Author Topic: Old Believers and Orthodoxy  (Read 39827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #90 on: February 28, 2015, 02:20:02 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.

I did not imply that, I stated that the Nikonians excommunicated themselves, they called a council, the council did not just say those who refuse to cross like we do should be excommunicated, but rather it excommunicated the Old Faith in total.
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 #91 on: February 28, 2015, 02:23:39 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.

I did not imply that, I stated that the Nikonians excommunicated themselves, they called a council, the council did not just say those who refuse to cross like we do should be excommunicated, but rather it excommunicated the Old Faith in total.
Yes, that implies that we Nikonians are heretics who need to return to the Church. Therefore, you don't get to have a monopoly on crying that you're being insulted. Two can play this game.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 02:24:25 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2015, 02:33:14 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.

I did not imply that, I stated that the Nikonians excommunicated themselves, they called a council, the council did not just say those who refuse to cross like we do should be excommunicated, but rather it excommunicated the Old Faith in total.
Yes, that implies that we Nikonians are heretics who need to return to the Church. Therefore, you don't get to have a monopoly on crying that you're being insulted. Two can play this game.

There is a thing called history? It is historical fact that in 1667 they excommunicated the Old Believers. They did so wrongly, and, in historical error. They did so in heresy.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 02:34:46 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 #93 on: February 28, 2015, 02:42:01 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.

I did not imply that, I stated that the Nikonians excommunicated themselves, they called a council, the council did not just say those who refuse to cross like we do should be excommunicated, but rather it excommunicated the Old Faith in total.
Yes, that implies that we Nikonians are heretics who need to return to the Church. Therefore, you don't get to have a monopoly on crying that you're being insulted. Two can play this game.

There is a thing called history?
Yes, there is, and it is very easily made the servant of those with an agenda.

It is historical fact that in 1667 they excommunicated the Old Believers. They did so wrongly, and, in historical error. They did so in heresy.
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 02:42:30 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #94 on: February 28, 2015, 02:44:11 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.

I did not imply that, I stated that the Nikonians excommunicated themselves, they called a council, the council did not just say those who refuse to cross like we do should be excommunicated, but rather it excommunicated the Old Faith in total.
Yes, that implies that we Nikonians are heretics who need to return to the Church. Therefore, you don't get to have a monopoly on crying that you're being insulted. Two can play this game.

There is a thing called history?
Yes, there is, and it is very easily made the servant of those with an agenda.

It is historical fact that in 1667 they excommunicated the Old Believers. They did so wrongly, and, in historical error. They did so in heresy.
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
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 #95 on: February 28, 2015, 02:46:20 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2015, 02:53:14 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
St. Meletius the Confessor – Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What

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 #97 on: February 28, 2015, 03:02:00 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #98 on: February 28, 2015, 03:12:48 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 03:24:55 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 #99 on: February 28, 2015, 03:27:42 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 03:29:48 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,188
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #100 on: February 28, 2015, 03:27:50 AM »
Two or three fingers, please cut these quotes down a bit.  Gah.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

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

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

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2015, 03:38:21 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.

Empathy is good -- nothing alien about that. The Nikonians submitted to unlawful decrees made by Nikon, and, the "Tsars". The Church Fathers teach us, it is not majorities that determine who is right, or who is the Church, but, those who are faithful to Christ, Jesus, His Apostles, and, the teachings, and, councils of the Church. The Churches own written history is on the side of the Old Believer, and, so again it is not out of any hatred, or unwillingness to see something from the other side. It simple is not right for the Old Believer to claim he ever left the Church when he has not, it would not do the Old Believer any good, or the Nikonian.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2015, 03:42:46 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #103 on: February 28, 2015, 03:45:53 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #104 on: February 28, 2015, 03:51:06 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.

Empathy is good -- nothing alien about that. The Nikonians submitted to unlawful decrees made by Nikon, and, the "Tsars". The Church Fathers teach us, it is not majorities that determine who is right, or who is the Church, but, those who are faithful to Christ, Jesus, His Apostles, and, the teachings, and, councils of the Church. The Churches own written history is on the side of the Old Believer, and, so again it is not out of any hatred, or unwillingness to see something from the other side. It simple is not right for the Old Believer to claim he ever left the Church when he has not, it would not do the Old Believer any good, or the Nikonian.

Old Belief only works if the end is literally right around the corner like they thought. It's almost the Russian version of Millerism.

Well, I'm sorry, but we're not living in the Great Apostasy yet and neither Alexis I nor Peter I was the Antichrist. There's far too few Old Believers worldwide to be Christ's one true Church that the gates of Hell will not triumph against.

When the Endtimes really get here, you'll know it. It will be like the First Century or worse. Things are bad but not that bad yet.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline 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 #105 on: February 28, 2015, 03:54:08 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.

Empathy is good -- nothing alien about that.
Then why don't you try showing some. You cry about being insulted, but you won't see how others can feel just as insulted by your claims.

