Author Topic: Old Believers and Orthodoxy  (Read 38040 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #135 on: February 28, 2015, 11:26:27 PM »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Rhinosaur

  • Homo Vivius
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #136 on: March 01, 2015, 12:33:20 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

The Old Believers are 3rd Rome. If you go off looking for a geographical track, then you do not now, nor have you ever understood the story of 3rd Rome; and chances are you never really read it.

This is why second Rome fell, it lost faith in God, and, associated new Rome with their earthly glory, their earthly kingdom, they thought this was second Rome.

That sounds very similar to the Protestant ideology of the Invisible Church.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #137 on: March 01, 2015, 12:37:29 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

The Old Believers are 3rd Rome. If you go off looking for a geographical track, then you do not now, nor have you ever understood the story of 3rd Rome; and chances are you never really read it.

This is why second Rome fell, it lost faith in God, and, associated new Rome with their earthly glory, their earthly kingdom, they thought this was second Rome.

That sounds very similar to the Protestant ideology of the Invisible Church.

Whatever, you want to call it, that is how it exists in the source texts. Have you actually read the Third Rome prophecy? I'm guessing you have not, based on your comment.   
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,151
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #138 on: March 01, 2015, 12:52:07 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

The Old Believers are 3rd Rome. If you go off looking for a geographical track, then you do not now, nor have you ever understood the story of 3rd Rome; and chances are you never really read it.

This is why second Rome fell, it lost faith in God, and, associated new Rome with their earthly glory, their earthly kingdom, they thought this was second Rome.

That sounds very similar to the Protestant ideology of the Invisible Church.

Whatever, you want to call it, that is how it exists in the source texts. Have you actually read the Third Rome prophecy? I'm guessing you have not, based on your comment.

lol Everyone knows about the Third Rome prophecy.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #139 on: March 01, 2015, 12:55:01 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

The Old Believers are 3rd Rome. If you go off looking for a geographical track, then you do not now, nor have you ever understood the story of 3rd Rome; and chances are you never really read it.

This is why second Rome fell, it lost faith in God, and, associated new Rome with their earthly glory, their earthly kingdom, they thought this was second Rome.

That sounds very similar to the Protestant ideology of the Invisible Church.

Whatever, you want to call it, that is how it exists in the source texts. Have you actually read the Third Rome prophecy? I'm guessing you have not, based on your comment.

lol Everyone knows about the Third Rome prophecy.

Seems to me most do not actually read the third rome story, but, rather a modified much later reconstructionist form of it. Surely many read the original; but, apparently most do not.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 12:55:50 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #140 on: March 01, 2015, 01:00:58 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

Woodburn, Oregon.

You love your slander!
You love to throw that word "slander" around, but I don't think it has quite the meaning you attach to the word.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #141 on: March 01, 2015, 01:01:27 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

Woodburn, Oregon.

You love your slander!
You love to throw that word "slander" around, but I don't think it has quite the meaning you attach to the word.

What meaning do I attach to the word?
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #142 on: March 01, 2015, 01:10:28 AM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date. The Man of Lawlessness will not come unless the falling away occurs first. 1667 simply doesn't cut if for a start date. The Jehovah's Witnesses make a better case with 1918.


Quote
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

That is your issue, you cannot accept what goes against your ideas, what you imagine to be true.

Quote
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I'm not doing that, only you imagine that I am. 3rd Rome has more to do with the proximity of the times, and, to God keeping for himself a faithful people. It does appear very clear you do not really know what the story about 3rd Rome; really is. This statement shines light on your innocents on the matter "How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other"

I'm not tying anything to political fortunes. Nor is the story.


The reason 2nd Rome fell was, because, they submitted to the Catholics during the council of Florence. 

The Reason Russia is third Rome is because it alone never submitted. The ones who fell away were invited to repent and be part of 3rd Rome, but their pride got the better of them.

From the Wiki:

On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greek monks therefore were able to assert that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of the whole Church. (The agreement of a Patriarch is not binding over the whole Orthodox Church; the Patriarchs are just considered first among equals among the local bishops of the patriarchy, and do not hold any power outside their bishopric - they cannot even perform sacraments outside their bishopric without blessing of the local bishop.) Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

Pat. Joseph II, though he was a sick old man and pro-union, was also found dead in his room with a signed copy of the agreement next to him. Give the political pressures on everyone at the council, chicanery is possible. But either way you said yourself that bishops don't have the power to force a church into heresy on their own. St. Mark and the people never came into union with the RCC.

Second, the Letter of Elder Filofei is clear, the Third Rome is the Russian kingdom of the Tsar. Not because of Florence but because, https://www2.stetson.edu/secure/history/hy308C01/filofeithirdrome.html

Quote
the church of old Rome fell into the Apollinarian heresy. The grandsons of Hagar used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second Rome, the city of Constantinople.

See? First Rome fell to heresy. Second Rome did not.

Filofei goes on to write to the Tsar,

Quote
Now, the Holy Universal Apostolic Church of a Third, New Rome, your sovereign state, shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith throughout the world.

