Author Topic: Old Believers and Orthodoxy  (Read 39828 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 886
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #270 on: April 22, 2015, 06:35:42 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path. The various groups which emerged following the Raskol attest to the fact that while many Old Believers accepted the notion of the priesthood -- even if they didn't have it themselves -- there were certainly others who went overboard and rejected it altogether.

As always, I recommend a look at Irish Melkite's resource on the byzcath.org.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 06:59:33 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 Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #271 on: April 22, 2015, 07:25:36 PM »
Wow, I'd never heard of Kitezh before. How interesting.

I know that some 17th century English dissenters (notably, Roger Williams and some of the Seekers) had an almost Old Believerish notion that low church Protestantism was not the ideal, that sola scriptura was inadequate, and that Jesus had come to set up a visible Church with priesthood and sacraments, but that the Roman church had apostasized and was therefore invalid, as were all Protestant churches that descended from it. Therefore, all that was left to do was wait for God's revelation, either in the form of Christ's return, or his sending another apostle with the power to reestablish apostolic succession*.

Given that the "Age of Discovery" was underway at this time, I wonder if any of them, publicly or privately, entertained the possibility that there might still be a true church "hidden" somewhere (possibly in the Americas?), waiting to be rediscovered. It would certainly have been interesting if there'd been anyone like that; it would have been essentially a Protestant version of the Prester John legend**.

*I myself harbored such ideas for a time, several years ago, before I had seriously considered Orthodoxy. I had always had misgivings about certain aspects of evangelical Protestantism, and had recognized the contradictions in sola scriptura. But Rome didn't seem like an option either since it gone "off the rails" at some point. And it didn't seem possible to just re-establish the true church from scratch via purely human effort, short of an actual miracle. This was before I really knew about Orthodoxy or about how the EO and OO differed from Rome.

**Prester John himself had substantial basis in fact, though, as his kingdom was an amalgamation of facts and legends about Ethiopia and Kerala.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 07:34:07 PM by Minnesotan »
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #272 on: April 22, 2015, 07:43:59 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #273 on: April 22, 2015, 08:00:54 PM »
Good health,

As a result of the sack(s) of Constantinople by the Crusaders (Civil calendar year 1204?) Mt. Athos suffered persecutions from the Latin’s who destroyed many of the monasteries during the Crusades (until year 1261 of the sorrowful calendar). The monastery Zorgraphou on Athos in 1283 had 26 martyrs who found their death by hands of the westernizing pirates. Some of the monks of Athos attempted to resist the manipulation of forced union with Rome, but the whole peninsula had been ruled by Frankish Masonic type forces from 1204. Then arrived the Ottoman conquest of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, and the final Fall of Constantinople, where the entire Orthodox communion of the Balkan lands and the Near & Middle East, became controlled by the Ottomans. There is a lot more to say about what happened before, during and after all of this, but we can understand that it has not gone well ever since. The Holy Prophet Daniel (in chapter 12, and perhaps other places) foretells the time of the Christian Roman Empire (maybe we can understand this as approximately the thousand year reign of Christendom). After New Rome fell to the Mahometans, Russia accepted its place as the Third Rome and no other capital of Christendom shall ever be. Then, the Russian Patriarch Nikon, along with the Romanov dynasty, destroyed the Apostolic faith and practice for themselves.

However, thankfully, there were many uncounted Russian bishops, other clergy and a significant amount of Russian faithful who did keep the Apostolic teachings, but at great cost. Most were simply exiled to suffer frozen Siberia, but many were murdered by the false-church and state.

Here are some more points to make note of, but this is by no means an exhaustive list, in fact the heretical atrocities by the impostor churches are still multiplying.

There was great destruction of Sacred Books and Ikons.

What a wondrous gift Russia was given in the pure Inspired language of Old Slavonic. The only language made in, by and for the Church. The validity of this language is unquestionable. Patriarch Nikon changed the spelling of Jesus putting into oblivion the good memory of the proper spelling. The pure old Slavonic word for Jesus is very close to the ancient Arabic “issa” so there is precedence for the old Russian practice. In the Eastern Syriac language the name is spelled similarly to the pure old Slavonic as “ishou”, and it is not wise to overlook the connection. The apostles and even the Lord Himself no doubt spoke like this. Patriarch Nikon Latinized the entire sacred language, ruining it, miserably becoming what is now called Church Slavonic.

Even before 1666 good Russians saw the need to make firm the teachings about iconography. Western attitudes had begun creeping into the Russian way of life. It was at the council of 1551 where particular rules were reinforced so that order would be maintained and keep confusion away.

In the book titled, “Jesus in history, thought and culture” on page 743 there is this record about Patriarch Nikon changing the procession direction. “... new prescriptions for the order of processions in the Liturgy were published: instead of going clockwise, ‘With the Sun’ in Russian they now had to go counterclockwise, ‘against the Sun.’ To go against the Sun meant, for many, to go against Christ the Sun of Justice. As the processions were an important element in the sacraments, the ‘wrong’ processions made the sacraments ‘wrong,’ that is, not merely invalid but sacrilegious.” Christians ought not imitate the Muslim procession in Mecca around Hajj.

The Church has a long standing example of liturgically giving glory precisely three times; there is no cause to be adding a fourth glory and especially no cause to be forcing contradiction of a centuries proven way of worship. What Patriarch Nikon did violated the well established way. It makes me sad when I think of it all. What we need to understand just how much confusion was with Patriarch Nikon.

The Psalter was changed by the Nikon reformers. They eliminated entire prayers where the church services would end up short by one or two hours. This cannot be pleasing to God. Who would even begin to think about short-cutting the worship and glory given to the Holy One? This is how it is and we ought to be far more careful than this and learn precisely what is expected of us.

When Constantinople fell the Greeks went so far into apostasy that they even allowed the Latin’s to do their book publishing. The Latin’s were the source of the confusion causing the Greeks to go into many heresies. Even on the Holy Mountain the Greeks would burn any of the good old Russian books that they found. Here are a few more points.

At Vespers, during the “Lord I have cried” verses were eliminated by the Latin’s.

