Author Topic: Old Believers and Orthodoxy  (Read 38039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #180 on: March 02, 2015, 10:53:46 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.

No, it's not. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

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 #181 on: March 03, 2015, 04:14:09 AM »
Indeed, not dogma, but merely according to the CDF, formerly known as the Holy Office and before that, the Inquisition, a probable supernatural apparition deemed "worthy of belief."

If the Roman Catholics mandated belief in Fatima I wouldn't set foot in their churches to enjoy the pccasional Tridentine mass. But that is off topic.

I am curious to know however regarding the Old Believers who follow the Metropolitan how they view the other group that styles their primate the Patriarch?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #182 on: March 03, 2015, 03:01:33 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.

I asked your question to my friend a Deacon in my Church who lives in Moscow, and, he replied with this:

Quote
Some of our bishops and priests to their own surprise learned that New-Rite Russian Church does not recognize their bishopric and priesthood.  haha. I expect nothing from such meetings. Wasting time, nothing more.
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 #183 on: March 03, 2015, 03:02:44 PM »
Indeed, not dogma, but merely according to the CDF, formerly known as the Holy Office and before that, the Inquisition, a probable supernatural apparition deemed "worthy of belief."

If the Roman Catholics mandated belief in Fatima I wouldn't set foot in their churches to enjoy the pccasional Tridentine mass. But that is off topic.

I am curious to know however regarding the Old Believers who follow the Metropolitan how they view the other group that styles their primate the Patriarch?

They used to be part of our Church, and, they schism from 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 Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,807
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #184 on: March 03, 2015, 03:04:29 PM »
вєликаго, I generally am very sympathetic to the Old Believers and even I can't figure out what you're doing in this thread. You're coming across as very aggressive.

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.

No, it's not.

Well, they say it's up to the individual to believe in apparitions, but when they're naming churches after Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc, it is kinda becoming an official teaching. Just how I see it anyway.
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #185 on: March 03, 2015, 03:39:45 PM »
Who is a "schismatic" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. :P

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #186 on: March 03, 2015, 03:45:50 PM »
Who is a "schismatic" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. :P

What is your point? I was asked what "our" view is on them, I responded.

I disagree with you, anyway.. but this conversation I doubt is worth having.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 03:48:43 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 Antonis

  • Μέγα το Θαύμα!
  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #187 on: March 03, 2015, 03:46:38 PM »
Quote
Well, they say it's up to the individual to believe in apparitions, but when they're naming churches after Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc, it is kinda becoming an official teaching. Just how I see it anyway.
That is actually an interesting observation, I had never thought of that before. Private chapels are different, but when dioceses (including the Roman diocese) are approving churches named after these apparitions, it logically follows that they are endorsed as official teaching, regardless of what they like to claim.
You sound like a professional who knows what he's talking about.  That's because you are.

"This is the one from the beginning, who seemed to be new, yet was found to be ancient and always young, being born in the hearts of the saints."
Letter to Diognetus 11.4

"The human being is earth that suffers."
Letter of Barnabas 6.9

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #188 on: March 03, 2015, 04:01:06 PM »
Quote
Well, they say it's up to the individual to believe in apparitions, but when they're naming churches after Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc, it is kinda becoming an official teaching. Just how I see it anyway.
That is actually an interesting observation, I had never thought of that before. Private chapels are different, but when dioceses (including the Roman diocese) are approving churches named after these apparitions, it logically follows that they are endorsed as official teaching, regardless of what they like to claim.

Well, no. The official term is "worthy of belief." The fact that there's enough people in a diocese that believe in it, has nothing to do with whether anyone else has to believe it.
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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #189 on: March 04, 2015, 03:05:31 AM »
Rome allows cults that are not condemned but are, no, not official. This has been the case for hundreds of years and must be something like 'economia.'
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

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 #190 on: March 04, 2015, 01:06:41 PM »
Quote
Well, they say it's up to the individual to believe in apparitions, but when they're naming churches after Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc, it is kinda becoming an official teaching. Just how I see it anyway.
That is actually an interesting observation, I had never thought of that before. Private chapels are different, but when dioceses (including the Roman diocese) are approving churches named after these apparitions, it logically follows that they are endorsed as official teaching, regardless of what they like to claim.

I don't know that I agree, at least if we're simply talking about how churches are named. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #191 on: March 04, 2015, 02:46:54 PM »
Rome allows cults that are not condemned but are, no, not official. This has been the case for hundreds of years and must be something like 'economia.'

The most strange double talk nonsense I've ever heard. I'm not arguing if it is true or not, I have no idea, but if it is, its just, I'm trying to find the words to describe how empty or how I think they use this to just include everyone. How will they ever find the truth in this mess? I guess they so long ago lost the Truth they have no memory of the truth; but, how are they even able to reason this in their imagination?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 02:47:39 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 andrewlya

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,879
  • God is One & Jesus is the Mashiach.
    • One GOD and One Messiah.
  • Faith: Christian Monotheism
  • Jurisdiction: Pro-Conservatism. Anti-liberalism.
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #192 on: March 12, 2015, 03:22:09 PM »
This is a basic explanation from the church in Erie, which is under ROCOR but retains the Old Rite (there is also a priestless OB group in Erie who aren't in communion with any canonical group):

http://www.churchofthenativity.net/old-rite/

That is not the basic differences, those are the basic differences between Old Ritualists and New Ritualists.

The true basic differences amount to Faith and Dogma.  Old Believers have maintained the Faith given to the Apostles by Christ, and, teach the same Dogmas that were given. Nikonians, those who followed the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, modify not just the outward forms, but the very Faith of our Lord Christ, Jesus.
In what way do "Nikonians"modify our faith?
I believe in ONE God the Father YHWH and I also believe in His Son Lord Yeshua,the Ha Mashiach.
https://yrm.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Eusebian/
http://www.arianismtoday.com/

Offline andrewlya

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,879
  • God is One & Jesus is the Mashiach.
    • One GOD and One Messiah.
  • Faith: Christian Monotheism
  • Jurisdiction: Pro-Conservatism. Anti-liberalism.
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #193 on: March 14, 2015, 01:01:00 PM »
Quote
The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm

And why is it worth schisming over, anyway? Aside from the extreme pointlessness of the difference, it seems like the Priestless and Priested communions are committing a far greater sin in one another's eyes than Nikon did by changing the number of fingers?

