Author Topic: Old Believers and Orthodoxy  (Read 38041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2015, 08:01:23 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.

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/



Concerning married bishops
August 8, 2010
There might be more mistakes than usual, so please forgive me and point out those mistakes, so I can correct them.

Niconian: Here is the fifth canon of the holy apostles: “Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed”. See, this canon says that if a bishop turns divorces his wife, he should be deposed. Therefore he, the bishop, has to be married. However, the twelfth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council says the exact opposite: “But if any (bishop) shall have been observed to do such a thing (i.e. continue to live with his wife even after the consecration), let him be deposed”. If the Church did not have the right to change apostolic traditions, the Sixth Ecumenical Council would not abolish the fifth canon of the holy apostles. This example splendidly justifies our Church in abolishing certain customs and rites.

Old Believer: First of all, I should note that it is unfair of you to say that the Sixth Ecumenical Council supposedly abolished the fifth canon of the holy apostles. It is not true. The twelfth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council clearly states: “We say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority”.

Niconian: Pardon me for speaking rashly but be that as it may, this does not change anything. Even if the canon was not abolished, the fact remains that the tradition concerning the wives of bishops, was itself abolished (which is even more crucial).

Old Believer: In order to examine this issue without bias, we must answer the following: is it part of the Apostolic Tradition for bishops to live with their wives? Be so kind as to give an answer to this highly important question; however do so on the ground of the apostolic teaching.

Niconian: Oh, with pleasure. The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy: “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires good work. It behooves therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3: 1-2). That is the answer to your question.

Old Believer: It is true that these words of the Apostle would answer my question but only if it did not have the phrase of one. However, because it is there, one cannot accept this to be a valid answer to the question that was put forth.

Niconian: So what is the sense and what is the meaning behind the apostle’s phrase “of one”?

Old Believer: I will answer to you with the words of the Blessed Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrus: “I find it is well said “a husband of one wife”. For in the ancient times some, both Gentiles and Jews, had a custom according to their law, to live with two, three or more wives”… but at the time those, who kept chastity could not be found without much difficulty. Hence by using the phrase of one, the Apostle established that the bigamists and trigamists could not become bishops.

Niconian: I agree with the fact that the phrase of one should be understood precisely in that manner. Nevertheless the Apostle still enjoins that a bishop must have one wife; this is what I stand by.

Old Believer: One must be careful in interpreting the Holy Scriptures; it is even better not to do it on your own, but rather (do so) by following the doctors of the Church, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed: “And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory” (nineteenth canon). Being guided by this wise decree of the Holy Council, in order to refute your words I will read to you the words of St. John Chrysostom, his commentary on the very same words of  the Apostle Paul to Timothy that you presented: “It was on this account that he said, ‘the husband of one wife,’ not that nowadays this restriction is observed in the Church, for a prelate must be adorned with perfect sanctity and purity, but that in those times for the Greeks who were living in a state of constant fornication it was deemed a great thing for a husband to have but one wife” (Second Discourse on Job). Mathew Blastares also says the same: “In the twelfth canon the divine fathers of the Sixth Council completely prohibited the bishops to continue living with their wives that were united with them in matrimony before the ordination, after their ordination. They decree: “And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority in the fifth canon, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things”. For in the beginning, when during the idleness of the Jews and superstitions of the Greeks the Church left much to be desired, the divine Apostles allowed them to observe certain customs of their fathers. For the Jewish and Greek bishops did not divorce their wives; but others say that even those bishops that live in strict chastity should abstain from interacting not only with somebody else’s but with their own wives so that there would be no cause for scandal among their apprentices. They present [the words of] the apostle: “Be without offence to the Jew, and to the Gentiles and to the church of God”, and so forth (1 Corinth., 10: 31-33). Then they propose that those who do not hold this decree in respect should be deposed”. So do you agree with Matthew Blastares and the commentary of St. Chrysostom on the words you presented?

Niconian: Yes, I agree and retract my words that the Apostle decreed it to be obligatory for a bishop to have a wife.

Old Believer: Thanks be to the Lord that you and I have established that it is not part of the Apostolic Tradition for bishops to live with their wives. The Apostles tolerated this, showing leniency towards the people of the time. Now, instead of speaking with my own words, I think it is necessary to read the following on the issue of concordance between the fifth apostolic canon and the twelfth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council according to the book Pedalion: “Even before this Council (6th E.C.) marriage was forbidden to prelates, but by a local and not by a catholic canon. We know this from: 1) the divine Chrysostom, who says, in interpreting the words of the Apostle “husband of one wife”, that the Apostle decreed this not as a law for the future but as leniency for the condition that the Church was in at the time… “But that in those times for the Greeks who were living in a state of constant fornication it was deemed a great thing for a husband to have but one wife; but a prelate must be adorned with perfect purity and sanctity”; 2) from the 4th and 33rd canons of the Council of Carthage, which decreed that bishops, presbyters, and deacons had to abstain from their wives; 3) the Council of Trullo made the local decree of the Carthaginian Church a law for the entire Church, by which it did not conflict neither with the fifth apostolic canon, nor with the words of the Apostle Paul (“a man of one wife”)… because a) the apostles merely allowed bishops to have wives, but did not make this a law. The Council of Trullo, seeing that the piety of Christians came to flourish, made celibacy a law for bishops as a way of improving their lives; b) the apostolic canon prohibits a bishop from separating from his wife against her will, but does not forbid to divorce her under their mutual consent” (Interpretation of the twelfth canon).