...


And if you will order well your kingdom, you will be a son of light and dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, and as I wrote to you above, so now I say:  listen and remember, pious Tsar, that all Christian kingdoms have merged into your one kingdom, that two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. And your Christian kingdom will not be replaced by others, according to the word of the great Theologian, and the word of the blessed David will come true for the Christian church:  "Behold my eternal rest; I make all things right as I will." Saint Hippolytus said:  "When we see Rome beset by Persian forces and the Persians come with the Scythes to do us battle, then we will know without doubt that this is the Antichrist."

So unless you have some unknown claimant to the throne sleeping on your sofa and he's planning a heist to steal Monomakh's Crown, you're using a double standard. Third Rome is a state, a monarchy with a Tsar, not a bunch of small churches in and out of Russia that don't all even have priests. You sound like a Protestant.

If the Russia of today, the geopolitical entity, is no longer Third Rome, then Third Rome is gone and Elder Filofei was simply wrong.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #143 on: March 01, 2015, 01:15:47 AM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

Woodburn, Oregon.

You love your slander!
You love to throw that word "slander" around, but I don't think it has quite the meaning you attach to the word.

What meaning do I attach to the word?
I don't know. You tell us. You're the one throwing the word around.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #144 on: March 01, 2015, 05:48:13 AM »
Strictly speaking saying malicious things about other people for personal gain is slander, under US common law, whereas writing such things is libel.  I was once slandered and libeled when a colleague passed around a suicide note attributed to me, causing me great embarrassment, so I sued him.  Nothing that anyone has said in this thread is in my opinion, and I am not a lawyer but a past victim of slander and libel, libelous.  And it can't by definition be slanderous, because slander is oral speech.   So let us love one another and try with love and charity to understand our religious traditions.

I know Peter the Aleut is a good guy, and if you work with him I believe you can explain your position clearly and have a great conversation.   And I for one welcome the presence of an Old Orthodox here.  But we must love one another!  These boards are for all Orthodox...Eastern and Oriental, Old a Calendar and New Calendar, Old Orthodox and Nikonian.  Being Orthodox, we all agree that God is Love, and desires our salvation, so if we don't love one another, we are failing in our Orthodoxy.  Love is strong as death!
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #145 on: March 01, 2015, 04:19:10 PM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date. The Man of Lawlessness will not come unless the falling away occurs first. 1667 simply doesn't cut if for a start date. The Jehovah's Witnesses make a better case with 1918.


Quote
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

That is your issue, you cannot accept what goes against your ideas, what you imagine to be true.

Quote
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I'm not doing that, only you imagine that I am. 3rd Rome has more to do with the proximity of the times, and, to God keeping for himself a faithful people. It does appear very clear you do not really know what the story about 3rd Rome; really is. This statement shines light on your innocents on the matter "How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other"

I'm not tying anything to political fortunes. Nor is the story.


The reason 2nd Rome fell was, because, they submitted to the Catholics during the council of Florence. 

The Reason Russia is third Rome is because it alone never submitted. The ones who fell away were invited to repent and be part of 3rd Rome, but their pride got the better of them.

From the Wiki:

On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greek monks therefore were able to assert that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of the whole Church. (The agreement of a Patriarch is not binding over the whole Orthodox Church; the Patriarchs are just considered first among equals among the local bishops of the patriarchy, and do not hold any power outside their bishopric - they cannot even perform sacraments outside their bishopric without blessing of the local bishop.) Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

Pat. Joseph II, though he was a sick old man and pro-union, was also found dead in his room with a signed copy of the agreement next to him. Give the political pressures on everyone at the council, chicanery is possible. But either way you said yourself that bishops don't have the power to force a church into heresy on their own. St. Mark and the people never came into union with the RCC.

Second, the Letter of Elder Filofei is clear, the Third Rome is the Russian kingdom of the Tsar. Not because of Florence but because, https://www2.stetson.edu/secure/history/hy308C01/filofeithirdrome.html

Quote
the church of old Rome fell into the Apollinarian heresy. The grandsons of Hagar used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second Rome, the city of Constantinople.

See? First Rome fell to heresy. Second Rome did not.

Filofei goes on to write to the Tsar,

Quote
Now, the Holy Universal Apostolic Church of a Third, New Rome, your sovereign state, shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith throughout the world.

...


And if you will order well your kingdom, you will be a son of light and dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, and as I wrote to you above, so now I say:  listen and remember, pious Tsar, that all Christian kingdoms have merged into your one kingdom, that two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. And your Christian kingdom will not be replaced by others, according to the word of the great Theologian, and the word of the blessed David will come true for the Christian church:  "Behold my eternal rest; I make all things right as I will." Saint Hippolytus said:  "When we see Rome beset by Persian forces and the Persians come with the Scythes to do us battle, then we will know without doubt that this is the Antichrist."

So unless you have some unknown claimant to the throne sleeping on your sofa and he's planning a heist to steal Monomakh's Crown, you're using a double standard. Third Rome is a state, a monarchy with a Tsar, not a bunch of small churches in and out of Russia that don't all even have priests. You sound like a Protestant.