And if being conquered by the Muslims invalidates Constantinopolitan leadership, then being conquered by the Communists invalidates Russian leadership.

I maybe agree with you fully! I do, however, imagine, I do not, and,  I agree only with the letter of, and, not the spirit of what you wrote. Why do I say this? because, it is not about the number of fingers, it is about wether we have the power to change Apostolic teaching, or decrees.  Concerning the invalidation of Russia, you are right, the Russia that fell to the communists, was invalid; however, Holy Russia is not the same, the Russia that rejected Holy Russia, is the Russia that fell to the communists.

I get the feeling you mean the Old Believers schism, but actually, it was the Nikonians who did.

Lastly I noticed more important, and, now I do not just imagine you and I disagree, but, I am nearly certain, you cite, a heretic in defense of the Catholic position. If you, however, dig further back into pre Nikonian schism Orthodoxy, you will see that the Orthodox, had a few debates with the heretics on the matter of the Cross, and, at that time, no one argued amongst the Orthodox, that the two finger cross is what Christ taught the Apostles.
I don't think Christ even taught us to cross..
I believe in ONE God the Father YHWH and I also believe in His Son Lord Yeshua,the Ha Mashiach.
https://yrm.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Eusebian/
http://www.arianismtoday.com/

Offline andrewlya

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,879
  • God is One & Jesus is the Mashiach.
    • One GOD and One Messiah.
  • Faith: Christian Monotheism
  • Jurisdiction: Pro-Conservatism. Anti-liberalism.
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #194 on: March 15, 2015, 10:18:31 AM »
Here is a quick website that shows some dialogues between Nikonians and Old Believers.

https://archeodox.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/concerning-the-celebration-of-sabbath/

In summary it shows that the teaching of the Old Believers, is that: the Bishops, priests etc do not have the power to abolish an Apostolic teaching; while the Nikonians teach that they have the power to do so.
What Apostolic teaching do we Nikonians claim to have the power to abolish? You keep alluding to this idea that we have changed Apostolic teaching, but you haven't yet explained in any detail what Apostolic teaching we have abolished.

The Nikonians Make a heretical separation between the laity and the clergy.
ISTM that it was St. Ignatius of Antioch who made this "separation" between the laity and the clergy when he identified the bishop as the presence of Christ in the Church and the fountain of all the Church's sacraments and when he instructed the faithful to not do anything without their bishop.

The Church does not cease to be the Church, just because, it lacks a Priest or a Bishop; because in reality, the Church never lacks these, because, through Christ, Jesus, it always has them.  Moreover, the Church never actually was without priests and Bishops on earth.
I'm sorry, but St. Ignatius seems to disagree with your concept of an invisible bishop.

You clearly only read a bit of what I posted, I posted a link to some dialogues concerning it.

Here, I will try and help spell it out for you some, since apparently, you claim I have failed to show you what you seek.
https://archeodox.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/concerning-the-celebration-of-sabbath/
Making me read whole long articles that I have no time to read and whose relevance to this discussion is questionable is really just as bad as saying nothing at all. For sake of time, I would like you to summarize in a bullet list those specific points of doctrine on which the Nikonians abolished the Faith of the Apostles.

I boiled it down for you to one issue: Bishops and Priests do not have the power to abolish Apostolic decrees or teachings.
And you have yet to establish what Apostolic decrees or teachings our Bishops and Priests abolished.

The dialogue between the Old Believers and the Nikonians illustrates that the Nikonians set out to prove they in fact had the authority to do so, and, that they could prove that it had been done in the past. The Old Believer would prove otherwise. If you care for more details, I invite you to read the actual articles.
Look, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you wish to summarize in your own words what those articles say, then good. Please do so. But I'm not going to waste my precious time reading such long articles for the mere sake of an Internet discussion with a person who refuses to make his points clear and easy to understand.

If your interest is so shallow, I have no interest in helping you further.
Well, surely you can speak to the most "shallow of interests", can't you?

If you want to accuse me of this nonsense you are accusing me of, then I'm not sure I even care to write what I am writing now.
Of what nonsense am I accusing you?

I did summarize to you the most key point! The Nikonians in the dialogues themselves exclaim that they have the power to abolish Apostolic decrees and teachings.
You keep repeating that canard, but it does nothing to answer my question. For the Nikonian claim that they have the power to abolish Apostolic decrees and teachings to even be meaningful and not just much ado about nothing, the Nikonians have to have actually abolished some Apostolic decrees and teachings. What Apostolic decrees and teachings did they abolish?

Well clearly in reality they abolished the proper teaching on the sign of the Cross (among other things and no I will not attempt to create a all inclusive list). In the dialogues between the Old Believers and the Nikonians , however, the Nikonians wish to show how in the past the Church, before the schism had abolished decrees and teachings; they wished to do this to side step the actual issue of the Sign of the Cross; what they demonstrate instead is a lack of understanding, and, the Old Believer sets them straight. You might call an official communication between the Old Believers and Nikonians, in which the Nikonians declare they have this power "much ado about nothing", but, to me that sort of phraseology, and, more importantly the attitude, is in the case of the former just wrong, and, in the case of the later (appears to me) somewhat insulting.
Assuming that the Old Believer practice of crossing oneself with two fingers is the more ancient practice and therefore more likely the practice Jesus taught His apostles, assuming He even taught them to cross themselves, why is the difference between two fingers or three an issue over which to rend the Body of Christ? I'm not blaming the Old Believers alone for the schism, for I see that the Russian use of military force to persecute Old Believers at the behest of Patriarch Nikon is lamentably just as much to blame for the schism as the Old Believers' intransigence. But I have to wonder why those on either side who continue to advocate schism (or condemn as heretics those on the other side) do so over a matter that, to me, is not a matter of dogma. We both believe in and worship the Holy Trinity. We both believe in and worship Christ the God-Man incarnate. We both venerate icons. We do all these things because this is the Faith of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Councils.  What, then, is the dogmatic significance of crossing oneself with three fingers as opposed to crossing oneself with two? Is adherence to the more ancient form of this practice of crossing oneself really so damned important that we should continue to perpetuate a schism over it?

No one stops you from coming to our Church, and, to be received by us.