It seems that what has already been read is sufficient in order to reconcile the canons that you presented. However, so that it would be more convincing for you, I must also read the following from the book of a theologian and a canonist of your Church concerning these canons: “The Council of Trullo is where we first see an affirmative rule that bishops must stay celibate or divorce the wives, whom they had before. However, a more careful analysis of the canon in the manner it was formulated by the Council, with the addition of other indubitable evidence, shows not so much a new decree of the 6th century (i.e. when the Council of Trullo took place) but an affirmation of one of the most ancient and chiefly respected Traditions of the Church. According to the Fathers of the Council themselves, the reason for establishing the rule at the Council was that “In Africa and in Libya and in other regions, the prelates there, even after being ordained, keep on living with their wives”. The Council’s remark shows that the celibacy of bishops had already been a general custom or a tradition of the Church, departure from which was only in isolated cases and certain regions and, in addition, it caused scandal in the Church. By turning to the original canons of the Church, we see that the Apostolic canons forbade all of the clergy (including bishops) to put their wives away under the pretense of piety (apost., 5). However such decrees are explained by the circumstances of the time, during which the clergy had not yet been detached from the others, and had not quite formed. Thus, people from all ranks and statuses got accepted into clergy. During the first centuries, it was especially difficult to find people among the newly-converted pagans and Jews, who kept chastity in the mature age or were not married. In addition, on one hand, Jewish and pagan customs allowed free divorces of spouses, which contradicted the spirit of Christianity. On the other hand, in Christianity itself there were sects, such as, for instance, the sects of encratites and marcionites, which shunned marriage specifically under the pretence of piety and demanded divorces. Meanwhile, another Apostolic canon (51) states: “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed”. Therefore, while condemning the abhorrence, the canon permitted abstinence from marriage for the sake of true religious restraint. Likewise the Church history and the canons of the Church affirmatively indicated that just as the religious exploits of celibacy and restraint in general, the observance of these in the clerical status, especially for a bishop, are borrowed from the Apostolic Tradition. This is what the Council of Carthage (419) states in one of its canons: “It was rightly decided that through the very consecration, obligated by bonds of chastity, as becoming of saints and priests of God, bishops should be continent altogether, so that what the apostles taught and antiquity kept, that we might also keep; and thus it is decided that bishops should be keepers of modesty and should abstain from their wives” (canons 3 and 4). Even though there is no doubt that during the first centuries some of the ordained bishops were married priests, most of them already started to brake off their conjugal unions with wives after ordination. There is also no doubt that people that were not bonded with marriage and distinguished themselves in chastity and abstinence were the ones to be chosen for episcopal rank. The great hierarchs of the ancient Christian Church are examples of this. It is also confirmed by the fact that those, who entered clergy in celibacy (excluding readers and chanters), were completely forbidden from marrying after being ordained (26th canon of the Holy Apostles). In addition, such individuals were forbidden to have females in their house under any pretense, with the exception of their mother, sister or other close relatives (third canon of the First Ecumenical Council). The Council of Nicaea already had the idea of establishing a permanent rule that bishops be celibate, and those, who are married, should divorce their wives. It was only when some proposed to make the rule apply to everybody, the Council, following the advice of St. Paphnutius, one of the Egyptian bishops, who himself was chaste and a desert-dweller, did not venture to put this burden on everyone, as it was not easy to bear for everyone. Thus the Council confined itself with only one general rule, that clerics, who stay celibate, would stay so forever and would not keep females in their house, except the above-mentioned individuals. However, the custom had a force of the law, and so bishops were primarily chosen from the unmarried or, if they had a wife before their ordination, left them after admittance into the office. Confirming the laws of ecclesiastical order, Emperor Justinian the Great (6th cent.) gives force of law concerning election of bishops, to the decree, which he calls ancient and patristic, that bishops should be chosen from monks or from those, if [they belong to] white clergy, with no wives or, at the very least, no children, so that they may leave their former wives without hindrance after the ordination. This decree was confirmed several times (see 48th canon of the same council). Thus, the Council of Trullo can, in fact, be accounted only for turning the ancient tradition and custom of the Church, as well as particular temporarily decrees concerning celibacy of bishops into a general and permanent rule for all places and times in the Orthodox Church. As a result, since after the ordination of married priests into episcopal rank, the indispensable divorce with their wives could not be without many difficulties, and could not occur without their mutual consent, in order not to contradict the apostolic canons (fifth canon of the Holy Apostles) and general laws of Christian wedlock, the Church made it a rule that monks should be ordained into episcopacy (“Practice of Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence Course”, John of Smolensk). Thus, from the evidence presented one can clearly see that even though there had been cases of bishops living with their wives in the ancient times, this had been done not according to the Apostolic Tradition. And how could this tradition be from the holy apostles, when they themselves left everything and followed the footsteps of their Teacher, as can be seen directly from the Holy Gospel: “Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed you: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:27-28). Thereby, it has been absolutely confirmed that with the twelfth canon the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not abolish an apostolic tradition but prohibited a deviation from the universal practice of the Holy Church, which has sprung from the Holy Apostles. However, your state Church did not prohibit a deviation but an observance of the Tradition of the Holy Apostles. That is why this example also only condemns your Church, and does not justify it in the slightest.

Niconian: No matter how convincing you prove that in the ancient times bishops lived with their wives not according to the Apostolic Tradition, and perhaps one could even agree with your argument, I will, however, prove that the even the apostles themselves, continued to live with their wives during their mission.

Old Believer: Is that so? And where did you find such evidence?

Niconian: I see that you’re mocking me when asking with such surprise where I found such evidence that the apostles continued to live with their wives during their mission. As if you yourself don’t know about this evidence.

Old Believer: Forgive me for the sake of God, but I speak in complete seriousness without any mockery. I ask you to specify where you found such evidence.

Niconian: Listen to what the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” (1 Corinth. 9:3-5). Here is the evidence that the apostles, though not all of them, lived with their wives during the mission. I can in no way concede that you did not know about this fact.

Old Believer: It was fair of you to say that I know this fact. However it was unfair of you to allege that from this, one can see that the apostles lived with their wives even during their mission. I already had a chance to warn you regarding studying of the Holy Gospel that one must interpret it only the way it was interpreted by the fathers and doctors of the Church (see the nineteenth canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). This same thing I repeat to you right now. Thus, let us see how the holy fathers interpreted this passage. Blessed Jerome writes the following against Jovinianus: “In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord: “Lo we have left all and followed thee”, the Lord answered him, “Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.” But if in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words “Have we no right to lead about women or wives even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord?” let him add what is found in the Greek copies, “Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives?” This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterward made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take γυναὶκας to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock” (Book I, 26).

The Venerable Joseph of Volokolam writes: “Can you see how the holy apostles loved chastity and purity and suffered for it even unto death? They enjoined not only kings, princes, nobles and not only men but also women to live pure and chaste life; to the husbands they advised to leave their wives, and to wives [they advised to] drift away from their husbands for the sake of pure and chaste life. And at the same time they also lived pure and caste lives without wives. If they themselves lived with wives, how could they advice others to separate from wives and live pure and chaste life, concerning which we wrote above?