If the Russia of today, the geopolitical entity, is no longer Third Rome, then Third Rome is gone and Elder Filofei was simply wrong.

You just demonstrated further you do not know what your talking about, when people decide to stop slandering and ridiculing me I'll be happy to share. If you want to imagine you know what you are talking about, and, imagine your slander and ridicule is true, then so be it.

As for my use of the word slander, here is the definition I use, taken form the Oxford English Dictionary,

slander | ˈslɑːndə |

noun [ mass noun ] Law

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation: he is suing the TV company for slander. Compare with libel.

• [ count noun ] a false and malicious spoken statement: I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders.
verb [ with obj. ]

make false and damaging statements about (someone): they were accused of slandering the head of state.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 04:24:55 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #146 on: March 01, 2015, 06:16:06 PM »
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #147 on: March 01, 2015, 06:46:04 PM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date. The Man of Lawlessness will not come unless the falling away occurs first. 1667 simply doesn't cut if for a start date. The Jehovah's Witnesses make a better case with 1918.


Quote
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

That is your issue, you cannot accept what goes against your ideas, what you imagine to be true.

Quote
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I'm not doing that, only you imagine that I am. 3rd Rome has more to do with the proximity of the times, and, to God keeping for himself a faithful people. It does appear very clear you do not really know what the story about 3rd Rome; really is. This statement shines light on your innocents on the matter "How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other"

I'm not tying anything to political fortunes. Nor is the story.


The reason 2nd Rome fell was, because, they submitted to the Catholics during the council of Florence. 

The Reason Russia is third Rome is because it alone never submitted. The ones who fell away were invited to repent and be part of 3rd Rome, but their pride got the better of them.

From the Wiki:

On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greek monks therefore were able to assert that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of the whole Church. (The agreement of a Patriarch is not binding over the whole Orthodox Church; the Patriarchs are just considered first among equals among the local bishops of the patriarchy, and do not hold any power outside their bishopric - they cannot even perform sacraments outside their bishopric without blessing of the local bishop.) Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

Pat. Joseph II, though he was a sick old man and pro-union, was also found dead in his room with a signed copy of the agreement next to him. Give the political pressures on everyone at the council, chicanery is possible. But either way you said yourself that bishops don't have the power to force a church into heresy on their own. St. Mark and the people never came into union with the RCC.

Second, the Letter of Elder Filofei is clear, the Third Rome is the Russian kingdom of the Tsar. Not because of Florence but because, https://www2.stetson.edu/secure/history/hy308C01/filofeithirdrome.html

Quote
the church of old Rome fell into the Apollinarian heresy. The grandsons of Hagar used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second Rome, the city of Constantinople.

See? First Rome fell to heresy. Second Rome did not.

Filofei goes on to write to the Tsar,

Quote
Now, the Holy Universal Apostolic Church of a Third, New Rome, your sovereign state, shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith throughout the world.

...


And if you will order well your kingdom, you will be a son of light and dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, and as I wrote to you above, so now I say:  listen and remember, pious Tsar, that all Christian kingdoms have merged into your one kingdom, that two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. And your Christian kingdom will not be replaced by others, according to the word of the great Theologian, and the word of the blessed David will come true for the Christian church:  "Behold my eternal rest; I make all things right as I will." Saint Hippolytus said:  "When we see Rome beset by Persian forces and the Persians come with the Scythes to do us battle, then we will know without doubt that this is the Antichrist."

So unless you have some unknown claimant to the throne sleeping on your sofa and he's planning a heist to steal Monomakh's Crown, you're using a double standard. Third Rome is a state, a monarchy with a Tsar, not a bunch of small churches in and out of Russia that don't all even have priests. You sound like a Protestant.

If the Russia of today, the geopolitical entity, is no longer Third Rome, then Third Rome is gone and Elder Filofei was simply wrong.

You just demonstrated further you do not know what your talking about, when people decide to stop slandering and ridiculing me I'll be happy to share. If you want to imagine you know what you are talking about, and, imagine your slander and ridicule is true, then so be it.

As for my use of the word slander, here is the definition I use, taken form the Oxford English Dictionary,

slander | ˈslɑːndə |

noun [ mass noun ] Law

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation: he is suing the TV company for slander. Compare with libel.

• [ count noun ] a false and malicious spoken statement: I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders.
verb [ with obj. ]

make false and damaging statements about (someone): they were accused of slandering the head of state.

Do I look like Peter to you? How have I slandered you?

I disagree with you and I'm showing you my interpretation of what Filofei meant by Third Rome but I don't see how that's slander. If you read his words differently, then show me how. You might convince me.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 06:46:54 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #148 on: March 01, 2015, 09:02:38 PM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date. The Man of Lawlessness will not come unless the falling away occurs first. 1667 simply doesn't cut if for a start date. The Jehovah's Witnesses make a better case with 1918.


Quote
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

That is your issue, you cannot accept what goes against your ideas, what you imagine to be true.

