the bishop who makes them the Christian people, or, if we do not accept the bishop, we consider it necessary to reject the people as well."

So Jerome takes the canonical position: That if the baptism of a heretical/schismatic bishop is valid, then his ordination to holy orders is valid as well. Therefore, St. Ambrose is a valid Bishop received from the schismatic Nikonian church.


Edit: I just realized this wasn't supposed to be a debate thread. I'll stop debating.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 06:35:52 PM by Briven »
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 517
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2019, 11:01:08 PM »
Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

Do you mean that one bishop ordained other bishops without at least two other bishops to assist in the ordination?

If I recall right, Nicea I and the Apostolic Canons both require at least three bishops to consecrate another bishop.

Thanks Briven! Last question: are there any English language books about the Old Believers that you'd recommend? There's a handful on amazon, but not a whole lot of reviews.

That's really tough, yeah.

There's Life by Avvakum, which is a must-read. There's a Kindle edition on Amazon, as well as a University of Michigan translation available.

The following book by Paul Meyendorff addresses the actual liturgical reforms, and proves the innovatory nature of the Greek reforms, and the ancient nature of the Old Rite.

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Ritual-Reform-Liturgical-Reforms/dp/088141090X

Sobornosti by Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson addresses the nature of the reforms, the Old Rite, and the western captivity and Petrine era.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-raphael-johnson/sobornosti-essays-on-the-old-faith/ebook/product-17422888.html

The last two are by new ritualists. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of Old Believer written texts in English. I will endeavour to find some.

Thanks, I look forward to reading these.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,541
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2019, 01:38:01 AM »
Note as an interesting point that to this day on the Island of Sardinia Lucifer of Cagliari, St. Jerome’s nemesis, is locally venerated as St. Lucifer, which I find highly amusing in light of Milton, et cetera.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2019, 06:09:42 AM »
Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

Do you mean that one bishop ordained other bishops without at least two other bishops to assist in the ordination?

If I recall right, Nicea I and the Apostolic Canons both require at least three bishops to consecrate another bishop.

That's correct, but Bishops can ordain by themselves in situations
 See the life of St. Eusebius of Samosata.


Thanks Briven! Last question: are there any English language books about the Old Believers that you'd recommend? There's a handful on amazon, but not a whole lot of reviews.

That's really tough, yeah.

There's Life by Avvakum, which is a must-read. There's a Kindle edition on Amazon, as well as a University of Michigan translation available.

The following book by Paul Meyendorff addresses the actual liturgical reforms, and proves the innovatory nature of the Greek reforms, and the ancient nature of the Old Rite.

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Ritual-Reform-Liturgical-Reforms/dp/088141090X

Sobornosti by Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson addresses the nature of the reforms, the Old Rite, and the western captivity and Petrine era.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-raphael-johnson/sobornosti-essays-on-the-old-faith/ebook/product-17422888.html

The last two are by new ritualists. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of Old Believer written texts in English. I will endeavour to find some.

Thanks, I look forward to reading these.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,459
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2019, 11:40:10 AM »
This is hypocrisy as he allows Catholics out of communion with the dominant church who were not baptized canonically to take the Eucharist, while Old Believers, baptized with three immersions and canonically, must be received according to a rite.

I'm not sure if the exceptional case of communing a dying Catholic can be paralleled with the reception of an Old Believer. That said, the MP is not always consistent regarding who it will commune/ whose baptisms it accepts. Politics and vindictiveness can have a way of taking precedence over coherent ecclesial logic.

Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

 The hierarchy derives from Christ, and passed through multiple heretics, Arians, Iconoclasts, and Monophysites, and schismatics. E very hierarchrch has a heretical ordination in their succession, unless they somehow magically had a perfect path.

This isn't a strange position, it's the permanent position of the Church that heretical and schismatic Bishops ought to be received as Bishops if they join the Church.

Heretical bishops could be received by an intact church with orthodox bishops with the authority to exercise economy. Not by wandering priests consulting canon books.


The hierarchy remained established. Presbyters remained present and the Liturgy did not end.

1. Presbyters are not hierarchs; 2. The presbyters in question were ordained in the New Rite and had defected.

Quote
The Ecumenical Councils had decreed that such bishops and priests should, after their repentance and renunciation of their errors, be received back into the Church as priests and bishops (8th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council). The Council also decreed that envoys should be sent to heretical clergymen to attempt to convince them to renounce the company of heretics and rejoin the Church of Christ (80th canon of the Carthage Council). Guided by these canons, the Ancient Orthodox Church decided to accept repenting clergymen ordained in the new rite Church with their ranks, as bishops and priests. Such clergymen were called “runaway” by the government because they literally had to run away and constantly hide to escape persecutions.