You make it an issue of fingers, but, really it is an issue of changing an Apostolic teaching. The whole attitude of "it is just fingers" is insulting .
I have gone through all 5 pages and still don't understand how the Apostolic teaching of Old Believers is different to Orthodoxy? Apart from some liturgical rituals and crossing, what is the difference in that Orthodoxy belief about Jesus for example?
I believe in ONE God the Father YHWH and I also believe in His Son Lord Yeshua,the Ha Mashiach.
https://yrm.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Eusebian/
http://www.arianismtoday.com/

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #195 on: March 15, 2015, 10:24:31 AM »
The faith is the same.

The only difference is that the Old Believers hold that Moscow is Third Rome- the city that is supposed to be the new guardian of Orthodoxy after Second Rome, Constantinople, fell to the Muslims in 1453. So any spiritual movement that does not originate in Russia is going to be automatically suspect.

Beyond that, it's not that they are hung up externals for the sake of externals, it's that they believe that the method of crossing oneself, the number of times one says the Alleuia during the service (three vs. two), etc. are Apostolic teachings. In attempting to alter them, the Old Believers say, the Nikonians were trying to take the prerogatives of God Himself thus proving that the mainline Orthodox Church had fallen to the spirit of antichrist.
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 andrewlya

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,879
  • God is One & Jesus is the Mashiach.
    • One GOD and One Messiah.
  • Faith: Christian Monotheism
  • Jurisdiction: Pro-Conservatism. Anti-liberalism.
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #196 on: March 15, 2015, 10:44:35 AM »
The faith is the same.

The only difference is that the Old Believers hold that Moscow is Third Rome- the city that is supposed to be the new guardian of Orthodoxy after Second Rome, Constantinople, fell to the Muslims in 1453. So any spiritual movement that does not originate in Russia is going to be automatically suspect.

Beyond that, it's not that they are hung up externals for the sake of externals, it's that they believe that the method of crossing oneself, the number of times one says the Alleuia during the service (three vs. two), etc. are Apostolic teachings. In attempting to alter them, the Old Believers say, the Nikonians were trying to take the prerogatives of God Himself thus proving that the mainline Orthodox Church had fallen to the spirit of antichrist.
This is a bit strong considering the differences are very minor ,indeed. I don't understand this schism really.
I believe in ONE God the Father YHWH and I also believe in His Son Lord Yeshua,the Ha Mashiach.
https://yrm.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Eusebian/
http://www.arianismtoday.com/

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #197 on: March 15, 2015, 11:02:15 AM »
Tsar Alexis I and his successors pretty much forced them into schism through persecution. I think they did what they had to do. It's unfortunate that the lines of communication and the Ottoman situation were not better in the early 19th Century, perhaps Ambrose of Bosnia could have brought the Belokrinitsa Old Believers into communion with Constantinople.

That being said, with the MP now offering to let them retain the Old Rite I think they have no excuse for remaining in schism.
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 Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #198 on: March 30, 2015, 09:26:19 PM »
I have gone through all 5 pages and still don't understand how the Apostolic teaching of Old Believers is different to Orthodoxy? Apart from some liturgical rituals and crossing, what is the difference in that Orthodoxy belief about Jesus for example?

Greetings,

No doubt we have all been misguided before.

Anyone might wonder how serious any of us are, but if we have no good reason to disbelieve then it seems alright to give the benefit of doubt.

For many decades I have had such questions. I know nothing. But many things have been made clear to me. There is something to the idea of sacrifice with this, what are we willing to give up to find out?

As has been mentioned in this topic, we need to understand heresy.

It is shown that heresy would be anything that contradicts the teaching of Christ, as it has been passed down to the Apostles and confirmed in the Councils of the Church.

Anything that deviates from, contradicts, confuses or brings delusions to the Truth would seem to be, at the very least, tantamount to heresy, if not heresy.

We should continue exhaustive searching on what is correct faith and practice, and thereby also understanding what it is not.

Somethings are fairly well confirmed for me by facts and evidences which seem rather beyond refute.

A couple years ago a kind person asked me if their has ever been a complete list of heresies, the answer is, not that I know of, but most of the multitudes of modern heresies relate to old original ones.

Unless I am mistaken, the very term Old Believers is a derogatory. It was given to the keepers of Russian old Orthodox Chrisianity by the New Rite Russians who were trying to suggest that they were somehow pagan and therefore outside Christianity completely. I would call them the keepers of original Orthodox Christianity.

Further, after having had communication with many in the old Russian Christian Faith it is clear to me that the term "priestless" is a misnomer, and those that claim to be priested may very well be out of line in various areas.

If we are honest with ourselves we could all find a part inside us which desires the simpler times before, because today everything is honestly so far gone and mixed-up that it is beyond all reason.

Ten years ago I did begin to document and reference a rather long list of heresies, but it all came down to a point where I realized that there was much more evil to renounce than I ever had thought. It is amazing how things go.

It is helpful to compare notes, so I will make an effort to give many detailed points as to why (due to sincere theological convictions) I remain committed to converting to the original Orthodox Christian Faith of Russia. Though, as far as I know, there is really not much good example of it anywhere in southern California.

It is up to me to do my best to live for the love of God, and this here is one place to spell it out.

This is a work in progress and will take time, so expect something more from me, Lord willing, and if this website is willing.

I will do my best to respond to any comments or questions based on good faith.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

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 #199 on: March 30, 2015, 09:36:22 PM »
Unless I am mistaken, the very term Old Believers is a derogatory.

I know of no one who treats it as such.

Further, after having had communication with many in the old Russian Christian Faith it is clear to me that the term "priestless" is a misnomer, and those that claim to be priested may very well be out of line in various areas.

In what sense is "priestless" a misnomer?
"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 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 #200 on: March 30, 2015, 10:31:38 PM »
I hope we're not headed towards some form of Molokanism.  Hopeful Faithful, just to be clear, you do accept the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed without the Filioque and the idea that the Church of St. Athanasius and Basil and Gregory was Orthodox and the progenitor of legitimate Russian Orthodoxy right?

Im just worried by possible implications of your comments on the priestless vs. the Priested.   I think I get where you're going, but I want to make sure you're not headed down the oath that some radical Old Believers wound up taking where they in effect renounced the Orthodoxy of the pre-Nikonian church.