Quote
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I'm not doing that, only you imagine that I am. 3rd Rome has more to do with the proximity of the times, and, to God keeping for himself a faithful people. It does appear very clear you do not really know what the story about 3rd Rome; really is. This statement shines light on your innocents on the matter "How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other"

I'm not tying anything to political fortunes. Nor is the story.


The reason 2nd Rome fell was, because, they submitted to the Catholics during the council of Florence. 

The Reason Russia is third Rome is because it alone never submitted. The ones who fell away were invited to repent and be part of 3rd Rome, but their pride got the better of them.

From the Wiki:

On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greek monks therefore were able to assert that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of the whole Church. (The agreement of a Patriarch is not binding over the whole Orthodox Church; the Patriarchs are just considered first among equals among the local bishops of the patriarchy, and do not hold any power outside their bishopric - they cannot even perform sacraments outside their bishopric without blessing of the local bishop.) Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

Pat. Joseph II, though he was a sick old man and pro-union, was also found dead in his room with a signed copy of the agreement next to him. Give the political pressures on everyone at the council, chicanery is possible. But either way you said yourself that bishops don't have the power to force a church into heresy on their own. St. Mark and the people never came into union with the RCC.

Second, the Letter of Elder Filofei is clear, the Third Rome is the Russian kingdom of the Tsar. Not because of Florence but because, https://www2.stetson.edu/secure/history/hy308C01/filofeithirdrome.html

Quote
the church of old Rome fell into the Apollinarian heresy. The grandsons of Hagar used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second Rome, the city of Constantinople.

See? First Rome fell to heresy. Second Rome did not.

Filofei goes on to write to the Tsar,

Quote
Now, the Holy Universal Apostolic Church of a Third, New Rome, your sovereign state, shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith throughout the world.

...


And if you will order well your kingdom, you will be a son of light and dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, and as I wrote to you above, so now I say:  listen and remember, pious Tsar, that all Christian kingdoms have merged into your one kingdom, that two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. And your Christian kingdom will not be replaced by others, according to the word of the great Theologian, and the word of the blessed David will come true for the Christian church:  "Behold my eternal rest; I make all things right as I will." Saint Hippolytus said:  "When we see Rome beset by Persian forces and the Persians come with the Scythes to do us battle, then we will know without doubt that this is the Antichrist."

So unless you have some unknown claimant to the throne sleeping on your sofa and he's planning a heist to steal Monomakh's Crown, you're using a double standard. Third Rome is a state, a monarchy with a Tsar, not a bunch of small churches in and out of Russia that don't all even have priests. You sound like a Protestant.

If the Russia of today, the geopolitical entity, is no longer Third Rome, then Third Rome is gone and Elder Filofei was simply wrong.

You just demonstrated further you do not know what your talking about, when people decide to stop slandering and ridiculing me I'll be happy to share. If you want to imagine you know what you are talking about, and, imagine your slander and ridicule is true, then so be it.

As for my use of the word slander, here is the definition I use, taken form the Oxford English Dictionary,

slander | ˈslɑːndə |

noun [ mass noun ] Law

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation: he is suing the TV company for slander. Compare with libel.

• [ count noun ] a false and malicious spoken statement: I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders.
verb [ with obj. ]

make false and damaging statements about (someone): they were accused of slandering the head of state.

Do I look like Peter to you? How have I slandered you?

I disagree with you and I'm showing you my interpretation of what Filofei meant by Third Rome but I don't see how that's slander. If you read his words differently, then show me how. You might convince me.

Well, apparently I cannot get this site to upload pictures. In short you must understand the story of the White Cowl, properly.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:11:38 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #149 on: March 01, 2015, 09:14:05 PM »
Paste the URL of the image and surround with [ img ][ /img ] without the spaces.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:14:35 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #150 on: March 01, 2015, 09:15:23 PM »
Paste the URL of the image and surround with [ img ][ /img ] without the spaces.

I only have local copies. I'll try and figure something out.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #151 on: March 01, 2015, 09:22:58 PM »
Strange, I'm having a time of it.