These canons were formulated, and applied, by orthodox bishops. They do not have some life of their own but are to be interpreted and applied by actual bishops.

Quote
Would you also call those priests during the Arian heresy without a single Orthodox bishop around who refused to submit to Arian bishops, persecuted for Orthodoxy, "wandering priests consulting canon books" when they received priests into the Church?

The question is not whether priests and laity have a right to resist heretical bishops. The question is whether an entire episcopate can be created by a bishopless church through chrismating a "bishop" who, by their own arguments, was in fact not a bishop but a laymen, falsely ordained according to a rite that was heretical in form and content.

There was never a time during the Arian controversy where there were no Orthodox bishops somewhere. Priests in isolation could take certain measures but it was always pending a judgment by bishops and councils. Likewise the example of St. Maximus does not apply since there remained bishops opposed to monotheletism. St. Maximus did not propose to create a whole new church by chrismating monothelete bishops. His approach was to resist- even in isolation- in hopes that eventually the Church would resurge and defeat the heresy.

Quote
The antimins remained, the Chrism remained, and the Orthodox Church operated. Apostolic succession continued as it always had, through heretics across the world and through schismatics in Russia. St. Bishop Paul of Kolomna remained Orthodox to his death, burned to prevent further ordinations. So the Church miraculously survived.

An antimins is not a magic talisman that operates independently of the ecclesial authority. It is an emblem of the bishop's approval.

Quote
One more thing, regarding the empty form. The Old Believers never stated that the Nikonians did not have ordinations, they stated that they had cut themselves off from the Church.

They cut themselves off, how? By their heretical practices, including, but not limited to, the three-fingered sign of the cross which the Old Believers regarded as demonic. The Arians at least seemed to say the correct words and make the correct gestures. This was the case with many of the ancient heresies- they often used the same rites as the Orthodox, even though their understanding was false. Not so the Nikonians- false ritual, false belief. No empty form, because the form wasn't there at all.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,459
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2019, 11:44:29 AM »

Having said that, the Old Orthodox Church is in a quite strange position itself, as their entire hierarchy derives from a single bishop who was ordained according to a rite they consider heretical in both form and content.

Do you mean that one bishop ordained other bishops without at least two other bishops to assist in the ordination?

More than that... this one bishop had, by their terms, in fact been a layman until he was chrismated by an Old Believer priest which somehow filled the "empty form" of his ordination. The problem is that the Old Believers had been arguing that "Nikonians" are not only heretical in belief but in practice, so the claim that Ambrose had the "empty form" overthrows the whole rationale for the Old Believer schism.

Then this new bishop went on to singlehandedly create an entire hierarchy. Up to this point the Old Believers had had no bishops for over a century.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 11:44:39 AM by Iconodule »
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2019, 06:26:15 PM »
This is not a debate thread.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline IreneOlinyk

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 808
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2019, 07:13:05 PM »
This is not a debate thread.

I am not sure what your point is?  This is a discussion thread.  If you disagree with the post then it is usfeul to provide your own view. 

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2019, 08:35:33 PM »
This is not a debate thread.

I am not sure what your point is?  This is a discussion thread.  If you disagree with the post then it is usfeul to provide your own view.

I believe platypus intended to have answers for his specific questions.

I made a mistake by engaging in debate, which distracts from the actual meaning of the thread.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,541
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2019, 08:42:36 PM »
Briven, are you familiar with the service books published by the Church of the Nativity ROCOR old rite parish, and in your view do they accurately represent the Old Rite?

Also on the subject of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, his recordings with the Danilov monastery of ancient Russian Orthodox music, have you heard them, and if so, do you think he was at least accurate on that point?

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2019, 09:19:25 PM »
Briven, are you familiar with the service books published by the Church of the Nativity ROCOR old rite parish, and in your view do they accurately represent the Old Rite?

Yes, they do.

Given that they maintain the pre-reform texts well in English, I think they provide a valuable text for Anglophones to understand the Old Rite.

Despite their Edinovertsy outlook, they publish valuable books (I would note this is similar to the usefulness of the Philokalia. Despite being published by reformed Greek monks in the 18th century, it is simply a valuable text of Orthodox ascetics, collected by them.

Old Believers do not reject non-Old Believer texts if they are Orthodox.



Also on the subject of Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, his recordings with the Danilov monastery of ancient Russian Orthodox music, have you heard them, and if so, do you think he was at least accurate on that point?