Also by the way what makes the Russian church special compared to say the Georgian church which was unaffected by the Nikonian reforms until around 1800 or so?   And just extremely hypothetically, what about the possibility that the pre-Nikonian church was in error, and in fact true Orthodoxy belongs to, say, the Assyrian Church of the East or the Oriental Orthodox or the Romans?   Who did not find themselves priestless.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

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 #201 on: March 31, 2015, 06:49:59 AM »
By the way I should add I consider both the Nikonians and the Priested Old Believers fully Prthodox and am inclined to regard the priestless Old Believers as Orthoodx without clergy, i.e. they have, or historically had, legitimate reason to doubt the availability of anyone in Holy Orders, although I believe they were mistaken in this regard.  Although granted I have a broad definition of Orthodoxy; I am willing to regard as Orthodox anyone who professes the Niceno Chalcedonian creed and manifests no ancient heresies, and who holds tradirional Christian views on human sexuality, abortion, euthanasia and certain other hot button issues, at least functionally, in so far as demonstrating what appears to be correct belief.   

So that being said, I have to confess I admire most the Old Believers who entered into communion with the Georgian church or the Ecumenical Patriarch.  Because their action seems the most logical to me; if the Russian church has fallen into heresy by suppressing the old rite, you find another church that hasn't that's also Orthodox and you submit to them.  But that's just my take on it.  What confuses me about some of the Old Believers is that among some I sense a deep distrust of the Orthodoxy of everyone outside the pale of the pre-Nikonian church.  Which is culturally understandable for that time period and I really don't have a problem with it, but it's difficult to grasp what would lead someone living in Southern California for example to embrace that worldview as opposed to trying to go back further and understand what instabilities in the Russian church caused the Nikonian disaster, of which there were many, and try to reconstruct the faith of say, Kievan Rus, and then use that as a criteria for identifying Orthodoxy on the basis of praxis rather than lineage.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #202 on: March 31, 2015, 09:29:02 AM »
By the way I should add I consider both the Nikonians and the Priested Old Believers fully Prthodox and am inclined to regard the priestless Old Believers as Orthoodx without clergy, i.e. they have, or historically had, legitimate reason to doubt the availability of anyone in Holy Orders, although I believe they were mistaken in this regard.  Although granted I have a broad definition of Orthodoxy; I am willing to regard as Orthodox anyone who professes the Niceno Chalcedonian creed and manifests no ancient heresies, and who holds tradirional Christian views on human sexuality, abortion, euthanasia and certain other hot button issues, at least functionally, in so far as demonstrating what appears to be correct belief.   

So that being said, I have to confess I admire most the Old Believers who entered into communion with the Georgian church or the Ecumenical Patriarch.  Because their action seems the most logical to me; if the Russian church has fallen into heresy by suppressing the old rite, you find another church that hasn't that's also Orthodox and you submit to them.  But that's just my take on it.  What confuses me about some of the Old Believers is that among some I sense a deep distrust of the Orthodoxy of everyone outside the pale of the pre-Nikonian church.  Which is culturally understandable for that time period and I really don't have a problem with it, but it's difficult to grasp what would lead someone living in Southern California for example to embrace that worldview as opposed to trying to go back further and understand what instabilities in the Russian church caused the Nikonian disaster, of which there were many, and try to reconstruct the faith of say, Kievan Rus, and then use that as a criteria for identifying Orthodoxy on the basis of praxis rather than lineage.

The problem is that Old Believer theology stems from an almost Papal view of what it means to be Orthodox. The Fall of Constantinople was God's punishment for their dalliances with the West. Russia then became Third Rome (with the White Cowl Legend as a sort of folkloric Donation of Constantine to back it up) and there cannot be a Fourth. Any possible recovery of the EP could only have occurred with submission and repentance before the Patriarch of Moscow.

Georgia, Greece, the OO, and anybody else is irrelevant because they never recognized Pre-Nikon Russia as their head. When Patriarchal Russia fell to heresy, the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Gates of Hell had overcome was to redefine what it meant to be Russian Orthodox. The Priested found alleged bishops were they could. The Pomortsy had to get more creative.


My apologies to anyone this offends. It's just my attempted reconstruction.
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 Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #203 on: March 31, 2015, 01:02:39 PM »
This is a basic explanation from the church in Erie, which is under ROCOR but retains the Old Rite (there is also a priestless OB group in Erie who aren't in communion with any canonical group):

http://www.churchofthenativity.net/old-rite/

Good health to all,

Trying to read all the present 5 pages of postings to this topic is a rather daunting task, so I have decided to simply reply to some of the posts in order, if others have already answered similarly then I guess we agree on such points, Glory be to God for all things.

What I would comment on this post is that after having studied the Russian old Orthodox believers for decades, and with the great assistance of family, friends and neighbors, along with all the many statements made in the worldly press and educational facilities over the centuries, not to mention my own, now defunct, website domain which was largely dedicated to inquiry to this ancient representation of Christianity and was receiving for the last several years well over 50,000 visits a month from practically every state in the USA and every nation on earth, every month, with all the correspondence from that, and having had Keepers of this old Faith visit me here in person from such places as Australia, Romania, Russia, Canada and Mexico, not to mention my dearest of friends, brothers and sisters, families, from various other states in the USA, where we have had the honor of liturgizing to our Lord together and having much continued edification, both naturally and spiritually. It is all truly far more reaching than I had ever expected when I began this pilgrimage and nothing has ever turned me back, in fact, I am only encouraged all the more. I hope to express only parts of it, for it really is something to experience personally, not simply related online like this. This expression pales in comparison to what I have actually seen and heard, all the other senses which give really very clear messages beyond just text.

But, what I want to add to this post quote, having lived only an hour or two from this community, is that yes, from what I learned is that Erie has had a rather long standing single group of the Keepers of the old Orthodox Christianity since at least the 1800s. They use to be all in unison and much stronger in their convictions. But alas, the USA has been a bad influence on them, it is not their fault. The families became more and more compromised and finally there were so many problems that there was yet another division, which has so often happened to all people always, everywhere. Families were broken usunder, with little if any reason whatsoever.

Those who aligned themselves with ROCOR are actually an extremely limited amount of those who had kept the old Orthodoxy. They are much like the even smaller number of old Orthodox who lost their marbles and joined the Pope in Rome. I understand such fickle persons to be "The Unionists (Endoverie)" which is to suggest an improper mixing of ideas, which is forbidden.