When the holy Apostle Paul says: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife…” (1 Corinth. 9:5), he talks about pious women that joined the apostles and ministered them during the time of evangelism just as before they had ministered to Christ. And that is why the apostle calls them sisters, saying: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife…” (“The Enlightener”, pt. 11). Accordingly, Blessed Theodoret writes in the commentary on these same words of the apostle: “But this to lead about a sister, a wife was interpreted by some in the sense that just as faithful women followed Christ, providing the disciples with necessary food (Luke 8:3), the same way women also followed some of the apostles, showing their fervent faith. They were attached to their teaching and helped their divine mission”. The same thing is indicated in the book “Guide to Analytical Reading of the New Testament Books”: “‘Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife’. This passage is interpreted differently by different commentators. Usually they interpret it as follows: the apostle speaks here about the right to have a wife, be married to a sister, i.e. a christian woman, as were the other apostles, the brethren of the Lord and Cethas, who, indeed, was married (Matthew 8:14). The Greek —- does not mean the same thing as the Latin ducere uxorem – to marry, but to carry about a woman as a companion.The apostles were followed, just as Christ was followed by women that helped with what they owned and shared their missionary labors. However the apostles Paul and Barnabas declined the help of these women, though could carry them about as did the other apostles. The apostle asks: are Barnabas and he are the only ones who have no right to have these women from the sisters, i.e. christian women as companions?” Though the last explanation does not belong to a holy father, but since it is in complete agreement with the aforementioned explanations of the holy fathers, it does not seem superfluous to mention it, especially as it was published with the permission of the religious censorship of your state church. From the patristic and other evidence that was presented, it follows that one must understand the Apostle Paul’s words “a sister, a wife” not as wives but as companions, who helped the apostolic mission.

Niconian: Okay now I can really see that one should not interpret the Holy Scripture on his own but must follow the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, otherwise one can fall into error. However that may be, I will proceed and continue to give more examples from the history of the ancient Church of Christ and will prove that our state church has not lost its orthodoxy by abolishing certain customs and rituals that were used before Patriarch Nikon.
Old Believer: Good, please present everything you know, and we shall examine everything without haste.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 08:13:29 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2015, 08:02:39 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. .
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 08:04:34 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 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 #47 on: February 27, 2015, 08:16:27 PM »
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. .

Between the deaths of Pavel of Kolomna and Alexander of Viatsk in the first few decades of the late 17th century (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, ever actually separated from the New Rite Church) and the acceptance of Ambrose of Bosnia by the Old Ritualists at Belaya Krinitsa in the mid-19th century, who were your bishops?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 08:31:07 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 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 #48 on: February 27, 2015, 09:07:08 PM »
All of the changes made by Nikon seem to be liturgical in nature.  And in my opinion Nikon was wrong to cause a schism and bloodshed for their sake.  But at the same time I don't see where he altered the faith.  Rather it appears he modified the Russian liturgy to more closely resemble the Greek liturgy of the same time.

So the question I have for Old Believers, whose Orthodox status I accept, by the way, is this:

Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

For that matter, how do you feel about the liturgical practices of the Church of Georgia before that country fell under Russian control, had its Catholicate abolished, and was subjected to the liturgical practices of the Nikonians?

Lastly how do you feel about the liturgical traditions of the Romanians, Bulgarians and Serbians?

Do you think that the Byzantine church fell into heresy when it abolished the Cathedral Typikon shortly before the fall of Constantinople and implemented the what became known as the Sabaite Typikon universally? 

From what I understand Russia was using under the old believers a slightly older recension of the Sabaite Typikon which preserved some Studite elements and the older form of making the sign of the cross.  It also preserved the left and right choir antiphonal arrangement that still remains integral to Byzantine Chant. 

So what I just want to understand is, how specifically an Old Orthodox Russian understands the liturgical variance that existed in the Orthodox Church.  Because it seems to me you could make a coherent argument that the suppression of the Cathedral Typikon and the implementation of the modified Athonite-Sabaite Typikon throughout the Byzantine churches around the time Constantinople fell, which while only subtly different from the older liturgy, introduced a heresy and as a result, only Russia at that point had correct service books.  And that what Nikon did was tap into this poisoned well and contaminate the liturgy of most Russian churches with the heretical element in the 16th century recennsions of the Sabaite Typikon, but that the Old Ritualists and perhaps the Georgians preserved the old faith by rejecting this change. 

And if that is the argument I would then really like it if you could go over with me the specific liturgical texts and show to me the heretical aspects introduced therein.

On the other hand, if this isn't your argument, I really want to understand how you view the liturgies of the other Orthodox churches before and after Nikon.

Please note that I'm an Old Orthodox sympathizer; I view Patriarch Nikon as a villain who martyred innocent people and as the worst prelate any Eastern Orthodox Church has had since Nestorius.  I also own a Lestovka and love it; I find it a vastly more sophisticated instrument than the regular prayer rope which I also own, although I use both.  I do however love the music composed by the "new believers" from the 18th century on, and the freedom of movement one has, to venerate the icons or light candles, during most of a new believer liturgy.  But I am highly sympathetic to your position, I want to understand it, and I also want to understand how you relate to other Orthodox nationalities and their liturgical heritage, and what form of worship you would prescribe for American converts, or alternately proscribe.

Lastly I came across on your website mention of a Spell involving St. Tryphon and caterpillars mentioning the Devils name but, while I have found intercessory prayers to St. Tryphon regarding the same, I have not found a text like what you describe.  The closest thing I found was this: http://full-of-grace-and-truth.blogspot.com/2010/01/prayer-to-st-tryphon-for-deliverance-of.html
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2015, 09:16:51 PM »
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. .

Between the deaths of Pavel of Kolomna and Alexander of Viatsk in the first few decades of the late 17th century (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, ever actually separated from the New Rite Church) and the acceptance of Ambrose of Bosnia by the Old Ritualists at Belaya Krinitsa in the mid-19th century, who were your bishops?

There was still clergy in Kitezh (and there still is to this day).