At Matins, during the “Praises” there were verses eliminated by the Latin’s.

At Liturgy, between the “Beatitudes” there were verses eliminated by the Latin’s.

These are only a few areas of corruption that the neo-Orthodox have brought about.

The reasons Patriarch Nikon gave to make reforms in the Liturgical Offices was because he saw differences in various Russian texts. These differences that he found were themselves of Latin origin, coming from such events as the Union of Brest in the Western Russian lands. Patriarch Nikon is without excuse, for there were more than enough warnings about how those things occurred. Patriarch Nikon simply added to the confusion. Here are some of the differences that were entering Russia before Patriarch Nikon added his unjust and forceful reforms.

Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, reformed rituals with theological implications, adding in 1644 the Lithos (Rock) which had many departures from the Faith.

In 1646 there was the famous “Prayer Book”. This consisted of a comprehensive collection of prayers, offices and rituals prefaced by “explanatory rubrics” of Pope Paul V rituals. Within this were these departures from Apostolic Teaching:

“Provision for a journey” (the last rites)

The Rite of the “Separation of the soul and body”

Penance was switched to the Latin form (“declarative to the imperative”).

Metropolitan Peter used a Croatian translation by the Jesuit Kasic and/or a source from the Illyrian unionists.

Among the Orthodox in Kiev it was also Iov Boretskii who used Latin liturgical sources, as in the Lenten “Passions” which are an evening celebration of Christ’s passion.

In any event the reforms of Patriarch Nikon did not and have never corrected anything; all he did was to add more confusion.

The gross Nikonian practices led to such a state of confused affairs that Peter the Great, in his love affair with all things Western, only continued the spiral downwards.

Western Architecture really took off with Peter the Great, but even Ivan the Terrible brought in some of its bad symbolism to Russia.

Western clerical garb, and even that of the laity, were forced onto Russia, we might be aware of explanations by St. Clement of Alexandria on important aspects of clothing.

All the good natural guidelines (canons) from ancient times regarding how women must not regularly cut their hair, or men their beards, began to be trampled underfoot.

Russia’s seminary courses were taught in Latin.

Many other Latin devotional books were translated into Russian.

I can appreciate those from other national traditions who work to preserve the left and right antiphonal chant arrangement, but they are not isolated from those who do harmonizing, offer the new polyphony of the western world that sounds more like a foreign opera house than Church, or perhaps are in union with those who play the organ liturgically, or substitute English and other inappropriate languages into the Liturgy.

How sad things are today, the last Christian Empire, Holy Russia, consequently died the miserable death of antichrist ecumenism, satanic freemasonry and atheistic communism, losing Orthodoxy and falling into the bottomless pit of the Great Apostasy. Now these evils are rampant worldwide, capitalism, commercialism, democracy, industrialization and overall moderation spiritually, all distracting everyone away from Orthodoxy. Humanity, generally speaking, is very unable to understand what it is missing.

I made this effort to give good answers for what was at least an hour or two of time, and then somehow it all was lost to cyberspace. So this is all again reworked, even more so, and this is all that I can do for this day. There certainly is more to add and say some other time.

Working to some extent alone I please ask, help me with any personal mistakes?

forgive me, a sojourner in your midst.


The Old Believers are not Russia. That's another mangling of definitions. At least microstates like Sealand have an actual territory and government, such as it is. But claiming that a church is nation doesn't make any sense. There's a reason the Jews wanted a homeland and weren't just satisfied to live in their homes in various countries.

If Russia is really Third Rome (laying aside the oddity of an entire, semi-united country inheriting the mantle of a single city) then Third Rome fell in the 17th Century (by the Old Believer reckoning).


Regarding the Liturgical changes, they may be regrettable (or not, as the case may be), but they're not a good enough reason for Schism. Look at the Quartodecimian controversy of the Second Century. St. Polycarp and St. Ireneaus both rebuked the Popes who desired to force a schism over the issue. How are the Nikonian reforms any different?

I in no way support what Nikon and the Tsars did the Old Believers. It was truly despicable. But both Churches have always expressed the same faith, just more explicitly in some places as others. Nikonians do not believe the entire Trinity was crucified, even if their way of crossing themselves winds up implying such. At worst, it's an unfortunate accident. And whose actions are completely consistent with their confession at all times?

Now that the MP has repented of those persecutions, how can you let these comparatively minor things stand in the way of God's calling to unity?
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #274 on: April 22, 2015, 09:30:53 PM »
But the term Bezpopovets is a misnomer, I do not reject valid clergy, I do not see clergy in this world presently, how could there be?

If I understand Bezpopovets to have the connotation of devil, an extremely derogatory term, I reject that for what it is.

I would be happy to explain more, ask.

All "bezpopovets" means is that you are "an individual without a priest", not that you necessarily reject the priesthood altogether. It is an accurate description of both you and me.

Protestants vary wildly among themselves. There is protestants that still believe in ordained priesthood, however, the vast majority of protestants do not. Old Believers of all persuasions all believe in the priesthood; and, they should believe in earthly ones as well, even if they feel or believe they do not have access to them.  An example is the protected city of Kitezh, where there is universally accepted earthly ordained priesthood.

I'm sorry, I really can't accept this.  Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis.  It's just impossible to regard your position in this debate with any credibility when you attack us for posing legitimate questions, accuse us of slander, then yourself smear Protestants and invoke the Old Believer equivalent of Atlantis.

I don't wish to sound harsh; I just want you to understand that from my perspective at least, you're really harming the reputation of Old Believers.  I had historically regarded your group as an entirely legitimate and fully Orthodox group that was subject to heinous and unwarranted persecution and had nothing but respect for Old Believers, but on account of this material you're forcong me to re-evaluate my historic respect and indeed enthusiasm for the Old Believers.  The belief in, for example, a mythical earthly city like Kitezkh is absurd, unscriptural and entirely opposed to Sacred Tradition.  How can one claim to be Orthodox while believing in such a fantasy?  But beyond that, the general meanness of your conduct and your unwillingness to engage in friendly dialogue with us, has profoundly alienated me.