The Nikonians submitted to unlawful decrees made by Nikon, and, the "Tsars". The Church Fathers teach us, it is not majorities that determine who is right, or who is the Church, but, those who are faithful to Christ, Jesus, His Apostles, and, the teachings, and, councils of the Church. The Churches own written history is on the side of the Old Believer, and, so again it is not out of any hatred, or unwillingness to see something from the other side. It simple is not right for the Old Believer to claim he ever left the Church when he has not, it would not do the Old Believer any good, or the Nikonian.
But I'm not claiming that you ever left the Church. I'm just countering your claims that the Nikonians left the Church.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #106 on: February 28, 2015, 03:54:16 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.

Empathy is good -- nothing alien about that. The Nikonians submitted to unlawful decrees made by Nikon, and, the "Tsars". The Church Fathers teach us, it is not majorities that determine who is right, or who is the Church, but, those who are faithful to Christ, Jesus, His Apostles, and, the teachings, and, councils of the Church. The Churches own written history is on the side of the Old Believer, and, so again it is not out of any hatred, or unwillingness to see something from the other side. It simple is not right for the Old Believer to claim he ever left the Church when he has not, it would not do the Old Believer any good, or the Nikonian.

Old Belief only works if the end is literally right around the corner like they thought. It's almost the Russian version of Millerism.

Well, I'm sorry, but we're not living in the Great Apostasy yet and neither Alexis I nor Peter I was the Antichrist. There's far too few Old Believers worldwide to be Christ's one true Church that the gates of Hell will not triumph against.

When the Endtimes really get here, you'll know it. It will be like the First Century or worse. Things are bad but not that bad yet.

It appears to me you do not know what you talk about on this subject. You speak about this, and, imply an understanding about Old Believers that run contrary to what we (who are Old Believers) teach.
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 #107 on: February 28, 2015, 03:57:15 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.

Empathy is good -- nothing alien about that.
Then why don't you try showing some. You cry about being insulted, but you won't see how others can feel just as insulted by your claims.

The Nikonians submitted to unlawful decrees made by Nikon, and, the "Tsars". The Church Fathers teach us, it is not majorities that determine who is right, or who is the Church, but, those who are faithful to Christ, Jesus, His Apostles, and, the teachings, and, councils of the Church. The Churches own written history is on the side of the Old Believer, and, so again it is not out of any hatred, or unwillingness to see something from the other side. It simple is not right for the Old Believer to claim he ever left the Church when he has not, it would not do the Old Believer any good, or the Nikonian.
But I'm not claiming that you ever left the Church. I'm just countering your claims that the Nikonians left the Church.

If you claim the Nikonians are in the Church, and, you claim that the Old Believers are in the Church, than you almost certainly must claim there is already union, in such a case, I'm not sure what you are even talking about? I guess you are only speaking about me and my feelings about feeling insulted?

Moreover, you inject very dubiously a very insulting verb, often times used as an insult in English, in your description of me, "crying".

I must be off for now, it is late, and, I need to get some rest, God willing I'll be back to check in the morning.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 04:07:29 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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #108 on: February 28, 2015, 04:12:50 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy.
Empathy (that is, the ability to see things from a point of view other than your own, even if you disagree with the other point of view) alien to Orthodoxy? That's a new one to me.

Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church?
And how do you think we view the Church?

So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect.
According to whose writing of history? History itself makes no judgment on who's right or wrong. It's your interpretation of history that makes you right and us wrong. How, then, do you relate to those with a different interpretation of the same historical events?

The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see, and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, and, if it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying, why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?
Because Nikonians reject your claim to be the Church.

Empathy is good -- nothing alien about that. The Nikonians submitted to unlawful decrees made by Nikon, and, the "Tsars". The Church Fathers teach us, it is not majorities that determine who is right, or who is the Church, but, those who are faithful to Christ, Jesus, His Apostles, and, the teachings, and, councils of the Church. The Churches own written history is on the side of the Old Believer, and, so again it is not out of any hatred, or unwillingness to see something from the other side. It simple is not right for the Old Believer to claim he ever left the Church when he has not, it would not do the Old Believer any good, or the Nikonian.

Old Belief only works if the end is literally right around the corner like they thought. It's almost the Russian version of Millerism.

Well, I'm sorry, but we're not living in the Great Apostasy yet and neither Alexis I nor Peter I was the Antichrist. There's far too few Old Believers worldwide to be Christ's one true Church that the gates of Hell will not triumph against.

When the Endtimes really get here, you'll know it. It will be like the First Century or worse. Things are bad but not that bad yet.

It appears to me you do not know what you talk about on this subject. You speak about this, and, imply an understanding about Old Believers that run contrary to what we (who are Old Believers) teach.

Ok, how do I err? Do not the Old Believers consider themselves to be the only true Christians?
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #109 on: February 28, 2015, 04:24:40 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't. I was taking seriously your claim that the MP needs to join the Old Believers as your bishop said.