http://postimg.org/gallery/4gxfsguk/a6333524/

Well I would have liked to upload each picture, and, comment on each. This is of course not a raw unfiltered example, but, it is a fairly okay, and, I have nothing better in English at the moment, but, if as long as I'm not being ridiculed, or slandered, and, the person (in this case you) are seriously interested in this topic I do not mind sharing whatever else I might find, --  it is not without its issues. After reading this you decide that you understand it correctly, contrary to what I've been saying, that is your prerogative.  So I will note: that some of the commentary given here, as I noted already, is bad; for example. It claims outright that Third Rome was identified as Muscovy the land, a geographical track on the world globe this is not strictly true. Nor is it fair to say I'm claiming any invisible church, because, I am not, nor is the work. Russian, as noted elsewhere in this book is a synonym for Christian during this time period. Third Rome never says Moscow, that is injected into the text by some who believe the meaning is implied or intended. In any case, this does, at least properly explain the original prophecy, in some regards, or in other words the first prophecy in regards to this matter. You should pay especial careful attention to how the White Cowl, is given to the bishops, and, that it is greater than the earthly Tsar's crown.  In summary, Third Rome is given to the Russian people properly, they are the Russian land. As noted by others,  Old Believers do claim to be the last true Christians, but, this is not just a claim, it is a fact, and, it is a fulfillment of these prophecies.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:42:51 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #152 on: March 01, 2015, 09:29:24 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:32:06 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #153 on: March 01, 2015, 09:33:19 PM »
Basically, Third Rome-ism is to Russian Orthodoxy what dispensationalism is to Protestantism and the whole Fatima thing is for Roman Catholicism.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #154 on: March 01, 2015, 09:38:42 PM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date. The Man of Lawlessness will not come unless the falling away occurs first. 1667 simply doesn't cut if for a start date. The Jehovah's Witnesses make a better case with 1918.


Quote
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

That is your issue, you cannot accept what goes against your ideas, what you imagine to be true.

Quote
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I'm not doing that, only you imagine that I am. 3rd Rome has more to do with the proximity of the times, and, to God keeping for himself a faithful people. It does appear very clear you do not really know what the story about 3rd Rome; really is. This statement shines light on your innocents on the matter "How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other"

I'm not tying anything to political fortunes. Nor is the story.


The reason 2nd Rome fell was, because, they submitted to the Catholics during the council of Florence. 

The Reason Russia is third Rome is because it alone never submitted. The ones who fell away were invited to repent and be part of 3rd Rome, but their pride got the better of them.

From the Wiki:

On 6 July 1439 an agreement (Laetentur caeli) was signed by Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople and all the Eastern bishops but one, Mark of Ephesus, who held that Rome continued in both heresy and schism. However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later, the Greek monks therefore were able to assert that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of the whole Church. (The agreement of a Patriarch is not binding over the whole Orthodox Church; the Patriarchs are just considered first among equals among the local bishops of the patriarchy, and do not hold any power outside their bishopric - they cannot even perform sacraments outside their bishopric without blessing of the local bishop.) Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches.

Pat. Joseph II, though he was a sick old man and pro-union, was also found dead in his room with a signed copy of the agreement next to him. Give the political pressures on everyone at the council, chicanery is possible. But either way you said yourself that bishops don't have the power to force a church into heresy on their own. St. Mark and the people never came into union with the RCC.

Second, the Letter of Elder Filofei is clear, the Third Rome is the Russian kingdom of the Tsar. Not because of Florence but because, https://www2.stetson.edu/secure/history/hy308C01/filofeithirdrome.html

Quote
the church of old Rome fell into the Apollinarian heresy. The grandsons of Hagar used their axes to shatter the doors of all churches of the Second Rome, the city of Constantinople.

See? First Rome fell to heresy. Second Rome did not.

Filofei goes on to write to the Tsar,

Quote
Now, the Holy Universal Apostolic Church of a Third, New Rome, your sovereign state, shines brighter than the sun in the universal Orthodox Christian faith throughout the world.

...


And if you will order well your kingdom, you will be a son of light and dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, and as I wrote to you above, so now I say:  listen and remember, pious Tsar, that all Christian kingdoms have merged into your one kingdom, that two Romes have fallen, and a third stands, and there will not be a fourth. And your Christian kingdom will not be replaced by others, according to the word of the great Theologian, and the word of the blessed David will come true for the Christian church:  "Behold my eternal rest; I make all things right as I will." Saint Hippolytus said:  "When we see Rome beset by Persian forces and the Persians come with the Scythes to do us battle, then we will know without doubt that this is the Antichrist."

So unless you have some unknown claimant to the throne sleeping on your sofa and he's planning a heist to steal Monomakh's Crown, you're using a double standard. Third Rome is a state, a monarchy with a Tsar, not a bunch of small churches in and out of Russia that don't all even have priests. You sound like a Protestant.

If the Russia of today, the geopolitical entity, is no longer Third Rome, then Third Rome is gone and Elder Filofei was simply wrong.

You just demonstrated further you do not know what your talking about, when people decide to stop slandering and ridiculing me I'll be happy to share. If you want to imagine you know what you are talking about, and, imagine your slander and ridicule is true, then so be it.

As for my use of the word slander, here is the definition I use, taken form the Oxford English Dictionary,

slander | ˈslɑːndə |

noun [ mass noun ] Law

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation: he is suing the TV company for slander. Compare with libel.

• [ count noun ] a false and malicious spoken statement: I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders.
verb [ with obj. ]

make false and damaging statements about (someone): they were accused of slandering the head of state.