If Kitezkh exists, which it surely does not, it's no place I would want to be, if everyone there is as mean spirited and hostile to other Chriatians as conversing with you might suggest.  But even the idea of a lost or hidden city of Old Believers is literally a profoundly occult idea, unworthy of Orthodoxy in any respect.  If such a place existed it would surely be a demonic hell-mouth, an ornate spiritual trap for those consumed with religious pride.  Our Lord gave his life for the redemption of the human race, not a tiny number of Russians, and I cannot conceive of Him suffering the existence of such a place.

There is but one splendid city of God in Orthodox Christianity and that is the New Jerusalem which is promised as a reward to those whom God has mercy upon on the dread day of Judgement, which we honor with the hymn "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem."  There is no room for At
Antis, Shangro-La or Kitzekh or any other mythical rivals to the splendour of the New Jwrusalem.


I stopped reading here "Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis. " simple because you affirm you have anther faith when you declare that city does not exist.
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 #275 on: April 22, 2015, 09:32:56 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous. 
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: 988
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #276 on: April 22, 2015, 09:34:22 PM »
But the term Bezpopovets is a misnomer, I do not reject valid clergy, I do not see clergy in this world presently, how could there be?

If I understand Bezpopovets to have the connotation of devil, an extremely derogatory term, I reject that for what it is.

I would be happy to explain more, ask.

All "bezpopovets" means is that you are "an individual without a priest", not that you necessarily reject the priesthood altogether. It is an accurate description of both you and me.

Protestants vary wildly among themselves. There is protestants that still believe in ordained priesthood, however, the vast majority of protestants do not. Old Believers of all persuasions all believe in the priesthood; and, they should believe in earthly ones as well, even if they feel or believe they do not have access to them.  An example is the protected city of Kitezh, where there is universally accepted earthly ordained priesthood.

I'm sorry, I really can't accept this.  Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis.  It's just impossible to regard your position in this debate with any credibility when you attack us for posing legitimate questions, accuse us of slander, then yourself smear Protestants and invoke the Old Believer equivalent of Atlantis.

I don't wish to sound harsh; I just want you to understand that from my perspective at least, you're really harming the reputation of Old Believers.  I had historically regarded your group as an entirely legitimate and fully Orthodox group that was subject to heinous and unwarranted persecution and had nothing but respect for Old Believers, but on account of this material you're forcong me to re-evaluate my historic respect and indeed enthusiasm for the Old Believers.  The belief in, for example, a mythical earthly city like Kitezkh is absurd, unscriptural and entirely opposed to Sacred Tradition.  How can one claim to be Orthodox while believing in such a fantasy?  But beyond that, the general meanness of your conduct and your unwillingness to engage in friendly dialogue with us, has profoundly alienated me.

If Kitezkh exists, which it surely does not, it's no place I would want to be, if everyone there is as mean spirited and hostile to other Chriatians as conversing with you might suggest.  But even the idea of a lost or hidden city of Old Believers is literally a profoundly occult idea, unworthy of Orthodoxy in any respect.  If such a place existed it would surely be a demonic hell-mouth, an ornate spiritual trap for those consumed with religious pride.  Our Lord gave his life for the redemption of the human race, not a tiny number of Russians, and I cannot conceive of Him suffering the existence of such a place.

There is but one splendid city of God in Orthodox Christianity and that is the New Jerusalem which is promised as a reward to those whom God has mercy upon on the dread day of Judgement, which we honor with the hymn "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem."  There is no room for At
Antis, Shangro-La or Kitzekh or any other mythical rivals to the splendour of the New Jwrusalem.


I stopped reading here "Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis. " simple because you affirm you have anther faith when you declare that city does not exist.

How does belief or non-belief in an underwater city denote one's status as Orthodox?

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #277 on: April 22, 2015, 09:39:04 PM »
But the term Bezpopovets is a misnomer, I do not reject valid clergy, I do not see clergy in this world presently, how could there be?

If I understand Bezpopovets to have the connotation of devil, an extremely derogatory term, I reject that for what it is.

I would be happy to explain more, ask.

All "bezpopovets" means is that you are "an individual without a priest", not that you necessarily reject the priesthood altogether. It is an accurate description of both you and me.

Protestants vary wildly among themselves. There is protestants that still believe in ordained priesthood, however, the vast majority of protestants do not. Old Believers of all persuasions all believe in the priesthood; and, they should believe in earthly ones as well, even if they feel or believe they do not have access to them.  An example is the protected city of Kitezh, where there is universally accepted earthly ordained priesthood.

I'm sorry, I really can't accept this.  Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis.  It's just impossible to regard your position in this debate with any credibility when you attack us for posing legitimate questions, accuse us of slander, then yourself smear Protestants and invoke the Old Believer equivalent of Atlantis.

I don't wish to sound harsh; I just want you to understand that from my perspective at least, you're really harming the reputation of Old Believers.  I had historically regarded your group as an entirely legitimate and fully Orthodox group that was subject to heinous and unwarranted persecution and had nothing but respect for Old Believers, but on account of this material you're forcong me to re-evaluate my historic respect and indeed enthusiasm for the Old Believers.  The belief in, for example, a mythical earthly city like Kitezkh is absurd, unscriptural and entirely opposed to Sacred Tradition.  How can one claim to be Orthodox while believing in such a fantasy?  But beyond that, the general meanness of your conduct and your unwillingness to engage in friendly dialogue with us, has profoundly alienated me.

If Kitezkh exists, which it surely does not, it's no place I would want to be, if everyone there is as mean spirited and hostile to other Chriatians as conversing with you might suggest.  But even the idea of a lost or hidden city of Old Believers is literally a profoundly occult idea, unworthy of Orthodoxy in any respect.  If such a place existed it would surely be a demonic hell-mouth, an ornate spiritual trap for those consumed with religious pride.  Our Lord gave his life for the redemption of the human race, not a tiny number of Russians, and I cannot conceive of Him suffering the existence of such a place.