In case your not aqauinted with the story, here is a wiki article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitezh
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 09:18:00 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 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 #50 on: February 27, 2015, 09:19:25 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.

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.
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #51 on: February 27, 2015, 09:21:28 PM »
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. .

Between the deaths of Pavel of Kolomna and Alexander of Viatsk in the first few decades of the late 17th century (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, ever actually separated from the New Rite Church) and the acceptance of Ambrose of Bosnia by the Old Ritualists at Belaya Krinitsa in the mid-19th century, who were your bishops?

There was still clergy in Kitezh (and there still is to this day).

In case your not aqauinted with the story, here is a wiki article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitezh

Even if that legend were true, they still wouldn't be your clergy. Why else would you need to depend on runaway priests?
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2015, 09:37:04 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.
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 #53 on: February 27, 2015, 09:38:49 PM »
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. .

Between the deaths of Pavel of Kolomna and Alexander of Viatsk in the first few decades of the late 17th century (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, ever actually separated from the New Rite Church) and the acceptance of Ambrose of Bosnia by the Old Ritualists at Belaya Krinitsa in the mid-19th century, who were your bishops?

There was still clergy in Kitezh (and there still is to this day).

In case your not aqauinted with the story, here is a wiki article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitezh

Even if that legend were true, they still wouldn't be your clergy. Why else would you need to depend on runaway priests?

The story is true, and, I would argue Old Believers never depended on runaway priests; we depend on our Lord Christ, Jesus, only.
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 #54 on: February 27, 2015, 09:43:58 PM »
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. .

Between the deaths of Pavel of Kolomna and Alexander of Viatsk in the first few decades of the late 17th century (neither of whom, as far as I am aware, ever actually separated from the New Rite Church) and the acceptance of Ambrose of Bosnia by the Old Ritualists at Belaya Krinitsa in the mid-19th century, who were your bishops?

There was still clergy in Kitezh (and there still is to this day).

In case your not aqauinted with the story, here is a wiki article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitezh

Even if that legend were true, they still wouldn't be your clergy. Why else would you need to depend on runaway priests?

The story is true, and, I would argue Old Believers never depended on runaway priests; we depend on our Lord Christ, Jesus, only.

Yes, well, in those 200 years or so, if an Old Believer received the Eucharist (or, really, any sacrament requiring a priest), it was at the hands of runaway ordained under the New Rite.

And when Ambrose of Bosnia accepted the offer of the people at Belaya Krinitsa, it was the exact same thing.
"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 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 #55 on: February 27, 2015, 09:48:36 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 09:48:54 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #56 on: February 27, 2015, 09:51:20 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.

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. 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.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 09:54:05 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2015, 09:52:36 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 09:53:08 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 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 #58 on: February 27, 2015, 09:55:03 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?
"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 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 #59 on: February 27, 2015, 10:04:38 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.

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.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2015, 10:05:27 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?

The issue of the Old vs the New was a debate that went on during these 200 years.  To start with, when the Muslims took New Rome, and, Orthodoxy was restored, The New Rite, or what would later be the New Rite, was condemned as heresy. There is still proof of this, that exists in some time period versions of the the "Typicon" or "Ustav"; and there likely is other sources of proof, I am not recalling at the moment. This issue had grown so large that the whole Orthodox world gathered together at the request of the Tsar of Russia, and, Nikon as well, and, excommunicated the Old Faith, it was at this time that the Heretics thought they had overcome those faithful, and, believed that through pure numbers they could over turn long standing Apostolic teachings and decrees. All that happen in fact was, that by excommunicating the Old Faith, they had excommunicated themselves.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:13:38 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2015, 10:09:10 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.

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. 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. 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.
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 #62 on: February 27, 2015, 10:16:11 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?

The issue of the Old vs the New was a debate that went on during these 200 years.  To start with, when the Muslims took New Rome, and, Orthodoxy was restored, The New Rite, or what would later be the New Rite, was condemned as heresy. There is still proof of this, that exists in some time period versions of the the "Typicon" or "Ustav"; and there likely is other sources of proof, I am not recalling at the moment. This issue had grown so large that the whole Orthodox world gathered together at the request of the Tsar of Russia, and, Nikon as well, and, excommunicated the Old Faith, it was at this time that the Heretics thought they had overcome those faithful, and, believed that through pure numbers they could over turn long standing Apostolic teachings and decrees. All that happen in fact was, that by excommunicating the Old Faith, they had excommunicated themselves.

So at what point would say the New Rite was re-adopted? Was it by the mid-16th century?

I ask because when the decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor were made public, the Greeks protested against them with the Russians on Mount Athos viewing them as being invalid.

If they were heretics even then, why did they wait another hundred years?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:31:30 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2015, 10:18:01 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?

The issue of the Old vs the New was a debate that went on, to start with, when the Muslims took New Rome, and, Orthodox was restored, The New Rite, or what would later be the New Rite, was condemned as heresy. There is still proof of this, that exists in some time period versions of the the "Typicon" or "Ustav"; and there likely is other sources of proof, I am not recalling at the moment. This issue had grown so large that the whole Orthodox world gathered together at the request of the Tsar of Russia, and, Nikon as well, and, excommunicated the Old Faith, it was at this time that the Heretics thought they had overcome those faithful, and, believed that through pure numbers they could over turn long standing Apostolic teachings and decrees. All that happen in fact was, that by excommunicating the Old Faith, they had excommunicated themselves.

So at what point would say the New Rite was re-adopted? Was it by the mid-16th century?

I ask because when the decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor were made public, the Greeks protested against them with the Russians on Mount Athos viewing them as being invalid.

If they were heretics even then, why did they wait another hundred years?

The New Rite was not 100% officially accepted over the Old, and, the issue was not formally resolved until 100 years later (or rather until 1667).  To be honest, however, it should be noted I'm not actually sure what you refer to, what protest. I just know that the issues between old and new were not formally concluded until 1667. 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:24:16 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 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 #64 on: February 27, 2015, 10:21:38 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.

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?
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #65 on: February 27, 2015, 10:24:54 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?