My family were almost to be baptized there in Erie (by those not with the ROCOR) but it never quite worked out, that was in 2003.

The only other things that I would point out here is all the contacts I have had from other English speaking peoples in the USA and around the world. I have never been able to see my way clear to embracing those who claim to keep the old Orthodoxy and also having official clergy. But I think that in matters of old Orthodoxy we can find more common ground with The Endoverie than anyone else in the world, so we do encourage each other somewhat. The most meaningful, and by far the majority of my contacts over these decades, has been with those who keep the position that this is now the time of the "desolate sanctuary" spoken of by the Holy Prophet Daniel and that there are no officiating clergy in that regard any longer on this earth, not like it was anyway. Anyone who would lay claim to the Russian old Orthodoxy is descended from those who had all their clergy, and many bishops (not just one) martyred for the Faith, this is the real honest situation. However, we do have this certainty, that anyone can act as clergy today, and there is also the very real sense that our bishops, with Christ, are still alive and officiating with us now constantly, that will never end, ever. I hope to expound on that idea in later posts here as no doubt there are skeptics and naysayers, as always.

So the encouraging contacts for me have been from people in such states as northern California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, the Dakota's, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, W. Virgina, Missouri, Colorado, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alaska and others, I think they are in every state and every nation on earth today. Though I have lost touch with some of them I do remember them kindly.

Oh, and I personally know many Americans who have converted to the old Orthodox Christianity, I would say dozens, and that is nowhere near the actual number, most serious ones have stronger convictions about their association with those as worldly as me. There have been many converts to old Orthodoxy around the world.

So hopefully this is helpful to anyone wondering if it is possible to actually find out something more tangible about this somewhat secluded idea of old Orthodoxy.

The reason I do this is that there may not be much more time to do so and it is not bad to make such statements, if you ask me. As I have been given freely, I offer freely.

For any recent comments on this topic it might take me a while to get to you as I am starting from the start.

forgive me, everyone, my many offenses


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #204 on: March 31, 2015, 01:18:17 PM »
The only other things that I would point out here is all the contacts I have had from other English speaking peoples in the USA and around the world. I have never been able to see my way clear to embracing those who claim to keep the old Orthodoxy and also having official clergy. But I think that in matters of old Orthodoxy we can find more common ground with The Endoverie than anyone else in the world, so we do encourage each other somewhat. The most meaningful, and by far the majority of my contacts over these decades, has been with those who keep the position that this is now the time of the "desolate sanctuary" spoken of by the Holy Prophet Daniel and that there are no officiating clergy in that regard any longer on this earth, not like it was anyway. Anyone who would lay claim to the Russian old Orthodoxy is descended from those who had all their clergy, and many bishops (not just one) martyred for the Faith, this is the real honest situation. However, we do have this certainty, that anyone can act as clergy today, and there is also the very real sense that our bishops, with Christ, are still alive and officiating with us now constantly, that will never end, ever. I hope to expound on that idea in later posts here as no doubt there are skeptics and naysayers, as always.

I'm sorry, but this is just convenient rationalization. A Baptist could use some of the same arguments to say that they have no need of Apostolic Succession.
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 #205 on: March 31, 2015, 01:18:42 PM »
This is a basic explanation from the church in Erie, which is under ROCOR but retains the Old Rite (there is also a priestless OB group in Erie who aren't in communion with any canonical group):

http://www.churchofthenativity.net/old-rite/

Good health to all,

Trying to read all the present 5 pages of postings to this topic is a rather daunting task, so I have decided to simply reply to some of the posts in order, if others have already answered similarly then I guess we agree on such points, Glory be to God for all things.

What I would comment on this post is that after having studied the Russian old Orthodox believers for decades, and with the great assistance of family, friends and neighbors

I'm a bit surprised they've been so supportive of this endeavor, given how obscure Old Belief is (most people have never heard of it, and those that do probably view it as a cult).
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 #206 on: March 31, 2015, 04:39:14 PM »
HopefulFaithful, what was your web domain?  Do you still have the files?  There's a very good chance it's mostly or entirely still accessible via the Internet Archive.  PM me if you desire any pro bono advice I can give you as a network engineer if you want to bring it back.  But if I knew the domain I could at least see how much of it (probabaly all) got archived.

There was a wonderful liturgical website called Occidentalis that recently went dark but lives on in the Internet Archive, minus just one PDF, which providentially I thought to download to my own archives months previously.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #207 on: April 03, 2015, 03:01:16 PM »
so are you asking about the kind that retained (or, to be more frank, acquired) priesthood or the ones that did not? The latter would definitely have heretic teachings being nothing more than Protestants with icons.

Greetings and good health,

Regarding these two types of scenarios here are some points worthy of note:

1) There are many records of invalid mysteries, such as invalid Holy Orders (clerical hierarchy). Here is one excellent one to start a correct understanding on this topic:

St. John Chysostom – “The roads to hell are paved with the skulls of erring priests, and erring bishops are their lamp posts.”

(Today we see these roads being multi-level superhighways lined from end-to-end with such lamp posts. Our job is just all too easy, given the nature of these creatures and the ease with which these most trusted spiritual leaders can be tempted.)

2) On the other side there is also an undeniable list of examples which can be shown for the function of such without the sanctification of what might be called officialdom, or whatever. Here is only one good statement:

In the book, Early Fathers from the Philokalia (first published in 1954), on page 302 section 21, St. Maximus the Confessor says, “He performs the office of a deacon, who anoints the mind for holy endeavors and drives out passionate thoughts; he performs the office of a priest, who enlightens the mind by knowledge of what is and destroys false knowledge; he performs the office of a bishop, who completes the mind’s perfection by the sacred unction of knowledge of the worshipful Holy Trinity.” St. Maximus, who was merely a monk (he was not a priest and was never even ordained), in such a personal way demonstrates to us that which is not always seen or noticed to be true.

I have personally been compiling a never-ending list of such documented references which are more than able to overturn the tables on the Statues Quo.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #208 on: April 04, 2015, 03:53:13 PM »
If there's any heresy at all in the Old Believers, I would suggest that it's in their Pharisaical adherence to the externals of our worship to the extent of breaking into schism from those who followed a different rite.

I know that's a simplistic way of explaining whom the Old Believers are and what they believe, but I think this will offer a basic answer to your question.