There is but one splendid city of God in Orthodox Christianity and that is the New Jerusalem which is promised as a reward to those whom God has mercy upon on the dread day of Judgement, which we honor with the hymn "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem."  There is no room for At
Antis, Shangro-La or Kitzekh or any other mythical rivals to the splendour of the New Jwrusalem.


I stopped reading here "Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis. " simple because you affirm you have anther faith when you declare that city does not exist.

How does belief or non-belief in an underwater city denote one's status as Orthodox?

When one rejects the teachings of the church, one rejects the church. The miracle that protects that city, is as real as Heaven its self.  This basically cuts to the root of the issue: Old Believers have faith in the Church Fathers, and, as demonstrated above, New Ritualists often times consider the histories, stories, and teachings of the Church to be fantasy.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 09:42:53 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 Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #278 on: April 22, 2015, 09:41:18 PM »
But the term Bezpopovets is a misnomer, I do not reject valid clergy, I do not see clergy in this world presently, how could there be?

If I understand Bezpopovets to have the connotation of devil, an extremely derogatory term, I reject that for what it is.

I would be happy to explain more, ask.

All "bezpopovets" means is that you are "an individual without a priest", not that you necessarily reject the priesthood altogether. It is an accurate description of both you and me.

Protestants vary wildly among themselves. There is protestants that still believe in ordained priesthood, however, the vast majority of protestants do not. Old Believers of all persuasions all believe in the priesthood; and, they should believe in earthly ones as well, even if they feel or believe they do not have access to them.  An example is the protected city of Kitezh, where there is universally accepted earthly ordained priesthood.

I'm sorry, I really can't accept this.  Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis.  It's just impossible to regard your position in this debate with any credibility when you attack us for posing legitimate questions, accuse us of slander, then yourself smear Protestants and invoke the Old Believer equivalent of Atlantis.

I don't wish to sound harsh; I just want you to understand that from my perspective at least, you're really harming the reputation of Old Believers.  I had historically regarded your group as an entirely legitimate and fully Orthodox group that was subject to heinous and unwarranted persecution and had nothing but respect for Old Believers, but on account of this material you're forcong me to re-evaluate my historic respect and indeed enthusiasm for the Old Believers.  The belief in, for example, a mythical earthly city like Kitezkh is absurd, unscriptural and entirely opposed to Sacred Tradition.  How can one claim to be Orthodox while believing in such a fantasy?  But beyond that, the general meanness of your conduct and your unwillingness to engage in friendly dialogue with us, has profoundly alienated me.

If Kitezkh exists, which it surely does not, it's no place I would want to be, if everyone there is as mean spirited and hostile to other Chriatians as conversing with you might suggest.  But even the idea of a lost or hidden city of Old Believers is literally a profoundly occult idea, unworthy of Orthodoxy in any respect.  If such a place existed it would surely be a demonic hell-mouth, an ornate spiritual trap for those consumed with religious pride.  Our Lord gave his life for the redemption of the human race, not a tiny number of Russians, and I cannot conceive of Him suffering the existence of such a place.

There is but one splendid city of God in Orthodox Christianity and that is the New Jerusalem which is promised as a reward to those whom God has mercy upon on the dread day of Judgement, which we honor with the hymn "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem."  There is no room for At
Antis, Shangro-La or Kitzekh or any other mythical rivals to the splendour of the New Jwrusalem.


I stopped reading here "Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis. " simple because you affirm you have anther faith when you declare that city does not exist.

How does belief or non-belief in an underwater city denote one's status as Orthodox?

You shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you become like one of these little children.

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 вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #279 on: April 22, 2015, 09:43:33 PM »
But the term Bezpopovets is a misnomer, I do not reject valid clergy, I do not see clergy in this world presently, how could there be?

If I understand Bezpopovets to have the connotation of devil, an extremely derogatory term, I reject that for what it is.

I would be happy to explain more, ask.

All "bezpopovets" means is that you are "an individual without a priest", not that you necessarily reject the priesthood altogether. It is an accurate description of both you and me.

Protestants vary wildly among themselves. There is protestants that still believe in ordained priesthood, however, the vast majority of protestants do not. Old Believers of all persuasions all believe in the priesthood; and, they should believe in earthly ones as well, even if they feel or believe they do not have access to them.  An example is the protected city of Kitezh, where there is universally accepted earthly ordained priesthood.

I'm sorry, I really can't accept this.  Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis.  It's just impossible to regard your position in this debate with any credibility when you attack us for posing legitimate questions, accuse us of slander, then yourself smear Protestants and invoke the Old Believer equivalent of Atlantis.

I don't wish to sound harsh; I just want you to understand that from my perspective at least, you're really harming the reputation of Old Believers.  I had historically regarded your group as an entirely legitimate and fully Orthodox group that was subject to heinous and unwarranted persecution and had nothing but respect for Old Believers, but on account of this material you're forcong me to re-evaluate my historic respect and indeed enthusiasm for the Old Believers.  The belief in, for example, a mythical earthly city like Kitezkh is absurd, unscriptural and entirely opposed to Sacred Tradition.  How can one claim to be Orthodox while believing in such a fantasy?  But beyond that, the general meanness of your conduct and your unwillingness to engage in friendly dialogue with us, has profoundly alienated me.

If Kitezkh exists, which it surely does not, it's no place I would want to be, if everyone there is as mean spirited and hostile to other Chriatians as conversing with you might suggest.  But even the idea of a lost or hidden city of Old Believers is literally a profoundly occult idea, unworthy of Orthodoxy in any respect.  If such a place existed it would surely be a demonic hell-mouth, an ornate spiritual trap for those consumed with religious pride.  Our Lord gave his life for the redemption of the human race, not a tiny number of Russians, and I cannot conceive of Him suffering the existence of such a place.

There is but one splendid city of God in Orthodox Christianity and that is the New Jerusalem which is promised as a reward to those whom God has mercy upon on the dread day of Judgement, which we honor with the hymn "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem."  There is no room for At
Antis, Shangro-La or Kitzekh or any other mythical rivals to the splendour of the New Jwrusalem.


I stopped reading here "Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis. " simple because you affirm you have anther faith when you declare that city does not exist.

How does belief or non-belief in an underwater city denote one's status as Orthodox?

You shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless you become like one of these little children.



More mockery, unsurprisingly. The apparent need to resort to such methods, further demonstrates your evil hostility, towards the Truth.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 09:44:21 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 Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #280 on: April 22, 2015, 09:44:55 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
No; it may be wrong--as I believe, or uncharitable--because you deserve such a rebuttal as you come across as an insufferable, unthinking zealot. If you wish to talk to people, instead of to pontificate, I suggest you dial it down.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #281 on: April 22, 2015, 09:46:45 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
No; it may be wrong--as I believe, or uncharitable--because you deserve such a rebuttal as you come across as an insufferable, unthinking zealot. If you wish to talk to people, instead of to pontificate, I suggest you dial it down.

Again, more libelous insults.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 09:46:59 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 Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #282 on: April 22, 2015, 09:50:37 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
No; it may be wrong--as I believe, or uncharitable--because you deserve such a rebuttal as you come across as an insufferable, unthinking zealot. If you wish to talk to people, instead of to pontificate, I suggest you dial it down.

Again, more libelous insults.

Talk to your priest or spiritual father. You may be infected with prelest and/or a martyr complex.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #283 on: April 22, 2015, 09:53:13 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
No; it may be wrong--as I believe, or uncharitable--because you deserve such a rebuttal as you come across as an insufferable, unthinking zealot. If you wish to talk to people, instead of to pontificate, I suggest you dial it down.

Again, more libelous insults.

Talk to your priest or spiritual father. You may be infected with prelest and/or a martyr complex.

Again you feel the need to employ ad hominem.
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 Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #284 on: April 22, 2015, 09:54:07 PM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
No; it may be wrong--as I believe, or uncharitable--because you deserve such a rebuttal as you come across as an insufferable, unthinking zealot. If you wish to talk to people, instead of to pontificate, I suggest you dial it down.

Again, more libelous insults.

Talk to your priest or spiritual father. You may be infected with prelest and/or a martyr complex.

Again you feel the need to employ ad hominem.

I give up. Lord have mercy on me for my weakness.

Offline Alxandra

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #285 on: April 22, 2015, 09:54:27 PM »
"Lord, shed upon our darkened souls the brilliant light of Your wisdom so that we may be enlightened and serve You with renewed purity. Sunrise marks the hour for men to begin their toil, but in our souls, Lord, prepare a dwelling for the day that will never end."
Saint Ephrem the Syrian
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 09:54:44 PM by Alxandra »
"And if the man is the head of the family then the woman is the heart, and this heart is made by God that He may find rest in it”
+Elder Arsenie Papacioc

Blog http://the-woman-is-the-heart.tumblr.com/

Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/thewomanistheheart/

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #286 on: April 22, 2015, 10:00:43 PM »
"Strange priests lying in ponds distributing sacraments is no basis for a system of Church."
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #287 on: April 22, 2015, 10:04:30 PM »
"I like turtles"
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 вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #288 on: April 22, 2015, 10:05:12 PM »
"Strange priests lying in ponds distributing sacraments is no basis for a system of Church."

Clearly you chose your words in a very degrading manner. Your use of strange is libelous, and, also the use of pond is degrading. 
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 #289 on: April 22, 2015, 10:06:03 PM »
"I like turtles"

In what way does your like of turtles have anything to do with anything?
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 #290 on: April 22, 2015, 10:06:46 PM »
I'm done here, find someone else to pretend your not insulting, and slandering.
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: 19,881
  • Excelsior
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #291 on: April 22, 2015, 10:06:57 PM »
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,809
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #292 on: April 22, 2015, 10:07:17 PM »
"I like turtles"

In what way does your like of turtles have anything to do with anything?

I thought we were posting quotes that had nothing to do with the thread, sorry.
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 Alxandra

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #293 on: April 22, 2015, 10:10:37 PM »
"I like turtles"

In what way does your like of turtles have anything to do with anything?

I thought we were posting quotes that had nothing to do with the thread, sorry.
If this is about what I posted, I wanted to pray that God enlightens us with truth since there was conflict. Forgive me, perhaps I used the wrong quote:)
"And if the man is the head of the family then the woman is the heart, and this heart is made by God that He may find rest in it”
+Elder Arsenie Papacioc

Blog http://the-woman-is-the-heart.tumblr.com/

Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/thewomanistheheart/

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #294 on: April 22, 2015, 10:12:54 PM »
"Strange priests lying in ponds distributing sacraments is no basis for a system of Church."

Clearly you chose your words in a very degrading manner. Your use of strange is libelous, and, also the use of pond is degrading.

You lose all internets forever. You have committed the cardinal sin of ignorance of that which the internet loves only slightly less than cats.

For penance, you must now chant "Pie Jesu Domine, Dona eis requiem" whilst whacking yourself in the head with a stiff board.

Also, google is one's friend.
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #295 on: April 22, 2015, 11:24:41 PM »
Can I nominate this for Weirdest Thread of the Decade? 

By the way, I have no opinion one way or the other about turtles.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,881
  • Excelsior
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #296 on: April 22, 2015, 11:41:07 PM »
Can I nominate this for Weirdest Thread of the Decade? 

By the way, I have no opinion one way or the other about turtles.

I'm still surprised we don't have Worst Thread and Worst Post of the Year awards.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,106
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #297 on: April 22, 2015, 11:42:28 PM »
Certain people would always win, and they would probably take it badly.  We are better off without it.
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #298 on: April 23, 2015, 12:18:20 AM »

The Invisible Town of Kitezh (1913) by Konstantin Gorbatov

Not really Orthodoxy in Art so I didn't put it in that thread.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

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 #299 on: April 23, 2015, 01:38:58 AM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
Do you have any idea what slander/libel really is? Or do you just use that term because you like making mountains out of molehills?
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #300 on: April 23, 2015, 01:41:46 AM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.
No; it may be wrong--as I believe, or uncharitable--because you deserve such a rebuttal as you come across as an insufferable, unthinking zealot. If you wish to talk to people, instead of to pontificate, I suggest you dial it down.

Again, more libelous insults.