The issue of the Old vs the New was a debate that went on, to start with, when the Muslims took New Rome, and, Orthodox was restored, The New Rite, or what would later be the New Rite, was condemned as heresy. There is still proof of this, that exists in some time period versions of the the "Typicon" or "Ustav"; and there likely is other sources of proof, I am not recalling at the moment. This issue had grown so large that the whole Orthodox world gathered together at the request of the Tsar of Russia, and, Nikon as well, and, excommunicated the Old Faith, it was at this time that the Heretics thought they had overcome those faithful, and, believed that through pure numbers they could over turn long standing Apostolic teachings and decrees. All that happen in fact was, that by excommunicating the Old Faith, they had excommunicated themselves.

So at what point would say the New Rite was re-adopted? Was it by the mid-16th century?

I ask because when the decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor were made public, the Greeks protested against them with the Russians on Mount Athos viewing them as being invalid.

If they were heretics even then, why did they wait another hundred years?

The New Rite was not 100% officially accepted over the Old, and, the issue was not formally resolved until 100 years later (or rather until 1667).  To be honest, however, it should be noted I'm not actually sure what you refer to, what protest. I just know that the issues between old and new were not formally concluded until 1667.

But it was in use, and thus accepted, practically everywhere but Russia. The Russian church having declared its autocephaly a century earlier nevertheless expected to be raised to a Patriarchate by those very churches which utilized the New Rite. The Russians may have thought their ways were better but I'm not convinced that they viewed the ways of the Greeks as heresy.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:25:39 PM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #66 on: February 27, 2015, 10:32:31 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?

The issue of the Old vs the New was a debate that went on, to start with, when the Muslims took New Rome, and, Orthodox was restored, The New Rite, or what would later be the New Rite, was condemned as heresy. There is still proof of this, that exists in some time period versions of the the "Typicon" or "Ustav"; and there likely is other sources of proof, I am not recalling at the moment. This issue had grown so large that the whole Orthodox world gathered together at the request of the Tsar of Russia, and, Nikon as well, and, excommunicated the Old Faith, it was at this time that the Heretics thought they had overcome those faithful, and, believed that through pure numbers they could over turn long standing Apostolic teachings and decrees. All that happen in fact was, that by excommunicating the Old Faith, they had excommunicated themselves.

So at what point would say the New Rite was re-adopted? Was it by the mid-16th century?

I ask because when the decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor were made public, the Greeks protested against them with the Russians on Mount Athos viewing them as being invalid.

If they were heretics even then, why did they wait another hundred years?

The New Rite was not 100% officially accepted over the Old, and, the issue was not formally resolved until 100 years later (or rather until 1667).  To be honest, however, it should be noted I'm not actually sure what you refer to, what protest. I just know that the issues between old and new were not formally concluded until 1667.

But it was in use, and thus accepted, practically everywhere but Russia. The Russian church having declared its autocephaly a century earlier nevertheless expected to be raised to a Patriarchate by those very churches which utilized the New Rite. The Russians may have thought their ways were better but I'm not convinced that they viewed the ways of the Greeks as heresy.

Actually, you seem to demonstrate that ether you did not read what I wrote, or else I failed to properly demonstrate that the issue of the New Rite, is not like you make it out to be, that there were those in the midst of the New that also followed the Old, and, that for a time, after the restoration of Orthodoxy (after the fall that took place during the Council of Florence) The Old was, without a doubt, the dominate, and, that in time period pieces there is proof of this, with Anathemas against the New.

What you can, or cannot imagine, is rather irrelevant, not to be rude; it has no effect on the actual history, which if you say you imagine otherwise, is contrary to it.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:45:10 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #67 on: February 27, 2015, 10:54:41 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.

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.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 10:56:27 PM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #68 on: February 27, 2015, 11:04:10 PM »
Do you believe before that the Greek Orthodox churches in Greece, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had fallen into heresy before the Nikonian reforms, and that Nikon simply imported this heresy into Russia? 

What happen is, after the council of Florence, those who went along with the union (the union between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and where Russia was the only Church to formally reject the union) had schism from the Church, but, shortly after the fall of New Rome to the Muslims, the True Christians were liberated, on account that, they owned nothing the Muslims wanted; everything they might have had, had been stripped from them, by imperial decree, when they rejected the union. Orthodoxy was then at this time restored.

There were however always heretics in their midsts, and, during the years the heretics sort of waged a gorilla war from within the Church. In Russia the heresies their neighbors practiced were always condemned, and, when Orthodox from other nations visited they were instructed to pray like the Old Believers do. It was not a complete secrete, there were after all people who traveled from Russia to other places. It was not until they decided in council with Nikon, however, that the final break took place; by siding with Nikon, and, officially anathematizing the Old Faith, they all became Nikonians, because, they followed Nikon into official Schism.

If this is an issue of schism, is the New Rite not heresy? And if the New Rite is heresy, why did the Russian Church remain in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world for over 200 more years?

They were not officially in heresy for 200 years. They may have had some heretics in their midsts but that is altogether different then saying what you appear to be saying. You maybe did not read what I wrote?

I'm trying to understand your thought process. What has changed that has made them heretics?

The issue of the Old vs the New was a debate that went on, to start with, when the Muslims took New Rome, and, Orthodox was restored, The New Rite, or what would later be the New Rite, was condemned as heresy. There is still proof of this, that exists in some time period versions of the the "Typicon" or "Ustav"; and there likely is other sources of proof, I am not recalling at the moment. This issue had grown so large that the whole Orthodox world gathered together at the request of the Tsar of Russia, and, Nikon as well, and, excommunicated the Old Faith, it was at this time that the Heretics thought they had overcome those faithful, and, believed that through pure numbers they could over turn long standing Apostolic teachings and decrees. All that happen in fact was, that by excommunicating the Old Faith, they had excommunicated themselves.

So at what point would say the New Rite was re-adopted? Was it by the mid-16th century?

I ask because when the decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor were made public, the Greeks protested against them with the Russians on Mount Athos viewing them as being invalid.

If they were heretics even then, why did they wait another hundred years?

The New Rite was not 100% officially accepted over the Old, and, the issue was not formally resolved until 100 years later (or rather until 1667).  To be honest, however, it should be noted I'm not actually sure what you refer to, what protest. I just know that the issues between old and new were not formally concluded until 1667.