The one error you're making is that if you're accusing someone on this forum of slander, which is rather harsh IMO, you must mean libel, because this board is a written medium.  If this was a voice chat slander would apply.  The key word with slander is spoken.   But please, I beg of you, relax and be our friend.  We are not here to insult you or make you uncomfortable.  Can't we harmoniously discuss our respective faith traditions as Christian brothers?  I really want to be your friend and I think most of us here just want to be your friend, and no one is slandering or libeling anyone.  If someone has a misconception about the Nikonian schism and is repeating what they were taught, you can't possibly take offence at it.  Remember our Lord taught us to turn the other cheek.  Many of us here are fascinated by pre Nikonian Russian liturgy.  I have a beautiful album of Old Believer singers from Oregon, an Old Rite prayer book, and a Lestovka.  And I don't think Peter or anyone here wishes you any ill will at all.

Out of curiosity by the way did you grow up in the Soviet Union or the US or elsewhere, if I might ask?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #155 on: March 01, 2015, 09:46:27 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

In fact I am using "Zenkovsky's collection" as an example, you can read the above where I finally managed it, to some degree.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #156 on: March 01, 2015, 09:50:51 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

No, need to have a claimant to the Russian Throne.  Currently, there is no Patriarch of Russia, we just have a Metropolitan.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:51:38 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,769
  • Excelsior
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #157 on: March 01, 2015, 09:52:42 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

In fact I am using "Zenkovsky's collection" as an example, you can read the above where I finally managed it, to some degree.

You may want to try Photobucket. They're free.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,119
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #158 on: March 01, 2015, 09:55:49 PM »
In all the parts of the world that seem disconnected  to the "3rd Rome" prophecy, what is their relevance pertaining to election?
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #159 on: March 01, 2015, 09:59:00 PM »
Basically, Third Rome-ism is to Russian Orthodoxy what dispensationalism is to Protestantism and the whole Fatima thing is for Roman Catholicism.

Incorrect.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #160 on: March 01, 2015, 09:59:31 PM »
In all the parts of the world that seem disconnected  to the "3rd Rome" prophecy, what is their relevance pertaining to election?

Are you asking me? If so, know that I'm not sure what you are asking.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 09:59:49 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #161 on: March 01, 2015, 10:03:22 PM »
Strange, I'm having a time of it.

http://postimg.org/gallery/4gxfsguk/a6333524/

Well I would have liked to upload each picture, and, comment on each. This is of course not a raw unfiltered example, but, it is a fairly okay, and, I have nothing better in English at the moment, but, if as long as I'm not being ridiculed, or slandered, and, the person (in this case you) are seriously interested in this topic I do not mind sharing whatever else I might find, --  it is not without its issues. After reading this you decide that you understand it correctly, contrary to what I've been saying, that is your prerogative.  So I will note: that some of the commentary given here, as I noted already, is bad; for example. It claims outright that Third Rome was identified as Muscovy the land, a geographical track on the world globe this is not strictly true. Nor is it fair to say I'm claiming any invisible church, because, I am not, nor is the work. Russian, as noted elsewhere in this book is a synonym for Christian during this time period. Third Rome never says Moscow, that is injected into the text by some who believe the meaning is implied or intended. In any case, this does, at least properly explain the original prophecy, in some regards, or in other words the first prophecy in regards to this matter. You should pay especial careful attention to how the White Cowl, is given to the bishops, and, that it is greater than the earthly Tsar's crown.  In summary, Third Rome is given to the Russian people properly, they are the Russian land. As noted by others,  Old Believers do claim to be the last true Christians, but, this is not just a claim, it is a fact, and, it is a fulfillment of these prophecies.

Each Rome is better than the the one before it! The last and final Rome is only kept because it is not, strictly speaking, a geographical track of land; and, that is also one of the principle points that make it greater than all the others before it. This is Rome having reached its height; nothing greater than this can or will be, until Christ Jesus himself comes again, on earth, and, evil is once and for all defeated.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 10:06:26 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,119
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #162 on: March 01, 2015, 10:10:00 PM »
In all the parts of the world that seem disconnected  to the "3rd Rome" prophecy, what is their relevance pertaining to election?

Are you asking me? If so, know that I'm not sure what you are asking.

Yes, but now I realize I may not have fully thought out my question. Anyway, so the 3rd Rome upholds Orthodoxy & the Orthodox faithful who know this or not are still judged according to right faith & worship within the church.
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #163 on: March 01, 2015, 10:16:44 PM »
In all the parts of the world that seem disconnected  to the "3rd Rome" prophecy, what is their relevance pertaining to election?

Are you asking me? If so, know that I'm not sure what you are asking.

Yes, but now I realize I may not have fully thought out my question. Anyway, so the 3rd Rome upholds Orthodoxy & the Orthodox faithful who know this or not are still judged according to right faith & worship within the church.

Forgive me, I am having a hard time understanding you.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #164 on: March 01, 2015, 10:20:31 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

No, need to have a claimant to the Russian Throne.  Currently, there is no Patriarch of Russia, we just have a Metropolitan.

So you're a sedevacantist Third Rome-ist. How nice...
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #165 on: March 01, 2015, 10:21:54 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

In fact I am using "Zenkovsky's collection" as an example, you can read the above where I finally managed it, to some degree.

That translation's likely copyright. Don't do it.