Talk to your priest or spiritual father. You may be infected with prelest and/or a martyr complex.

Again you feel the need to employ ad hominem.
In this case, though, it is totally relevant in that you are making your conduct the focus of attention by your frequent cries that we're libeling you. If what we're doing really constitutes libel, then report it to the moderators. Otherwise, stop crying wolf.
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #301 on: April 23, 2015, 01:45:45 AM »
I'm done here, find someone else to pretend your not insulting, and slandering.
You said you were leaving this forum a few weeks ago, yet now you're back. You want us to take you seriously when you say you're leaving? You'll be back, for you can't resist arguing with us.
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 #302 on: April 23, 2015, 01:51:06 AM »
I find it deeply offensive that my Orthodoxy is being denied because I reject belief in a mythical, impossible underwater city that does not appear in ANY PATRISTIC TEXTS WHATSOEVER, that is essentially the product of an 18th cenrury fairy tale believed to have originated among Old Believers.  I find that to be pure libel; if anyone in this thread has been libelled or slandered, it's myself, along with Orthodox Christianity. I mean, seriously, this is preposterous.  If Orthodoxy requires belief in the equivalent of Shambala, Atlantis or El Dorado, it's a false religion and a blasphemous distortion of Christianity.   However, it does not, and this all forms of Orthodox Christianity have been libelled.   And thus I find the accusations of libel even more vexatious. 

 But really, I feel as though I have been libelled here, in actuality, on the basis of the suggestion that I'm not Orthodox, and that the Orthodox churches, Eastern and Oriental, have been libelled on the basis of the insinuation that true Orthodoxy requires belief in an underwater city.  However, the Orthodox as a whole neither could nor would sue someone, and in like manner, I feel obliged to turn the other cheek.  But to deny my Orthodoxy because I refuse to believe in such insane nonsense is surely the very definition of religious libel.  However, neither it, nor anything I've seen in this thread, strikes me, though I am not a lawyer, as being legally actionable libel; rather, everything here seems to be protected First Am,end,ent speech as it encompasses religious opinions.  One is perfectly free to compare the Orthodox and Protestants or to say I'm a heretic because I don't believe in an underwater Orthodox utopia, because these are religious opinions.

Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #303 on: April 23, 2015, 02:00:17 AM »
I'm quite happy in believing in Xanadu and Shangri-la.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

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 #304 on: April 23, 2015, 02:16:16 AM »
But the term Bezpopovets is a misnomer, I do not reject valid clergy, I do not see clergy in this world presently, how could there be?

If I understand Bezpopovets to have the connotation of devil, an extremely derogatory term, I reject that for what it is.

I would be happy to explain more, ask.

All "bezpopovets" means is that you are "an individual without a priest", not that you necessarily reject the priesthood altogether. It is an accurate description of both you and me.

Protestants vary wildly among themselves. There is protestants that still believe in ordained priesthood, however, the vast majority of protestants do not. Old Believers of all persuasions all believe in the priesthood; and, they should believe in earthly ones as well, even if they feel or believe they do not have access to them.  An example is the protected city of Kitezh, where there is universally accepted earthly ordained priesthood.

I'm sorry, I really can't accept this.  Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis.  It's just impossible to regard your position in this debate with any credibility when you attack us for posing legitimate questions, accuse us of slander, then yourself smear Protestants and invoke the Old Believer equivalent of Atlantis.

I don't wish to sound harsh; I just want you to understand that from my perspective at least, you're really harming the reputation of Old Believers.  I had historically regarded your group as an entirely legitimate and fully Orthodox group that was subject to heinous and unwarranted persecution and had nothing but respect for Old Believers, but on account of this material you're forcong me to re-evaluate my historic respect and indeed enthusiasm for the Old Believers.  The belief in, for example, a mythical earthly city like Kitezkh is absurd, unscriptural and entirely opposed to Sacred Tradition.  How can one claim to be Orthodox while believing in such a fantasy?  But beyond that, the general meanness of your conduct and your unwillingness to engage in friendly dialogue with us, has profoundly alienated me.

If Kitezkh exists, which it surely does not, it's no place I would want to be, if everyone there is as mean spirited and hostile to other Chriatians as conversing with you might suggest.  But even the idea of a lost or hidden city of Old Believers is literally a profoundly occult idea, unworthy of Orthodoxy in any respect.  If such a place existed it would surely be a demonic hell-mouth, an ornate spiritual trap for those consumed with religious pride.  Our Lord gave his life for the redemption of the human race, not a tiny number of Russians, and I cannot conceive of Him suffering the existence of such a place.

There is but one splendid city of God in Orthodox Christianity and that is the New Jerusalem which is promised as a reward to those whom God has mercy upon on the dread day of Judgement, which we honor with the hymn "Shine, shine, New Jerusalem."  There is no room for At
Antis, Shangro-La or Kitzekh or any other mythical rivals to the splendour of the New Jwrusalem.


I stopped reading here "Throughout this thread you have been hurling accusations of slander and libel at us, and now you invoke a mythical city that does not in fact exist any more than Shambala or Atlantis. " simple because you affirm you have anther faith when you declare that city does not exist.

How does belief or non-belief in an underwater city denote one's status as Orthodox?

When one rejects the teachings of the church, one rejects the church. The miracle that protects that city, is as real as Heaven its self.  This basically cuts to the root of the issue: Old Believers have faith in the Church Fathers, and, as demonstrated above, New Ritualists often times consider the histories, stories, and teachings of the Church to be fantasy.

I'm neither an Old or a New Ritualist but am rather Syriac Orthodox.  That aside, please name one Church Father, one saint, who professes a belief in Kitezh.  For that matter, I would be thrilled if you could cite any pre-18Th century source that references Kitezh.    Also, given that this city allegedly was miraculously preserved in the 13th century, why does the first mention of it postdate the event by 500 years?

Also, where does any ecumenical council, creed or local council declare belief in Kitezh to be obligatory?  For that matter, do the two Priested hierarchies of Old Believers in Russia today actually require a belief in this city?  I should hope not.

