Author Topic: Russian Old Believers.  (Read 1541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Russian Old Believers.
« on: January 30, 2014, 06:57:46 PM »
Reading a historical book on 18th century Russia and the term Old Believers came up. Googled it and skimmed the Wikipedia article but can anyone point me or give me an idea about it? Is this sort of like traditionalism within Roman Catholicism, with some Old Beleivers more "radical" than others, some being ultra and some being moderate, etc? Sorry, I just think Wikipedia is a good general way to find facts, but I think can do injustice, especially to something so particular as this.

Sorry if this is an annoying or comes of as a stupid question. Eastern Orthodox is so much different than Roman Catholicism. We have the Pope to unify us and especially after Vatican I this is even more so. Eastern Orthodox is so different. I understand why it sometimes takes time for a Roman Catholic to consider Orthodoxy.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2014, 07:09:58 PM »
Reading a historical book on 18th century Russia and the term Old Believers came up. Googled it and skimmed the Wikipedia article but can anyone point me or give me an idea about it? Is this sort of like traditionalism within Roman Catholicism, with some Old Beleivers more "radical" than others, some being ultra and some being moderate, etc? Sorry, I just think Wikipedia is a good general way to find facts, but I think can do injustice, especially to something so particular as this.

Sorry if this is an annoying or comes of as a stupid question. Eastern Orthodox is so much different than Roman Catholicism. We have the Pope to unify us and especially after Vatican I this is even more so. Eastern Orthodox is so different. I understand why it sometimes takes time for a Roman Catholic to consider Orthodoxy.

The Old Believers refused to accept Patriarch Nikons reformation of the Russian liturgy to comport with then-current Greek practice in the mid 1600s.  They held varying views as to whether the priesthood had ceased to exist and split into factions on this and other bases.

Originally the Russian Church and state persecuted them.  But eventually the Russian Orthodox Church agreed to accept any Old Believers who would agree that the New Rite was not wrong, and let them keep the old rite as Old Rite Russian Orthodox. Many did and many didn't. 

We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox. 

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2014, 09:53:12 PM »
Yeah that makes sense and I would not want to deal with some "traditionalist" thing again within Orthodoxy. It's not like this new rite is like the Novus Ordo of the Latin Rite. I can understand certain Latins refusing to say that because it is a huge digression from anything Catholic or Orthodox. It is pretty much Protestant, even if valid. I stomach it now because I do not want to deal with the SSPX or any other groups like that, but I can understand why people go to the SSPX. I just got tired of the politics and other things.

But actually that's sort of what made me consider Orthodoxy and now my honest research into the matter of the Great Schism seems to give way to the East. Original sin, Purgatory, the papal thing, the Filoque have a good argument against them from the Orthodox. I have also seen that some trad Catholics have been led to Orthodoxy. A girl I talked to on an Orthodox dating site said she and her family used to be huge supporters of the SSPX and then became Orthodox. I remember I used to always pray to Our Lady for the conversion of Russia. I really wanted it because it seemed after the fall of the Soviet Union that Our Lady of Fatima's message was coming true--that Russia was moving towards conversion with more conservative laws than the rest of Christendom. Maybe I romanticized Russia to a degree but it made me pray to the Holy Theotokos for Russia's conversion. Now I am considering Orthodoxy, not just because of the Russian thing or problems with the papal thing, but because it seems to make sense.

On that note one argument I have gotten from traditonalist Catholics is why they are sympathetic to the Eastern Orthodox for their holding to traditions, they argue that the Orthodox are very nationalistic in their churches and that makes them more likely to be corrupted by kings. But I fear medieval history shows how easily bishops in the West were also corrupted easily by kings. Thomas Becket is one who stood up, but he is the example of bravery amid many bishops who gave into kings rather than served Christ's Church. And I will admit the same happened in the East because of human weakness.