But it was in use, and thus accepted, practically everywhere but Russia. The Russian church having declared its autocephaly a century earlier nevertheless expected to be raised to a Patriarchate by those very churches which utilized the New Rite. The Russians may have thought their ways were better but I'm not convinced that they viewed the ways of the Greeks as heresy.

Not only did they desire that the Greeks  (etc) accept that the Russians were by God now chosen to maintain, and, defend the Orthodox Faith ("as first among equals"), they more importantly desired that those who had ancestors (the rest of the Orthodox World who were in a theological civil war amongst themselves) who had been previously chosen for such a task, acknowledge, repent, and, accept this reality.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 11:07:59 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 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 #69 on: February 27, 2015, 11:30:11 PM »
So if the sign of the cross is made the old way, and the idea that the hierarchs can change the praxis or spdoctrine of the church rejected, would the Old Orthodox under such conditions accept for example the pre-Nikonian Byzantine worship, I,e. Byzantine Chant and the reconstructed Cathedral Office of the Hagia Sophia, as documented by Alexander Lingas of Capella Romana?

We do know that the early church had a diversity of worship rites, even if Russia was the most correct.  So if I might expound a bit, if the notions of a freedom of hierarchs to alter holy tradition were rejected, and the sign of the cross made the old way, could the ancient Roman Rite or Ambrosian Rote liturgies from the West as practiced before the Great Schism and as developed by St. Gregory the Dialogist, who is credited also with the Preaanctified Liturgy, be used?  I assume the Old Orthodox of your hierarchy use the Presanctified Liturgy in Lent?  So on the basis of St. Gregory's involvement in it, could you allow a church to worship using the eignt tone system of chant he is also credited with, Gregorian a Chant, which doubtless influenced the Octoechos of St. John Damascene, which was itself a documentation of the standard eight tone system, in the West?  In other words, can the Old Orthodox support worshipping in the Western Rite according to the traditions that predate the Great Schism provided the sign of the cross is made correctly and the idea of prelates being able to change Holy Tradition repudiated?

For that matter, could a post-Nikonian Russian liturgy be made to comply with Old Orthodox standards by doing the sign of the cross correctly and by repudiating what we might call the Nikonian Error?

By the way, please know that Peter the Aleut is a very good guy, a loving Christian who has been very nice to me while I've been on the forum.  So please don't suspect him of trying to draw you out or debate win you in an unethical manner.  He is entirely trustworthy and just wants to explore this issue with you, as do I.

Can we not love one another, you, I, and Peter?  Because though Peter may represent a pure post Nikonian view, and I am neutral, and you're Old Orthodox, we are all three of us in search of Trith, which is our Lord Jesus Christ.  And I don't want to see this thread end on a sour note.  Actually by the way Peter since we have fora for the Oriental Othodox and for the Western Rite ,Anne we ought to have one for the Old Orthodox, Old Ritualists and so on. 

I don't consider the Skoptsky or the other nutters who emerged from the Nikonian schism to be Orthodox.  I.e. The Hole Woeshippers.  They were just people who were poor peasants who were so freaked out by the liturgical changes they adopted an apocalyptic mindset and lost their marbles.  But I do think Nikon's insensitivity and worse that of the Czar in enforcing the new rites is largely responsible for their insanity.  But in the Old Orthodox we see people who, like the Old Calendarists, and arguably the Oriental Orthodox, perceived a threat to Holy Tradition and became separated over it.  And that separation is IMO tragic regardless of whether they were right or wrong.  This is why I love all Orthodox and desire recomciliation in the love of Truth, which is the living Word of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself up so that we might live.  And this being Lent, it is the time we must examine our own consciences and bewail how each of us has fallen short of what his Gospel requires. Yet we have hope through his forgiveness and His glorious Resurrection, which we will soon celebrate at the end of the Great Lent.  So Peter and Venhkaro (sorry, I can't read Cyrillic that well), please let's love each other on this thread and explore our respective faith traditions.
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 #70 on: February 27, 2015, 11:38:09 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, such small things? 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.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 11:40:55 PM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

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

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #71 on: February 27, 2015, 11:40:04 PM »
So if the sign of the cross is made the old way, and the idea that the hierarchs can change the praxis or spdoctrine of the church rejected, would the Old Orthodox under such conditions accept for example the pre-Nikonian Byzantine worship, I,e. Byzantine Chant and the reconstructed Cathedral Office of the Hagia Sophia, as documented by Alexander Lingas of Capella Romana?

We do know that the early church had a diversity of worship rites, even if Russia was the most correct.  So if I might expound a bit, if the notions of a freedom of hierarchs to alter holy tradition were rejected, and the sign of the cross made the old way, could the ancient Roman Rite or Ambrosian Rote liturgies from the West as practiced before the Great Schism and as developed by St. Gregory the Dialogist, who is credited also with the Preaanctified Liturgy, be used?  I assume the Old Orthodox of your hierarchy use the Presanctified Liturgy in Lent?  So on the basis of St. Gregory's involvement in it, could you allow a church to worship using the eignt tone system of chant he is also credited with, Gregorian a Chant, which doubtless influenced the Octoechos of St. John Damascene, which was itself a documentation of the standard eight tone system, in the West?  In other words, can the Old Orthodox support worshipping in the Western Rite according to the traditions that predate the Great Schism provided the sign of the cross is made correctly and the idea of prelates being able to change Holy Tradition repudiated?

For that matter, could a post-Nikonian Russian liturgy be made to comply with Old Orthodox standards by doing the sign of the cross correctly and by repudiating what we might call the Nikonian Error?

By the way, please know that Peter the Aleut is a very good guy, a loving Christian who has been very nice to me while I've been on the forum.  So please don't suspect him of trying to draw you out or debate win you in an unethical manner.  He is entirely trustworthy and just wants to explore this issue with you, as do I.

Can we not love one another, you, I, and Peter?  Because though Peter may represent a pure post Nikonian view, and I am neutral, and you're Old Orthodox, we are all three of us in search of Trith, which is our Lord Jesus Christ.  And I don't want to see this thread end on a sour note.  Actually by the way Peter since we have fora for the Oriental Othodox and for the Western Rite ,Anne we ought to have one for the Old Orthodox, Old Ritualists and so on. 