But beyond that, how is this anything but a blasphemous fairy tale and a distortion of the Gospel?  Christ came to save the entire world by calling it to repentance.  How could someone living in a special holy city under unique divine protection, underwater, meaningfully repent in the same manner as someone elsewhere?  And what made the residents of Kitezh so extraordinarily deserving of salvation from martyrdom when the populations of many other Russian cities were wiped out by the Hordes?  For that matter, is not the crown of martyrdom worth striving for?  Surely had the city accepted this martyrdom with dignity, it's residents would occupy a blessed place in Heaven; saying God would protect a city from receiving such a crown seems more like a curse, as of the residents of Kitezh were unworthy to be martyred and were thus condemned to live beneath the waters for all eternity.  Such a fairy tale, though still wrong and a distortion, would actually I think be closer to Chriatian Orthodoxy than the legend of Kitezh as it now stands.

And assuming we buy into Kitezh, this fantastic Orthodox Atlantis, how does someone in Kitezh seeking the holy crown of martyrdom obtain it?  How would someone living beneath the waves be able to stand side by side with the victims of the Nikonoan persecution, or in present times, the martyred Coptic and Ethiopian Christians in Libya?   How would someone in Kitezh be able to confess Christ before man, and thus be confessed by Christ before the father?   And how does such a superstition as Kitezh have any effect other than to create a different Fospel, preachers of which, according to St. Paul, being anathema, even if angelic?

Though to my knowledge not a single Father or Saint has endorsed the existence of Kitezh, if they did, it still wouldn't make Kitezh a part of Orthodox holy tradition, for Kitezh is a blasphemous 18th century fairy tale which distorts the gospel.  Indeed, I would question the sanity and sanctity of any saint that espoused a belief in this superstitious tale.   The Kitezh story frankly seems to me to be worse, much worse, than some of the so what dangerous fantasies in the Golden Legend, because rather than simply ascribing the supernatural to those already glorified as saints, Kitezh alters the relationship between God and Man, by proposing the existence of a privileged spiritual elite blessed to live underwater in a holy and inaccessible city of pure Orthodoxy.  Thus the story itself seems to be a soteriological heresy, in that it introduces a class of human beings who are essentially born into a condition where much of the damage of the Fall has been spared them, and the opportunity to commit sin, and to repent, is substantially altered versus the mere mortals who live on the surface.

Lastly, how do the priests of Kitezh breath?  And what enables the torch lights seen of their processions to burn underwater?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,524
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #305 on: April 23, 2015, 02:22:38 AM »
I thought Scientology was weird ... until reading the story of Kitzekh.   :o  Maybe there's hope for John Travolta and Tom Cruise.   :P

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #306 on: April 23, 2015, 02:26:18 AM »

I don't understand why you disagree with Volnutt's post, вєликаго. If the priestless state isn't an aberrant one, why did your church bother seeking out New Rite priests -- let alone bishops -- to join it following the Raskol?

I think Velikago is instinctually siding with Hopeful Faithful because HF is a fellow old-believer, without thinking through the implications of HF's thinking. In HF's view, Velikago's hierarchy is just as invalid as ours.

Actually, I'm just not desiring to adopt an erroneous or libelous view of the "priestless" Old Believers. "Thou shall not bare false witness."

In his post, Volnutt didn't say that the priestless were Protestants, only that it wouldn't take much for a priestless Old Believer to go down a particularly heretical path.

Yep.

Making any comparisons between Old Believers and Protestants is slanderous and or libelous.

Old Believers and Protestants both breath air. LIBELOUS!



But seriously, libel is the intentional spreading of falsehood in order to discredit someone. I may be wrong in my argument but my intent is to debate, not to smear.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 02:27:49 AM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

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 #307 on: April 23, 2015, 02:35:15 AM »
I'm quite happy in believing in Xanadu and Shangri-la.

Xanadu actually existed; it was a palace complex consisting of two splendid palaces, one made of marble, the other of bamboo reeds, capable of being dismantled, surrounded by fabulous zoological gardens.  It was the summer residence of the Mongol emperors of China, and it was destroyed when the Ming Dynasry came to power.  Actually it's one of several Mongolian cities that were destroyed or abandoned after their empire collapsed, another being the rather less glamorous city of Merv, which one might think of as being a sort of pit stop midway down the Silk Road.  Some caravans from China and Mongolia and Afghanistan only went as far as Merv, where their goods were sold and loaded onto caravans bound for Aleppo.   When the Bubonic Plague caused commerce on the Silk Road to collapse the city was abandoned, but it's ruins remain extant, more so than those of Xanadu.  Xanadu was most likely harvested, it's component riches being cannibalozed as it were to enhance the palaces of the new Ming regime.

Now, Shangri La on the other hand is mythical, first appearing in the 1933 novel Lost Horizon.  However, the city seems based on the idea of Shambhala, an older mythical kingdom that is a part of the faith of Tibetan Buddhism.  The 14th Dalai Lama has said that one can only find ones way to Shambhala if one is karmic ally connected to it, or some such.  It's something like one of the "pure lands" of Pure Land Buddhism, albeit not quite as exalted from what I understand.  But it seems certain that from the name of this mythical Tinetan kingdom, and the idea of it, combined with the ideal of the Ascended Masters living in a hidden monastery in Tibwt espoused by Madame Blavatsky and the various offshoots of her a Theosophist movement, Hilton got the idea for Shangri La.

Although you didn't mention it, it seems pertinent to add that the scholarly consensus is that Atlantis sprung from the fruitful and admirable mind of Plato.

But Xanadu interestingly enough was real, and was described by Marco Polo, who visited it.  Nonetheless after its destruction it acquired a certain romantic quality and for many centuries has been the subject of poems and other articles of literary interest.