But the idea that because the Orthodox lack the supremecy of the Pope they are more likely to be corrupted by ambitious and unscrupulous princes is not fair. I think the West is very keen on pointing out the need of a single head of the Church who like a monarch has authority over all the other bishops by virtue of his Petrine succession and Roman seat. The Latin Church united all of Western Europe under one single rite at Trent they say, while the rites of the Byzantines vary according to place and are thus divided. And they have no single head of their Church like the Latins have with the Pope. So they could, say the Latins, easily fall into heresy because they do not have one leader to finalize things. With Vatican I this was made stronger by Papal Infallibility because now the councils could be overruled by the Pope, which even Latin bishops objected to. Before the Pope was controlled by inner-Vatican and European politics. Now he claims to be able to speak "from the seat" and could do so in theory without calling a counsel. In fact even now they are not sure how much authority the Pope should have and how much collegiality there should be. I think the current movement for more collegiality is just modern egalitarianism, and not really a desire of collegiality for the right reasons.  Because whatever they argue they still want to have the Pope as universal bishop.

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Nikolaostheservant

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 683
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2014, 10:06:59 PM »
Reading a historical book on 18th century Russia and the term Old Believers came up. Googled it and skimmed the Wikipedia article but can anyone point me or give me an idea about it? Is this sort of like traditionalism within Roman Catholicism, with some Old Beleivers more "radical" than others, some being ultra and some being moderate, etc? Sorry, I just think Wikipedia is a good general way to find facts, but I think can do injustice, especially to something so particular as this.

Sorry if this is an annoying or comes of as a stupid question. Eastern Orthodox is so much different than Roman Catholicism. We have the Pope to unify us and especially after Vatican I this is even more so. Eastern Orthodox is so different. I understand why it sometimes takes time for a Roman Catholic to consider Orthodoxy.

The Old Believers refused to accept Patriarch Nikons reformation of the Russian liturgy to comport with then-current Greek practice in the mid 1600s.  They held varying views as to whether the priesthood had ceased to exist and split into factions on this and other bases.

Originally the Russian Church and state persecuted them.  But eventually the Russian Orthodox Church agreed to accept any Old Believers who would agree that the New Rite was not wrong, and let them keep the old rite as Old Rite Russian Orthodox. Many did and many didn't.  

We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox.  

i thought it was from greek? did quick google search and here are some quots from wikipidia:

1, "said to have been founded by the Apostle Andrew, who is thought to have visited Scythia and Greek colonies along the northern coast of the Black Sea"

2, "Christianity was introduced into Kievan Rus by Greek missionaries from Byzantium in the 9th century"

quoats from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church


Please can you support this you have said, qurious?
"We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox. "
thank you,
nick
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 10:10:03 PM by Nikolaostheservant »

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2014, 10:16:29 PM »
Reading a historical book on 18th century Russia and the term Old Believers came up. Googled it and skimmed the Wikipedia article but can anyone point me or give me an idea about it? Is this sort of like traditionalism within Roman Catholicism, with some Old Beleivers more "radical" than others, some being ultra and some being moderate, etc? Sorry, I just think Wikipedia is a good general way to find facts, but I think can do injustice, especially to something so particular as this.

Sorry if this is an annoying or comes of as a stupid question. Eastern Orthodox is so much different than Roman Catholicism. We have the Pope to unify us and especially after Vatican I this is even more so. Eastern Orthodox is so different. I understand why it sometimes takes time for a Roman Catholic to consider Orthodoxy.

The Old Believers refused to accept Patriarch Nikons reformation of the Russian liturgy to comport with then-current Greek practice in the mid 1600s.  They held varying views as to whether the priesthood had ceased to exist and split into factions on this and other bases.

Originally the Russian Church and state persecuted them.  But eventually the Russian Orthodox Church agreed to accept any Old Believers who would agree that the New Rite was not wrong, and let them keep the old rite as Old Rite Russian Orthodox. Many did and many didn't.  

We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox.  

i thought it was from greek? did quick google search and here are some quots from wikipidia:

1, "said to have been founded by the Apostle Andrew, who is thought to have visited Scythia and Greek colonies along the northern coast of the Black Sea"

2, "Christianity was introduced into Kievan Rus by Greek missionaries from Byzantium in the 9th century"

quoats from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church


Please can you support this you have said, qurious?
"We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox. "
thank you,
nick
Sure, if you look at page 131 of this book by Paul Meyendorff:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0vcwwfux-8IC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=pre-Nikonian+rite+Greek+innovations&source=bl&ots=68dvHI1Sk0&sig=ItGF9ng9UrNhzqxSlFQkucxwlZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hAvrUqDNMrDnsAT_ooGgAw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=pre-Nikonian%20rite%20Greek%20innovations&f=false