I don't consider the Skoptsky or the other nutters who emerged from the Nikonian schism to be Orthodox.  I.e. The Hole Woeshippers.  They were just people who were poor peasants who were so freaked out by the liturgical changes they adopted an apocalyptic mindset and lost their marbles.  But I do think Nikon's insensitivity and worse that of the Czar in enforcing the new rites is largely responsible for their insanity.  But in the Old Orthodox we see people who, like the Old Calendarists, and arguably the Oriental Orthodox, perceived a threat to Holy Tradition and became separated over it.  And that separation is IMO tragic regardless of whether they were right or wrong.  This is why I love all Orthodox and desire recomciliation in the love of Truth, which is the living Word of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself up so that we might live.  And this being Lent, it is the time we must examine our own consciences and bewail how each of us has fallen short of what his Gospel requires. Yet we have hope through his forgiveness and His glorious Resurrection, which we will soon celebrate at the end of the Great Lent.  So Peter and Venhkaro (sorry, I can't read Cyrillic that well), please let's love each other on this thread and explore our respective faith traditions.

You see we are not concerned with the various examples of local traditions, that there where many such local traditions, is not even being debated. The issue is correct teaching. Could you in theory practice your own local tradition? I think you would have to ask one of our Bishops, and, get a blessing. However, what it appears is not being recognized here is the New is not actually a separate rite a local tradition, it actually is a corruption of the Old. Moreover, there were other issues, such as the sign of the Cross, the proper bows. Without getting into a very lengthy post, I do hope you see where I am going with this, and, that it points you in the right direction in your search.
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 #72 on: February 27, 2015, 11:44:25 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.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 11:47:37 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 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 #73 on: February 27, 2015, 11:53:22 PM »
I do see where you are going with this.  Now regarding that caterpillar spell mentioned by you in one of the dialogues you quoted, could you elaborate on that?  Because I can't find a liturgical curse against caterpillars on the web that resembles it, just an intercessory prayer to St. Trypho which looks,correct.   But Metropolitan Kallistos Ware did mention a curse against caterpillars in his preface to Prayimg With the Orthodox Tradition.

Now the idea of any spell in the Orthodox Euchologia horrifies me, I think only prayers and not spells or curses should be contained therein.  But I desire more info on this.  It sounds like the Old Believer in the dialogue was as aghast in its inclusion In a Euchologion or Trebnik to be more precise as I am.

I seriously doubt you'd find it in any modern Trebnik of course.  But after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, some Greeks in their misery may have resorted to superstition.  I suspect this is where the Evil Eye fears and the use of Worry Beads come from.   In modern times the Greek Orthodox Church has tried to suppress this superstition, but in rural areas after the fall it's not inconceivable that a priest as the most educated member of a persecuted and increasingly illiterate community might be regarded as a sort of medicine man and thus spells and curses may have slipped into Greek trebniks or Euchologia.  In Ethiopia the church fights a constant struggle against superstition and allegedly some of the debbteras or chapters function as Christian witch doctors in secret despite the opposition of the ordained priests.  There's also a vicious calumny spread I suggest by tribal animists or Muslims that Ethiopian priests are masters at poisoning people.  So it is easy to understand how poverty and oppression can cause the Orthodox faith to be corrupted in villages and so on. 
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 #74 on: February 28, 2015, 12:40:15 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

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

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #75 on: February 28, 2015, 12:57:14 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

Only the Nikonians prevent the Nikonians from returning to the Church. What you wrote makes no sense; why would the defenders of the Faith, the ones who never left the Church, more accurately, how could they rejoin the schismatics? It is the schismatic who must rejoin the Church. You appear to have this backwards.

It appears you missed an important post I made further back, in case you did here it is again:

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

« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:00:01 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,769
  • Excelsior
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #76 on: February 28, 2015, 01:25:02 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

My only weakness is, well, never mind

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 #77 on: February 28, 2015, 01:30:44 AM »
Actually, you seem to demonstrate that ether you did not read what I wrote, or else I failed to properly demonstrate that the issue of the New Rite, is not like you make it out to be, that there were those in the midst of the New that also followed the Old, and, that for a time, after the restoration of Orthodoxy (after the fall that took place during the Council of Florence) The Old was, without a doubt, the dominate, and, that in time period pieces there is proof of this, with Anathemas against the New.

What you can, or cannot imagine, is rather irrelevant, not to be rude; it has no effect on the actual history, which if you say you imagine otherwise, is contrary to it.

I did read what you wrote but you have answered very few of my questions.

Let’s assume that you are right, that the Old Rite, following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, was the dominant rite among the Greeks. When did this change? When did the New Rite become dominant?

I ask this because in 1551, a hundred years later, the Greek Rite and the Russian Rite was sufficiently divergent that the Tsar called a council to discuss the differences. When this Stoglavy Sobor ruled that the Russian Rite was superior and in everywhere correct over the Greek Rite, this alarmed the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Were the Greeks still using the Old Rite then? Or had they already switched to the so-called heretical New Rite?
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #78 on: February 28, 2015, 01:33:02 AM »
Actually, you seem to demonstrate that ether you did not read what I wrote, or else I failed to properly demonstrate that the issue of the New Rite, is not like you make it out to be, that there were those in the midst of the New that also followed the Old, and, that for a time, after the restoration of Orthodoxy (after the fall that took place during the Council of Florence) The Old was, without a doubt, the dominate, and, that in time period pieces there is proof of this, with Anathemas against the New.

What you can, or cannot imagine, is rather irrelevant, not to be rude; it has no effect on the actual history, which if you say you imagine otherwise, is contrary to it.

I did read what you wrote but you have answered very few of my questions.

Let’s assume that you are right, that the Old Rite, following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, was the dominant rite among the Greeks. When did this change? When did the New Rite become dominant?

I ask this because in 1551, a hundred years later, the Greek Rite and the Russian Rite was sufficiently divergent that the Tsar called a council to discuss the differences. When this Stoglavy Sobor ruled that the Russian Rite was superior and in everywhere correct over the Greek Rite, this alarmed the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Were the Greeks still using the Old Rite then? Or had they already switched to the so-called heretical New Rite?

You are asking for a black and white situation that does not exist, it was being debated at this time, at first with the Old as denominate, and, at last ending at the council of 1667 with the champions of heresy thinking to themselves that they had won the day. 