It's interesting to consider a number of important cities to early Christianity were abandoned for various reasons, although the sites of their ruins are known to us, such as Edessa and Babylon.  Jerusalem itself was in a deplorable state and probabaly would have been abandoned eventually had it not been rebuilt and turned into a center of Christian pilgrimage following the fabled visit of St. Helena and resulting construction of the great pilgrimage churches and the organization of a liturgy for them by St. Cyril of Jerusalem.  Indeed, it seems probable many towns such as Bethelehm and Nazareth would have been abandoned were it not for Christian pilgrimage, over the centuries.  As it was, Caesarea, the main city in Judea and the main Bishophric in Palestine at least until the second ecumenical council, was largely abandoned.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #308 on: April 23, 2015, 02:38:30 AM »
But Xanadu interestingly enough was real, and was described by Marco Polo, who visited it.  Nonetheless after its destruction it acquired a certain romantic quality and for many centuries has been the subject of poems and other articles of literary interest.

Coleridge took drugs to imagine it.  By his time, it was thoroughly a fiction.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #309 on: April 23, 2015, 02:54:51 AM »

The Invisible Town of Kitezh (1913) by Konstantin Gorbatov

Not really Orthodoxy in Art so I didn't put it in that thread.

I wonder if that painting influenced the design of Windfall Island from Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker.

Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

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 #310 on: April 23, 2015, 03:08:34 AM »
One person with correct faith & worship has the fulness of the Church no matter where God has happened to place them. Everyone who follows Christ is expected to be a martyr (witness). So many people miss the whole point, how sad. Lord willing I will be back here another day.
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 #311 on: April 23, 2015, 03:24:45 AM »
But Xanadu interestingly enough was real, and was described by Marco Polo, who visited it.  Nonetheless after its destruction it acquired a certain romantic quality and for many centuries has been the subject of poems and other articles of literary interest.

Coleridge took drugs to imagine it.  By his time, it was thoroughly a fiction.

Well, there really was a fantastic summer palace of the Mongolian Emperors called Shangdu or Xanadu.  Coleridge merely wrote a poem about it while high on opium, which frankly pales in comparison to the actual splendour as described in prose by Marco Polo.  This place could be thought of s the predecessor of the Forbidden City in Beijing, which was built as a year round residence by the Ming Dynasty that overthrew the Mongolians, no which quite possibly contains some loot from Xanadu within its walls, and is itself no less of an impressive Imperial palace. 

So Xanadu really did exist, as a complex of two palaces surrounded by a splendid zoo.  The Mongolians, being nomadic, I rather doubt built much more than was necessary to support the palace in terms of a city, which is why Shangdu was destroyed rather than merely despoiled.  After all, the Mongolians would just move on, and even one of the two palaces, the Reed Palace, could be disassembled and reassembled, reflecting the nomadic spirit of the Mongols.  I suspect the marble palace was quarried, and the exotic animals that survived were perhaps installed in the Forbidden City.

In the case of Kitezh on the other hand, it never existed other than as a fiction, a sort of Old Beloever Shambhala.

In the
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 #312 on: April 23, 2015, 03:29:51 AM »
One person with correct faith & worship has the fulness of the Church no matter where God has happened to place them. Everyone who follows Christ is expected to be a martyr (witness). So many people miss the whole point, how sad. Lord willing I will be back here another day.

Do you realize how offensive that remark is when Chriatians are being killed for Christ in the Middle East today?  Also, do you even realize how you just effectively deprecated the sainthood of all the early martyrs, starting with St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, and continuing with all the Christians killed for not burning incense to the Roman Emperor?

It's really deeply offensive for you to say that, within the context of what appears to be an implied statement of belief in the blasphemous superstition of Kitezh (I assume you are responding to my post asking how someone living in Kitezh could even receive the crown of martyrdom, and why actual martyrdom would not have been preferrable to the absurd condition of aquatic living proposed for the denizens of Kitezh).

I just find myself horrified by the remarks of the alleged Old Believers in this thread; I mean if this is really what the Old Believer movement is about I would want no part of it.   I find these remarks horrifying in terms of their sectarianism, their disregard for the true martyrdom of Christians in the Roman Empire, against the communists and now against the Islamic state, and in their disregard for reality regarding this fantastic tale of Kitezh.  And neither Hopeful Faithful nor his Priested colleague will answer the questions I've put to them, in good faith, throughout this thread, which is extremely frustrating since I entered into this discussion not only in good faith but on the side of the Old Believers, and I just find this attitude of spiritual elitism to be horrifying.  I pray that in real life the Old Believer communities in places like Woodburn and Erie are not actually like this.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 03:34:16 AM by wgw »
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 #313 on: April 23, 2015, 03:36:42 AM »
Greetings and good health!

[snip]    ...the MP has repented...

The Tobacco Metropolitan (as some properly title him) ... “has repented” ...

Seriously ? ? ?

We really need to pinch ourselves to see if we are in reality.

forgive me, a wayward brother


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 #314 on: April 23, 2015, 03:51:46 AM »
"Strange priests lying in ponds distributing sacraments is no basis for a system of Church."

Clearly you chose your words in a very degrading manner. Your use of strange is libelous, and, also the use of pond is degrading.

You lose all internets forever. You have committed the cardinal sin of ignorance of that which the internet loves only slightly less than cats.

For penance, you must now chant "Pie Jesu Domine, Dona eis requiem" whilst whacking yourself in the head with a stiff board.

Also, google is one's friend.

Monty Python aside, Mor Ephrems remark,in my mind conjured up images of the HP Lovecraft story "The Shadow over Innsmouth," with its aquatic priests presiding over the Esoteric Order of Dagon, and the intermarriage of humans with these malevolent amphibians.  Classic Lovecraftian horror.  And indeed the legend of Kitezh and the idea of obscure, deviant Old,Believer sects analogous in their own way to the Skoptsy looking upon it as a kind of mystical Mecca and actively promoting the legend to cause the distraction and destruction of otherwise pious Orthodox Christians, seems itself to be sufficiently dark as to be worthy of the pen of H.P. Lovecraft.

Really I can't begin to express to you how disturbing I find this Kitezh superstition; it scandalizes me.  Especially when many of the same people who promote it also promulgate various hateful calumnies about various contemporary hierarchs and recent saints, especially dear St. Seraphim of Sarov, who is as profoundly blessed and holy a man as Russia has ever known.  Truly, there is great darkness here.  Kyrie Eleison.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 03:57:44 AM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!