The Russian Church was using forms it (and its predecessor in the Church of Rus') had adapted from Greek in the 9th/10th centuries.  The Greek liturgy continued to evolve but the Russian Church didn't really change much of anything.  Patriarch Nikon got hold of a 17th century Greek liturgy and thought it was older because the Greeks gave the Liturgy to the Church of Rus; he didn't realize that the Greek liturgy had evolved over 800 years.  So he "corrected" the old Russian liturgy and brought it in line with the then-contemporary Greek practice.  The book goes into a lot more detail about that.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Private Fora
  • Archon
  • *
  • Posts: 2,737
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2014, 10:19:55 PM »
Yeah that makes sense and I would not want to deal with some "traditionalist" thing again within Orthodoxy. It's not like this new rite is like the Novus Ordo of the Latin Rite. I can understand certain Latins refusing to say that because it is a huge digression from anything Catholic or Orthodox. It is pretty much Protestant, even if valid. I stomach it now because I do not want to deal with the SSPX or any other groups like that, but I can understand why people go to the SSPX. I just got tired of the politics and other things.

But actually that's sort of what made me consider Orthodoxy and now my honest research into the matter of the Great Schism seems to give way to the East. Original sin, Purgatory, the papal thing, the Filoque have a good argument against them from the Orthodox. I have also seen that some trad Catholics have been led to Orthodoxy. A girl I talked to on an Orthodox dating site said she and her family used to be huge supporters of the SSPX and then became Orthodox. I remember I used to always pray to Our Lady for the conversion of Russia. I really wanted it because it seemed after the fall of the Soviet Union that Our Lady of Fatima's message was coming true--that Russia was moving towards conversion with more conservative laws than the rest of Christendom. Maybe I romanticized Russia to a degree but it made me pray to the Holy Theotokos for Russia's conversion. Now I am considering Orthodoxy, not just because of the Russian thing or problems with the papal thing, but because it seems to make sense.

On that note one argument I have gotten from traditonalist Catholics is why they are sympathetic to the Eastern Orthodox for their holding to traditions, they argue that the Orthodox are very nationalistic in their churches and that makes them more likely to be corrupted by kings. But I fear medieval history shows how easily bishops in the West were also corrupted easily by kings. Thomas Becket is one who stood up, but he is the example of bravery amid many bishops who gave into kings rather than served Christ's Church. And I will admit the same happened in the East because of human weakness.

But the idea that because the Orthodox lack the supremecy of the Pope they are more likely to be corrupted by ambitious and unscrupulous princes is not fair. I think the West is very keen on pointing out the need of a single head of the Church who like a monarch has authority over all the other bishops by virtue of his Petrine succession and Roman seat. The Latin Church united all of Western Europe under one single rite at Trent they say, while the rites of the Byzantines vary according to place and are thus divided. And they have no single head of their Church like the Latins have with the Pope. So they could, say the Latins, easily fall into heresy because they do not have one leader to finalize things. With Vatican I this was made stronger by Papal Infallibility because now the councils could be overruled by the Pope, which even Latin bishops objected to. Before the Pope was controlled by inner-Vatican and European politics. Now he claims to be able to speak "from the seat" and could do so in theory without calling a counsel. In fact even now they are not sure how much authority the Pope should have and how much collegiality there should be. I think the current movement for more collegiality is just modern egalitarianism, and not really a desire of collegiality for the right reasons.  Because whatever they argue they still want to have the Pope as universal bishop.



I understand your points.  The Old Believers are not in communion with any of the Orthodox.  The Old Ritualists (Old Believers who want to follow the Old Rite but have no problem with the New Rite) are.  I only know of one such parish in the USA, in Erie, Pennsylvania.
http://www.churchofthenativity.net/

This parish follows the Old Rite but, as they state on their website, the New Rite is OK too.  That distinguishes them from the Old Believers.

Offline Nikolaostheservant

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 683
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2014, 10:28:00 PM »
Reading a historical book on 18th century Russia and the term Old Believers came up. Googled it and skimmed the Wikipedia article but can anyone point me or give me an idea about it? Is this sort of like traditionalism within Roman Catholicism, with some Old Beleivers more "radical" than others, some being ultra and some being moderate, etc? Sorry, I just think Wikipedia is a good general way to find facts, but I think can do injustice, especially to something so particular as this.