Good health,

Here is one reply in the ongoing effort to simply stay kind and caring.

Being Pharisaical gets down to disobedience and hatred towards God.

The New Rite not only caused schism but promoted many heresies, this is because it is a contradictory rite, not merely another rite.

More responses forthcoming, Lord willing.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,916
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #209 on: April 04, 2015, 04:09:56 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.

The Belokrinitskaya hierarchy obviously does recognize our hierarchy since their entire hierarchy derives from a defector New Rite bishop.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #210 on: April 04, 2015, 05:29:24 PM »
Im not sure what exactly [snip] I wanted to know what general difference is between them and Orthodox as they seem to be very much alike, although I think the O.B. think they are the original Orthodox Christians, if I am not mistaken.

Good intentions to all...

It is my understanding that most people think they are correct, and to some extent it is clear that everyone gets somethings, but that often is not enough.

Ten years ago I began a webpage that listed the different and distinct points between the Old and New Rites.

At the very top was a Pomorsky (call them the first O.B.) illustration with the Old Rite on the right side and New Rite on the left.

Here are links to a sort of high resolution image rendition for the two sides.

On the right:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=12DB51F674E77911&id=12DB51F674E77911!2572&v=3

On the left:
https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=12DB51F674E77911&id=12DB51F674E77911!2573&v=3

At the center of these can be seen many of the apparent differences.

There is something about appearances and also of how actions speak louder than words.

We should not look like a heretic, should we?

How about how we act?

It is truly about normalcy and whatever that is.

Should we all be a bunch of hypocrites?

Christians should be recognizable, and not merely by wearing of a cross.

In fact, there are many situations where the wearing of a cross, or certain types of crosses, would be completely out of line.

The devil is in the details as has been often said.

We have to stop and pinch ourselves and ask ourselves this question, what is normal?

After all, everything matters to some extent, I suppose, but at the same time many things today are rather meaningless.

Hopefully by the time we are done with this topic there will be an adequate answer to your good faith based questions.

Of course it is also so much more than mere appearances.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

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 #211 on: April 04, 2015, 09:56:02 PM »
But why should the old Russian rite be regarded as normative compared to say the old Georgian rite or the West Syriac Rite?  The Patriarch of Antioch,,the Chalcedonian patriarch, used the Syriac liturgy into the 12th century at least.  So there's a Loturgy more ancient than the Russian one.  How is it that the Patriarch of Antioch was allowed to switch to a Greek/Arabic Rote, and for that matter the Patriarchate of Alexandria largely discard the Alexandrian Rite, when the Russian church was not also allowed to revise its liturgy?

For my part I wish the Antiochene and Alexandrian liturgical changes to the Byzantine Rite had not happened.  But in the case of the Russian liturgy, I find the Old Rite beautiful, but the new rite exquisitely beautiful.  The problem with the Nikonian reform was not the reform itself but the bloodshed; people should have been allowed to stay on the old rite of desired, and for that matter the Lestovka is IMO fairly dramatically better than the ordinary prayer rope.  Although for extended use, I.e. 500 or more prayers, I would probably use a regular prayer rope, and it can also be concealed.

I do understand why the Priestless felt painted into a corner but at the same time I think the Old Believers who setup their own hierarchies or entered into communion with the Church of Georgia or the Ecumenical Patriarchate were wiser.  As for those who signed up with the Roman Pope, that was probably a bad idea.  For that matter, the Edinovertsie have my greatest respect, especially St. Seraphim of Sarov, who was probably one of them; either that or he liked their leatovkas, like me.

But consider me as an example of why the Old Rite is pharisaical.  I sometimes get dizzy and I can't stand throughout the whole service the way the Russians could.  For that matter we have an Arab bishop documenting the torment he experienced during Holy Week having to stand for hours on end.  There is no way I could fully participate in an Old Rite liturgy.  Now I understand there are seats for the infirm, but apparently, historically, there weren't.  I can't accept this degree of liturgical rigor as being in any respect optimal.   Also, does not the mandatory wearing of beards by men constitute an example of "making broad ones phylacteries"?   Now I wear a beard myself, for religious and for personal reasons, but I do not regard beards as required articles of Orthodox faith, and in the case of younger men especially I think they look rather scruffy and are best avoided.  But correct me if zim wrong, the pomortsy view shaving as a sin.  Note I fully support our bearded clergy but ai think u bearded clergy are also within the realm of acceptability.   Now it's certainly not wrong for a community to be willing to witness for the Lord in a dramatic and unusual manner, but there seems to be a compliance culture at work among some Old. Relievers, such as the Pomortsy, and at the same time, a lack of proper respect afforded to other autocephalous Orthodox bishops who had nothing to do with the Nikonian schism.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #212 on: April 05, 2015, 02:21:29 PM »
Good health,

One persons slander and is another persons praise.

At the very least, from my perspective, this topic does seem to be full of red-herrings, no matter how things are sugar coated it is still surprising to see such slithering, and it is so sorrowful to find such a bottomless pit condition as we all witness here.

These are some examples that can be pointed out...

[snip] (there is also a priestless OB group in Erie who aren't in communion with any canonical group)
One persons canonical group is anothers uncanonical group.

Thank you, how are they viewed by ordinary Orthodox Christians? Are they deemed to be heretics ?
One persons ordinary is unordinary to another, a heretic to one is orthodox to another.

so are you asking about the kind that retained (or, to be more frank, acquired) priesthood or the ones that did not? The latter would definitely have heretic teachings being nothing more than Protestants with icons.
Again, there are other more honest ways of looking at the circumstances, everyone gets one or two things correct, but that is no excuse for getting the rest wrong. My point is that it does no good at all to make such insinuations that are really unsubstantiated. I have never met a person who works to keep old Orthodox Christianity that can be called in anyway nothing more than Protestants with icons, that is unfair at minimum. It shows how much people misunderstand.

[snip]If you want a better example, though he's probably an example of only the most extreme groups of Old Believers, you might try reading the posts of our occasional poster Hopeful Faithful.
Here is something personal, so I will speak for myself, that for decades all I have hoped for is to test and prove myself to keep what would be known as a balanced view, not extreme at all.

If there's any heresy at all in the Old Believers, I would suggest that it's in their Pharisaical adherence to the externals of our worship to the extent of breaking into schism from those who followed a different rite.