It's ok. We can pick this conversation up at another time. I've got to move a lot of boxes around soon anyway and maybe I'll find my copy.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #166 on: March 01, 2015, 10:23:01 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

No, need to have a claimant to the Russian Throne.  Currently, there is no Patriarch of Russia, we just have a Metropolitan.

So you're a sedevacantist Third Rome-ist. How nice...

How is what you posted able to be understood as anything other than ridicule or something else negative? There is no reason to compare what I said to the Catholics.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #167 on: March 01, 2015, 10:24:40 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

No, need to have a claimant to the Russian Throne.  Currently, there is no Patriarch of Russia, we just have a Metropolitan.

So you're a sedevacantist Third Rome-ist. How nice...

How is what you posted able to be understood as anything other than ridicule or something else negative? There is no reason to compare what I said to the Catholics.

Relax. I'm just being snarky.

You've got an awfully thin skin for someone who presumes to correct others on an internet board.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 10:25:58 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline recent convert

  • Orthodox Chrisitan
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,119
  • St.David of Wales pray for us
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #168 on: March 01, 2015, 10:26:16 PM »
In all the parts of the world that seem disconnected  to the "3rd Rome" prophecy, what is their relevance pertaining to election?

Are you asking me? If so, know that I'm not sure what you are asking.

Yes, but now I realize I may not have fully thought out my question. Anyway, so the 3rd Rome upholds Orthodoxy & the Orthodox faithful who know this or not are still judged according to right faith & worship within the church.

Forgive me, I am having a hard time understanding you.

Sorry I bothered you. Don't worry about it.
Antiochian OC NA

Beware the wrath of the guardians of "love."

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #169 on: March 01, 2015, 10:35:53 PM »
Are you trying to upload scans? I don't read Russian.

I have a copy of Zenkovsky's collection, but I don't remember where it is. It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the White Cowl legend, again, links the Tsar and the Patriarchy pretty inseparably.

I know you think whoever your head bishop is is the true Patriarch of Moscow, but I'm pretty sure that's meaningless unless you can also produce a claimant to the Russia throne.

No, need to have a claimant to the Russian Throne.  Currently, there is no Patriarch of Russia, we just have a Metropolitan.

So you're a sedevacantist Third Rome-ist. How nice...

How is what you posted able to be understood as anything other than ridicule or something else negative? There is no reason to compare what I said to the Catholics.

Relax. I'm just being snarky.

You've got an awfully thin skin for someone who presumes to correct others on an internet board.

Perhaps...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 10:38:50 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #170 on: March 01, 2015, 10:40:08 PM »
Yeah, if you're going to continue on the net, you need to learn that one can attack an idea without attacking the holder. I ridicule your idea because I think it's ahistorical nonsense. I don't ridicule you as a person.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 10:40:29 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #171 on: March 01, 2015, 10:47:31 PM »
Yeah, if you're going to continue on the net, you need to learn that one can attack an idea without attacking the holder. I ridicule your idea because I think it's ahistorical nonsense. I don't ridicule you as a person.

Well, you are free to believe whatever you want. However, I'll stick with the historically correct position. I know Nikonians have attempted to reuse this theory in many ways, and, I know many Soviets like to inject their meanings into the text, but, strictly speaking neither are true, and, both are the ones guilty of what you said here, of being "ahistorical nonsense".

Historically, the ones who believes similar to how you express your understanding, were the Nikonians.   

The Soviets have a invested interest in understanding it, to a great degree, how you express you understand it, presumable to lay some kind of pseudo claim to it, although, in a modified form. 

Might, I actually make a mistake here and there in explaining it, sure I might, but it should not radically change what I'm saying.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2015, 10:52:26 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #172 on: March 01, 2015, 11:23:41 PM »
You seem like an OK guy. I should have been so acrimonious.

Sorry for that.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #173 on: March 02, 2015, 12:58:11 AM »
Yeah, if you're going to continue on the net, you need to learn that one can attack an idea without attacking the holder. I ridicule your idea because I think it's ahistorical nonsense. I don't ridicule you as a person.

Well, you are free to believe whatever you want. However, I'll stick with the historically correct position.
Yes, you are free to believe whatever you want. You are even free to believe that there is a historically correct position. The question I have for you is this: Whose spin on history are you proclaiming correct?

I know Nikonians have attempted to reuse this theory in many ways, and, I know many Soviets like to inject their meanings into the text, but, strictly speaking neither are true, and, both are the ones guilty of what you said here, of being "ahistorical nonsense".
Have you noticed a difference between how Volnutt speaks and how you speak? Volnutt states, "I think...", which is a statement of admission that what he presents is his opinion. You, however, NEVER speak in such terms. You speak only in terms of "this is correct, and you are wrong." This is one reason why discussion with you is so difficult. You appear incapable of recognizing that what you present here is merely your opinion. In your eyes, you can only be absolutely right and us absolutely wrong.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #174 on: March 02, 2015, 01:14:57 AM »
Yeah, if you're going to continue on the net, you need to learn that one can attack an idea without attacking the holder. I ridicule your idea because I think it's ahistorical nonsense. I don't ridicule you as a person.