Sorry if this is an annoying or comes of as a stupid question. Eastern Orthodox is so much different than Roman Catholicism. We have the Pope to unify us and especially after Vatican I this is even more so. Eastern Orthodox is so different. I understand why it sometimes takes time for a Roman Catholic to consider Orthodoxy.

The Old Believers refused to accept Patriarch Nikons reformation of the Russian liturgy to comport with then-current Greek practice in the mid 1600s.  They held varying views as to whether the priesthood had ceased to exist and split into factions on this and other bases.

Originally the Russian Church and state persecuted them.  But eventually the Russian Orthodox Church agreed to accept any Old Believers who would agree that the New Rite was not wrong, and let them keep the old rite as Old Rite Russian Orthodox. Many did and many didn't.  

We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox.  

i thought it was from greek? did quick google search and here are some quots from wikipidia:

1, "said to have been founded by the Apostle Andrew, who is thought to have visited Scythia and Greek colonies along the northern coast of the Black Sea"

2, "Christianity was introduced into Kievan Rus by Greek missionaries from Byzantium in the 9th century"

quoats from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church


Please can you support this you have said, qurious?
"We now know that the old Russian form that was abolished was actually older than the Greek form which had become developed over time.   Pat. Nikon didn't know that.  To be Orthodox one accepts both the validity of the old Rite and the new Rite.  To say that the new Rite is wrong is to be out of communion with the Orthodox. "
thank you,
nick
Sure, if you look at page 131 of this book by Paul Meyendorff:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0vcwwfux-8IC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=pre-Nikonian+rite+Greek+innovations&source=bl&ots=68dvHI1Sk0&sig=ItGF9ng9UrNhzqxSlFQkucxwlZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hAvrUqDNMrDnsAT_ooGgAw&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=pre-Nikonian%20rite%20Greek%20innovations&f=false

The Russian Church was using forms it (and its predecessor in the Church of Rus') had adapted from Greek in the 9th/10th centuries.  The Greek liturgy continued to evolve but the Russian Church didn't really change much of anything.  Patriarch Nikon got hold of a 17th century Greek liturgy and thought it was older because the Greeks gave the Liturgy to the Church of Rus; he didn't realize that the Greek liturgy had evolved over 800 years.  So he "corrected" the old Russian liturgy and brought it in line with the then-contemporary Greek practice.  The book goes into a lot more detail about that.

ah, i see.
thanxs, Yurysprudentsiya

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 275
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2014, 09:20:00 AM »
But the idea that because the Orthodox lack the supremecy of the Pope they are more likely to be corrupted by ambitious and unscrupulous princes is not fair. I think the West is very keen on pointing out the need of a single head of the Church who like a monarch has authority over all the other bishops by virtue of his Petrine succession and Roman seat. The Latin Church united all of Western Europe under one single rite at Trent they say, while the rites of the Byzantines vary according to place and are thus divided. And they have no single head of their Church like the Latins have with the Pope. So they could, say the Latins, easily fall into heresy because they do not have one leader to finalize things. With Vatican I this was made stronger by Papal Infallibility because now the councils could be overruled by the Pope, which even Latin bishops objected to. Before the Pope was controlled by inner-Vatican and European politics. Now he claims to be able to speak "from the seat" and could do so in theory without calling a counsel. In fact even now they are not sure how much authority the Pope should have and how much collegiality there should be. I think the current movement for more collegiality is just modern egalitarianism, and not really a desire of collegiality for the right reasons.  Because whatever they argue they still want to have the Pope as universal bishop.


I don't want to derail from the Old Believer discussion, but the post I've quoted is is a good post for RCC people to consider, so please forgive me.

Many who advocated the ultramontane position that culminated in Vatican I (although that position was tempered by the limited ex cathedra definition of that synod) did so because they thought the pope would never be "liberal."  So, they wanted to ensure the conservative tendency in the face of growing liberalism.

Now, though, you have a situation where the concept of the papacy means that whatever doctrinal orthodoxy exists in the RCC is wholly dependent on one man.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline searn77

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
  • St. Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York
Re: Russian Old Believers.
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2014, 07:05:24 PM »
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/339/-schism-old-ritualists/

Here's an article written by Vladimir Moss on the Old Believers. While I'm not a big fan of some of Moss's writings, this article seemed to be for the most part in accordance with other things I have read on the subject, although I admit I'm no expert on the subject.

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.