And claims that the Church was destroyed and there are no one to minister  sacraments aren't heresies?

Quote
If you want a better example, though he's probably an example of only the most extreme groups of Old Believers, you might try reading the posts of our occasional poster Hopeful Faithful.

Like he knows anything about Old Believers.
This shows some of the great misunderstandings that seem to prevail among certain mindsets. To suggest that this group claims the Church to be destroyed and that nobody can administer sacraments is not what any knowledgeable insider would say. It all sounds like an unjustified personal attack to me. But who am I?

[snip]My goal here is not to give an exhaustive list of all the heresies in priestless Old Believerism.
I am not sure whether to thank you or question you, it goes both ways. I appreciate the fact that there is this effort to be balanced, I see this, my question would be to show one heresy?

[snip]However, there's more to Orthodoxy than having an older tradition, and at any rate the controversy had an aftermath in which Old Believers basically rejected normative Orthodoxy altogether.
That is very debatable.

[snip]The Old Believers became, at heart, more like Anabaptists than Orthodox.
That is insulting as it is self-evident that the Anabaptists are in fact arch-heretics on many levels, none of which apply to this topic. But it is a fact that the simple Anabaptists have a centuries long relationship with the Keepers of the old Russian Faith due to similarities, but similarities can be found among all people, so those things only go that far and stop then and there.

[snip]I fail to understand how laymen receiving poached priests from heretics made any sense in the light of the canons.

Well now, here we have an interesting comment, I must admit that truth is truth no matter who speaks it, thank you for this particular sentence.

It is not easy wading through all these postings, I will take a rest from this for a day or so, but intend to go through the whole topic, a little at a time.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #213 on: April 06, 2015, 12:40:37 PM »
[snip] our friend with grammarly wrong nickname...

Greetings,

I may be mistaken about this, but that error is solely mine, so I take complete responsibility for it. There seems to be an ongoing ridicule about this and it should never have been started. I would end it by saying that the Freemasonic printers of an Old Ritualist calendar are the source of much of the confusion, this is how it ends for me. I am glad to be corrected, but I am certainly not the only one who made the mistake. Everyone should know that somethings like this grammar question might not actually be so "wrong" after all, so let it be. It would be best to stop such comments for now. For my part in wrongs I sincerely beg pardon, please leave it at that and move along. Thank you kindly.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #214 on: April 09, 2015, 12:28:00 PM »
A friend of mine shared this on Facebook, so I thought it might benefit others here as well.

Quote from: Archbishop Ioann
"We have nothing to repent for before new-ritualists; and communing with them is not permitted until that time, when they become alike with us, because we never separated with the holy church, but we are fully in it and steadily fulfil its one rule and tradition, as one separates with the church not by place and time, but by the teaching."

Archbishop Ioann
Belokrinitsi hierarch


Greetings,

I am interested in this, the statement of Archbishop Ioann...“as one separates with the church not by place and time”...

This was recently explained a little bit more to me that in regard to “time” the Archbishop suggests “Age” or “Eon” however, due to the importance of this I still question it and am interested in understanding it better.

This is particularly because of the Holy Prophet Daniel in chapter 7 verse 25 who condemns the changing of signs and seasons.

It would seem to me that it is indeed possible to separate from the Truth regarding the understanding of time, and I would like to have more of the source material, that is any further statement from the Archbishop, if possible?

Thanks in advance.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,173
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #215 on: April 09, 2015, 12:36:59 PM »
Quote
On 31 March 2015, the first meeting of the bilateral commission which will consider the possibility of recognizing the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church took place at the Moscow Spiritual Centre of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsa branch in the Rogozhskaya Settlement. The commission was established on the initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/04/old-believers-hierarchy-conference-held.html#comment-form
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #216 on: April 13, 2015, 11:06:46 PM »
Quote
On 31 March 2015, the first meeting of the bilateral commission which will consider the possibility of recognizing the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church took place at the Moscow Spiritual Centre of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsa branch in the Rogozhskaya Settlement. The commission was established on the initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/04/old-believers-hierarchy-conference-held.html#comment-form

I was informed this is purely for the benefit of the New Ritualists. We have no desire to actually be recognized by them, save only that recognition that is to their benefit.  That is as far as I know.
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 #217 on: April 13, 2015, 11:08:49 PM »
A friend of mine shared this on Facebook, so I thought it might benefit others here as well.

Quote from: Archbishop Ioann
"We have nothing to repent for before new-ritualists; and communing with them is not permitted until that time, when they become alike with us, because we never separated with the holy church, but we are fully in it and steadily fulfil its one rule and tradition, as one separates with the church not by place and time, but by the teaching."

Archbishop Ioann
Belokrinitsi hierarch


Greetings,

I am interested in this, the statement of Archbishop Ioann...“as one separates with the church not by place and time”...

This was recently explained a little bit more to me that in regard to “time” the Archbishop suggests “Age” or “Eon” however, due to the importance of this I still question it and am interested in understanding it better.

This is particularly because of the Holy Prophet Daniel in chapter 7 verse 25 who condemns the changing of signs and seasons.

It would seem to me that it is indeed possible to separate from the Truth regarding the understanding of time, and I would like to have more of the source material, that is any further statement from the Archbishop, if possible?

Thanks in advance.

forgive


Yes, there would be a lot of good to look more into this.
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 #218 on: April 14, 2015, 12:54:26 AM »
Quote
On 31 March 2015, the first meeting of the bilateral commission which will consider the possibility of recognizing the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church took place at the Moscow Spiritual Centre of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsa branch in the Rogozhskaya Settlement. The commission was established on the initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/04/old-believers-hierarchy-conference-held.html#comment-form

I was informed this is purely for the benefit of the New Ritualists.

If the New Rite is heretical, wouldn't it be to their own condemnation?

We have no desire to actually be recognized by them, save only that recognition that is to their benefit.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.
"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 Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,916
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #219 on: April 14, 2015, 06:25:08 AM »
Quote
On 31 March 2015, the first meeting of the bilateral commission which will consider the possibility of recognizing the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church took place at the Moscow Spiritual Centre of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsa branch in the Rogozhskaya Settlement. The commission was established on the initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/04/old-believers-hierarchy-conference-held.html#comment-form

I was informed this is purely for the benefit of the New Ritualists. We have no desire to actually be recognized by them, save only that recognition that is to their benefit.  That is as far as I know.
Except your entire hierarchy depends on us for its existence, so our recognition means a lot for you.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #220 on: April 14, 2015, 01:48:15 PM »
What Apostolic teaching do we Nikonians claim to have the power to abolish? [snip]

Good health,

Sometimes I wonder why there are such questions, are not these things long since clear?