Well, you are free to believe whatever you want. However, I'll stick with the historically correct position.
Yes, you are free to believe whatever you want. You are even free to believe that there is a historically correct position. The question I have for you is this: Whose spin on history are you proclaiming correct?

I know Nikonians have attempted to reuse this theory in many ways, and, I know many Soviets like to inject their meanings into the text, but, strictly speaking neither are true, and, both are the ones guilty of what you said here, of being "ahistorical nonsense".
Have you noticed a difference between how Volnutt speaks and how you speak? Volnutt states, "I think...", which is a statement of admission that what he presents is his opinion. You, however, NEVER speak in such terms. You speak only in terms of "this is correct, and you are wrong." This is one reason why discussion with you is so difficult. You appear incapable of recognizing that what you present here is merely your opinion. In your eyes, you can only be absolutely right and us absolutely wrong.

I'm speaking about the Old Believer, the ones with priests, position, and (most the time my churches position, meaning I do not always speak for all those called Old Believers), and, to a lesser degree those without priests; which the Nikonians often times misrepresent. My entry into this thread started with me stating that Erie, PA Old Rite Church (their churches historical position is nothing like their current one) did not present the authentic Old Believer position. I do not state opinions, my comments (in this thread, 99% of the time at the least) do have only two possibilities; fact, or error. I'm sure I make a few mistakes, 99% of them all are me stating less than 100% accurately by way of poor choice of words or examples the things I have stated.  Is it possible that I state other types of mistakes?, sure, just very, very unlikely.

I did state, imply, or, alluded to this as dialogue continued.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 01:34:54 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #175 on: March 02, 2015, 01:42:36 PM »
Basically, Third Rome-ism is to Russian Orthodoxy what dispensationalism is to Protestantism and the whole Fatima thing is for Roman Catholicism.

Not really since Fatima is an official Catholc teaching.
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

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

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 868
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #176 on: March 02, 2015, 05:37:39 PM »
Since we're talking about positions held by your church, вєликаго, what do you think of the decisions of your Moscow synod?

Quote
6. On the continuation of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church and regarding the recognition of the canonicity of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy

Seems a little odd that the true Church should desire to be recognized as canonical by heretics.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 05:39:29 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #177 on: March 02, 2015, 05:54:36 PM »
Since we're talking about positions held by your church, вєликаго, what do you think of the decisions of your Moscow synod?

Quote
6. On the continuation of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church and regarding the recognition of the canonicity of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy

Seems a little odd that the true Church should desire to be recognized as canonical by heretics.

May seem odd to you, it does appear a bit odd to me, now we are just talking about opinions of mine. My opinion is we know our Hierarchy is legit, and, we know that any learned Nikonian should agree with us; however, we call for them to officially announce it, for their benefit, not our own. When they officially accept it, then the logical conclusion is they should return to us.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 868
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #178 on: March 02, 2015, 06:01:25 PM »
Since we're talking about positions held by your church, вєликаго, what do you think of the decisions of your Moscow synod?

Quote
6. On the continuation of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church and regarding the recognition of the canonicity of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy

Seems a little odd that the true Church should desire to be recognized as canonical by heretics.

May seem odd to you, it does appear a bit odd to me, now we are just talking about opinions of mine. My opinion is we know our Hierarchy is legit, and, we know that any learned Nikonian should agree with us; however, we call for them to officially announce it, for their benefit, not our own. When they officially accept it, then the logical conclusion is they should return to us.

What would be the point of having the Nikonians recognize the canonicity of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy if there wasn't reciprocation? No, if this commission succeeds, the logical conclusion will be the recognition of the New Rite as orthodox.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 06:01:43 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #179 on: March 02, 2015, 06:03:54 PM »
Since we're talking about positions held by your church, вєликаго, what do you think of the decisions of your Moscow synod?

Quote
6. On the continuation of dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church and regarding the recognition of the canonicity of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy

I'm sure that is not the case. For that to be the case, it would run contrary to everything I've been taught. I'm sure you just are imagining that to be the case. There is no way for me to imagine otherwise, but I speak with no authority on the matter. There has been a few rumors of people believing like you state, but, I've been told that is only lies, that the only way for there to union is for the Nikonians to reject the New, and return to the church, who is us.

Seems a little odd that the true Church should desire to be recognized as canonical by heretics.

May seem odd to you, it does appear a bit odd to me, now we are just talking about opinions of mine. My opinion is we know our Hierarchy is legit, and, we know that any learned Nikonian should agree with us; however, we call for them to officially announce it, for their benefit, not our own. When they officially accept it, then the logical conclusion is they should return to us.

What would be the point of having the Nikonians recognize the canonicity of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy if there wasn't reciprocation? No, if this commission succeeds, the logical conclusion will be the recognition of the New Rite as orthodox.

I am pretty sure your conclusion here is not true. I'm sure what I already wrote is the truth of the matter. Regardless, I speak with no authority on the matter. 

The Nikonians are referred to as heretics throughout.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 06:09:23 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What