One of the chief issues is, no the key issue is, the champions of the New were altogether in error, and, if you dig back into the history on the matter, it is not that hard to show that.

The Russians as always called a council reconfirmed the Truth, and, responded in a Truly Orthodox manner; they proved during that time, faithful and good defenders of the Faith, and, humble leaders as well.

The schismatics were treated delicately, that is those outside the boarders of Russia. Russia, and, all the others (those in heresy and those not) were called to humility. God was giving them the chance to accept that they were in error, and, to follow the example of Russia.

The True goal of the council of 1667 was intended to be Ecumenical in nature, to put an end to this issue once and for all. This was to be the solution, this was what Nikon was tasked for, what he was supposed to do, however, he turned out to be a snake, with other motivations, and, so out of a desire to fulfill those other desires of his, he championed the heresy. Had he not done this, all the erring Orthodox world could have been brought back into proper teaching, and, many souls might have been saved; instead he lead them to the pit --- finally directing them toward self excommunication.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:47:04 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #79 on: February 28, 2015, 01:35:00 AM »
Biro, that can't be the same Nikon. The Patriarch died of natural causes and that Nikon holds a martyr's cross.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:40:04 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.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #80 on: February 28, 2015, 01:38:08 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

Only the Nikonians prevent the Nikonians from returning to the Church. What you wrote makes no sense; why would the defenders of the Faith, the ones who never left the Church, more accurately, how could they rejoin the schismatics? It is the schismatic who must rejoin the Church. You appear to have this backwards.

It appears you missed an important post I made further back, in case you did here it is again:

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


I don't dispute that the Nikonians were in the wrong. But why maintain such a tragic schism over such little details if the modern MP is willing to reconcile and willing to not force the issue?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:41:01 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 вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #81 on: February 28, 2015, 01:41:47 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

Only the Nikonians prevent the Nikonians from returning to the Church. What you wrote makes no sense; why would the defenders of the Faith, the ones who never left the Church, more accurately, how could they rejoin the schismatics? It is the schismatic who must rejoin the Church. You appear to have this backwards.

It appears you missed an important post I made further back, in case you did here it is again:

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


I don't dispute that the Nikonians were in the wrong. But why maintain such a tragic schism over such little details if the modern MP is willing to reconcile and willing to not force the issue?

I'm not sure, if it is so small an issue, why they will not return to the True Church. As for my self I am unwilling to exchange one teaching of my Lord.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #82 on: February 28, 2015, 01:55:10 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?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:55:44 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #83 on: February 28, 2015, 01:56:33 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 .
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:59:07 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #84 on: February 28, 2015, 01:59:13 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

Only the Nikonians prevent the Nikonians from returning to the Church. What you wrote makes no sense; why would the defenders of the Faith, the ones who never left the Church, more accurately, how could they rejoin the schismatics? It is the schismatic who must rejoin the Church. You appear to have this backwards.

It appears you missed an important post I made further back, in case you did here it is again:

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

Ya know, this shouting back and forth, "We're the Church!" "No, we're the Church!" is going to do nothing more than make both your side and ours look like little children.
Not all who wander are lost.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,733
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2015, 02:00:44 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

Only the Nikonians prevent the Nikonians from returning to the Church. What you wrote makes no sense; why would the defenders of the Faith, the ones who never left the Church, more accurately, how could they rejoin the schismatics? It is the schismatic who must rejoin the Church. You appear to have this backwards.

It appears you missed an important post I made further back, in case you did here it is again:

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


I don't dispute that the Nikonians were in the wrong. But why maintain such a tragic schism over such little details if the modern MP is willing to reconcile and willing to not force the issue?

I'm not sure, if it is so small an issue, why they will not return to the True Church. As for my self I am unwilling to exchange one teaching of my Lord.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince that Jesus taught the disciples to Cross themselves, that's just pseudohistory. I accept it as a God-blessed practice that has affinities to some Old Testament passages, but like icon veneration it's a later practice.

I guess we're at an impasse.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

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

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2015, 02:01:19 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 .
And you don't think your insistence on calling yourself the Church and us the heretics/schismatics over a matter of fingers just as insulting to us?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 02:02:35 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #87 on: February 28, 2015, 02:10:14 AM »
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 only cited the Catholic Encyclopedia for their historical observations, not anything theological. I'll try to look more into the primary sources, but I have a paper due on Tuesday, so it might take me some time.

I agree that it was absolutely wrong that Nikon forced a schism and I'm glad he's not a Saint of the Russian Church (God forgive me). I have deep respect for Fr. Avakuum and I've requested his intercessions on more than one occasion. But as you said, times have changed. If I'm not mistaken, the Moscow MP has offered to let the Old Believers keep their distinctive practices, yes? Might it perhaps be better for all involved to let bygones be bygones?

Only the Nikonians prevent the Nikonians from returning to the Church. What you wrote makes no sense; why would the defenders of the Faith, the ones who never left the Church, more accurately, how could they rejoin the schismatics? It is the schismatic who must rejoin the Church. You appear to have this backwards.

It appears you missed an important post I made further back, in case you did here it is again:

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


I don't dispute that the Nikonians were in the wrong. But why maintain such a tragic schism over such little details if the modern MP is willing to reconcile and willing to not force the issue?

I'm not sure, if it is so small an issue, why they will not return to the True Church. As for my self I am unwilling to exchange one teaching of my Lord.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince that Jesus taught the disciples to Cross themselves, that's just pseudohistory. I accept it as a God-blessed practice that has affinities to some Old Testament passages, but like icon veneration it's a later practice.

I guess we're at an impasse.

Right, since we have examples of Jewish temples with icons, and, it is a formal teaching of the Church that the Apostle Luke painted icons.
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 #88 on: February 28, 2015, 02:11:25 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 .
And you don't think your insistence on calling yourself the Church and us the heretics/schismatics over a matter of fingers just as insulting to us?

Yes, you saying that we do this is insulting.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 02:13:19 AM by вєликаго »
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2015, 02:14:45 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 .
And you don't think your insistence on calling yourself the Church and us the heretics/schismatics over a matter of fingers just as insulting to us?

Yes, you saying that we do this is insulting.
And you implying that we're heretics who need to return to the Church because we cross ourselves with three fingers is insulting to us. So we're even.
Not all who wander are lost.