[snip] I'm sorry, but St. Ignatius seems to disagree with your concept of an invisible bishop.

Truly, I do not see anyone disagreeing with this St. Ignatius quote. Look at other Fathers who expound more precisely on the idea at hand. If we can move along in history we can see such notable characters as are found in the story of Metropolitan Job and Czar Ivan. The Met. was known to make prophetic statements and one of them in the story is that “the bishops would fall” which is consistent with the body of eschatological teachings from all good Christians everywhere and throughout all time, there is an undeniable host of confirmations.

To conclude on this statement, I have never met any Keeper of old Orthodoxy who denies the existence of hierarchical clergy established in the Church. The Church is completely alive now and there are certainly bishops in heaven which can be pointed to today, for everyone to see. Any ikon is a window into the Heavens. What more needs to be said than this? I am sure that ten thousands of saints will be here any minute now, just be patient. There are always naysayers. To speak clearly, where is there an earthly consecrated valid bishop on this earth today? Please help me meet face to face with one, then we can settle this, for this is what it is about. We are all people behind computers here, and we should all help effect some real understandings on this. I speak as someone in sincere longing, believe me.

So far I am not even past the first page of posts on this topic, if the Lord allows I shall make it through the rest.

forgive


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #221 on: April 14, 2015, 05:24:46 PM »
Quote
On 31 March 2015, the first meeting of the bilateral commission which will consider the possibility of recognizing the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church took place at the Moscow Spiritual Centre of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsa branch in the Rogozhskaya Settlement. The commission was established on the initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/04/old-believers-hierarchy-conference-held.html#comment-form

I was informed this is purely for the benefit of the New Ritualists.

If the New Rite is heretical, wouldn't it be to their own condemnation?

We have no desire to actually be recognized by them, save only that recognition that is to their benefit.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Of course Christ desires all to come be with him and enjoy the salvation of repentance he poured out for all.  Recognizing the Old Believers is a step towards their repentance, to stay dead in heresy is to their condemnation, to repent is to their salvation.   
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 Hopeful Faithful

  • How can there be any earthly consecrated orthodox bishops during the age of this Great Apostasy?
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 253
  • An Old Faith Flag
    • Stranniki
  • Faith: Russian old Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Stranniki
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #222 on: April 19, 2015, 01:09:38 PM »
Here is a quick website that shows some dialogues between Nikonians and Old Believers.

https://archeodox.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/concerning-the-celebration-of-sabbath/

In summary it shows that the teaching of the Old Believers, is that: the Bishops, priests etc do not have the power to abolish an Apostolic teaching; while the Nikonians teach that they have the power to do so.
What Apostolic teaching do we Nikonians claim to have the power to abolish? You keep alluding to this idea that we have changed Apostolic teaching, but you haven't yet explained in any detail what Apostolic teaching we have abolished.

The Nikonians Make a heretical separation between the laity and the clergy.
ISTM that it was St. Ignatius of Antioch who made this "separation" between the laity and the clergy when he identified the bishop as the presence of Christ in the Church and the fountain of all the Church's sacraments and when he instructed the faithful to not do anything without their bishop.

The Church does not cease to be the Church, just because, it lacks a Priest or a Bishop; because in reality, the Church never lacks these, because, through Christ, Jesus, it always has them.  Moreover, the Church never actually was without priests and Bishops on earth.
I'm sorry, but St. Ignatius seems to disagree with your concept of an invisible bishop.

The only concept of an invisible bishop being spoken of, is the one you imagine, unless you are talking to someone else; in which case, I missed that. .

High hopes for clarity.

There are a lot of misguided churches and bishops who are in fact themselves invisible to Christ.

In the age of the Great Apostasy, instead of being so interested in going to Church and meeting the Bishop, it is more significant to be ourselves the Church.

Today the Church in the Heavens with all its clergy comes down to Earth and rests upon everyone who believes the Truth, even if there are no architectural arches or earthly consecrated clergy.

I remember being told a true story about an old grandmother keeping the Old Orthodox Faith, she was walking down a dirt path with her grandson and there stood what might be called today an official Orthodox Church where a Bishop sits. So the grandmother spoke up to her young grandson and said, "That is not a Church."

It was something of a mystery to the young one, but when he grew up he understood clearly the meaning that his grandmother had in mind.

Basically, that church with its bishop was invisible to the grandmother, even though on earth there was this whole structure and a man officially consecrated to be its shepherd.

Many things are complete deceptions.

Not everything that is said to be necessary is actually necessary.

forgive me, a sojourner


HIS Judgment Cometh, And That Right Soon! Mark 13:35

If any man be ignorant, let him alone be ignorant (at his own peril). 1 Cor. 14:38

Let us all hope to be found a faithful, loving bond-slave of Christ on the soon approaching Last Day.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #223 on: April 20, 2015, 02:52:35 AM »
Don't you see how easily a Protestant can use that to justify their own views, though? "We have Jesus as a High Priest, we don't need your earthly priests and rituals. The Church has always had its High Priest in Heaven."

It seems obvious to me that the priestless Old Belief was predicated on the idea that the Parousia was literally a couple of years away and Alexis I was the final Antichrist. It simply was not designed to become a normative way of life. Trying to live it as such is like endless spiritual triage.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2015, 02:54:37 AM 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 Jonathan Gress

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,541
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #224 on: April 20, 2015, 11:53:17 AM »
Don't you see how easily a Protestant can use that to justify their own views, though? "We have Jesus as a High Priest, we don't need your earthly priests and rituals. The Church has always had its High Priest in Heaven."

It seems obvious to me that the priestless Old Belief was predicated on the idea that the Parousia was literally a couple of years away and Alexis I was the final Antichrist. It simply was not designed to become a normative way of life. Trying to live it as such is like endless spiritual triage.

They've said the same things about early Christianity: that it was based on the expectation of imminent parousia. I don't find that implausible: the Christian way of life was never "normal".