I'm unsure of which point you mean, unless I've missed something on this thread.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 09:19:36 PM by Briven »
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,311
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2019, 10:48:36 PM »
Who are: Old Believers ```
Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,311
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2019, 06:08:57 PM »
Dear Brother ~ We are in near complete agreement on most things ~( I will read completely what you've posted later )~ but ~ why the title "Old Believers" they God love them are Newer ~ New or Mid believers ```

We, Orthodox, haven't agreed ~ have sometimes been at each others throats ~ if they think or thought the Turks taking of Constantinople is their just payment after the attack by the church of the west ~ or their attack on on others ~ was then the treatment they ~ these Old Believers ) Just and in payment or are they not like the other pompous ~ the only true believers ~ the only true Orthodox ```

If the title "Old Believer" is to be used ~ why are we ~ the rest of us ~ not listed ```


Yekpirut ~ your brother

seth

Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2019, 07:58:53 PM »
Dear Brother ~ We are in near complete agreement on most things ~( I will read completely what you've posted later )~ but ~ why the title "Old Believers" they God love them are Newer ~ New or Mid believers ```

We, Orthodox, haven't agreed ~ have sometimes been at each others throats ~ if they think or thought the Turks taking of Constantinople is their just payment after the attack by the church of the west ~ or their attack on on others ~ was then the treatment they ~ these Old Believers ) Just and in payment or are they not like the other pompous ~ the only true believers ~ the only true Orthodox ```

If the title "Old Believer" is to be used ~ why are we ~ the rest of us ~ not listed ```


Yekpirut ~ your brother

seth

The thought about the Constantinople siege was simply a belief of Russians at the time, not a dogmatic belief.

Old Believer is actually a title foisted on us by the dominant church in the Russian Empire. We are Orthodox. Old Believer is used as it describes us fairly well, given that the Old Rite is the oldest Byzantine rite in use today.
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Sethrak

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,311
  • Faith: Armenian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2019, 08:01:44 PM »
Oh ~ I see, I've never heard it before ```
Իմաստութիւն Հոր Յիսուս՝ տո՝ւր մեզ իաստուփին՝ զբարիս խորհել եւ խոսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ : եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց   փրկեա  զմեզ՝ ամէն:
Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom, to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times. And save us from evil thoughts, words and deed, amen.

Offline reclusivus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
  • moronissimus
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2019, 11:40:07 PM »
Dear Brother ~ We are in near complete agreement on most things ~( I will read completely what you've posted later )~ but ~ why the title "Old Believers" they God love them are Newer ~ New or Mid believers ```

We, Orthodox, haven't agreed ~ have sometimes been at each others throats ~ if they think or thought the Turks taking of Constantinople is their just payment after the attack by the church of the west ~ or their attack on on others ~ was then the treatment they ~ these Old Believers ) Just and in payment or are they not like the other pompous ~ the only true believers ~ the only true Orthodox ```

If the title "Old Believer" is to be used ~ why are we ~ the rest of us ~ not listed ```


Yekpirut ~ your brother

seth

The thought about the Constantinople siege was simply a belief of Russians at the time, not a dogmatic belief.

Old Believer is actually a title foisted on us by the dominant church in the Russian Empire. We are Orthodox. Old Believer is used as it describes us fairly well, given that the Old Rite is the oldest Byzantine rite in use today.

Briven, to put it bluntly do you believe that all the old saints even if the West like St. Martin, St. Patrick, the Orthodox Bishops of Rome etc. would agree Old Believers are the true One, Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church and the EO system has fallen into heresy?
ΕυλÃÄ

"Pleasure is very seldom found where it is sought. Our brightest blazes of gladness are commonly kindled by unexpected sparks..." ~ Samuel Johnson

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2019, 09:02:27 AM »
This is a very good article I recently read on interactions between ROCOR and the Old Believers in Oregon, followed by a brief history that led to the schism.

http://www.rocorstudies.org/2015/02/27/with-the-russian-old-believers-in-oregon/

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2019, 09:29:14 AM »
C.) Development of doctrine in the Synodal church, including the concept of the Startsy cult. Old Believers think this is an innovation in the way it developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

That is very interesting.  Do the Old Ritualists accept St. Gregory Palamas and St. Symeon the New Theologian, among other hesychastic saints that preceded the Council of Florence?  Do the Old Ritualists have monasteries and a hesychastic tradition that has continued to this day, or is all of this looked at suspiciously or is it altogether rejected?

Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,539
Re: questions about the Old Believers
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2019, 12:24:29 PM »
This article in the attachment gives some info and statistics on the Old Believers in Russia.
Whoops: sorry I got a box that says the article is too big.
Here is the link:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25479137

Does History Repeat Itself? Public Discourse of the Contemporary Russian Old Believer Elite
Author(s): Ekaterina Levintova
Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 85, No. 4 , pp. 753-779
Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London