You said it yourself that 85% percent of priested Old Believers are in communion with one another and that 85% of priestless Old Believers are in communion with one another.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #110 on: February 28, 2015, 11:42:05 AM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't. I was taking seriously your claim that the MP needs to join the Old Believers as your bishop said.

You said it yourself that 85% percent of priested Old Believers are in communion with one another and that 85% of priestless Old Believers are in communion with one another.

Then I'm not sure what your asking.
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 #111 on: February 28, 2015, 11:52:05 AM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
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 #112 on: February 28, 2015, 01:35:13 PM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
This is where the thread was started by someone who's not Orthodox and who knows nothing about you. I see no attempt otherwise to funnel Old Believer posts to this section of the forum.

Now please do us all a big favor. Stop crying about how you're being insulted, or I will have to start crying about how you're insulting us with your childish behavior.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 01:39:12 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #113 on: February 28, 2015, 02:40:43 PM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
This is where the thread was started by someone who's not Orthodox and who knows nothing about you. I see no attempt otherwise to funnel Old Believer posts to this section of the forum.

Now please do us all a big favor. Stop crying about how you're being insulted, or I will have to start crying about how you're insulting us with your childish behavior.

The insult was not to me personally. You do, however, seem to take any opportunity to insult my person. Now you add to the list of insults "childish" .
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 02:41:59 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 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 #114 on: February 28, 2015, 04:12:27 PM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
This is where the thread was started by someone who's not Orthodox and who knows nothing about you. I see no attempt otherwise to funnel Old Believer posts to this section of the forum.

Now please do us all a big favor. Stop crying about how you're being insulted, or I will have to start crying about how you're insulting us with your childish behavior.

The insult was not to me personally. You do, however, seem to take any opportunity to insult my person. Now you add to the list of insults "childish" .
Dude, if you can't see the point I'm making: that you have no call for claiming a monopoly on being insulted because of the insulting things you keep saying here; then I have nothing more to say to you.

You want us to show you some empathy? Then show us some empathy.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 04:16:12 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #115 on: February 28, 2015, 04:25:22 PM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
This is where the thread was started by someone who's not Orthodox and who knows nothing about you. I see no attempt otherwise to funnel Old Believer posts to this section of the forum.

Now please do us all a big favor. Stop crying about how you're being insulted, or I will have to start crying about how you're insulting us with your childish behavior.

The insult was not to me personally. You do, however, seem to take any opportunity to insult my person. Now you add to the list of insults "childish" .
Dude, if you can't see the point I'm making: that you have no call for claiming a monopoly on being insulted because of the insulting things you keep saying here; then I have nothing more to say to you.

You want us to show you some empathy? Then show us some empathy.


Insinuating, or claiming I've insulted anyone is a farce; actually, to be fair, it is just anther insult from you against my person.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 04:30:05 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 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 #116 on: February 28, 2015, 04:30:10 PM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
This is where the thread was started by someone who's not Orthodox and who knows nothing about you. I see no attempt otherwise to funnel Old Believer posts to this section of the forum.

Now please do us all a big favor. Stop crying about how you're being insulted, or I will have to start crying about how you're insulting us with your childish behavior.

The insult was not to me personally. You do, however, seem to take any opportunity to insult my person. Now you add to the list of insults "childish" .
Dude, if you can't see the point I'm making: that you have no call for claiming a monopoly on being insulted because of the insulting things you keep saying here; then I have nothing more to say to you.

You want us to show you some empathy? Then show us some empathy.

Insulting, or claiming I've insulted anyone is a farce; actually, to be fair, it is just anther insult from you against my person.
Get over yourself, вєликаго!
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 04:33:14 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #117 on: February 28, 2015, 05:20:47 PM »
I will state that I find it subtly dishonest and disrespectful to have Old Believer posts funneled over into this section.  That is just my opinion tho.
This is where the thread was started by someone who's not Orthodox and who knows nothing about you. I see no attempt otherwise to funnel Old Believer posts to this section of the forum.

Now please do us all a big favor. Stop crying about how you're being insulted, or I will have to start crying about how you're insulting us with your childish behavior.

The insult was not to me personally. You do, however, seem to take any opportunity to insult my person. Now you add to the list of insults "childish" .
Dude, if you can't see the point I'm making: that you have no call for claiming a monopoly on being insulted because of the insulting things you keep saying here; then I have nothing more to say to you.

You want us to show you some empathy? Then show us some empathy.

Insulting, or claiming I've insulted anyone is a farce; actually, to be fair, it is just anther insult from you against my person.
Get over yourself, вєликаго!

....and even more..... You just have it out for me, so it seems.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #118 on: February 28, 2015, 07:30:28 PM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't. I was taking seriously your claim that the MP needs to join the Old Believers as your bishop said.

You said it yourself that 85% percent of priested Old Believers are in communion with one another and that 85% of priestless Old Believers are in communion with one another.

Then I'm not sure what your asking.

I'm asking which Old Believer communion is the true Church. I'm guessing you'll say that it's all who are in communion with the Belikrinitsa hierarchy. There are some 15% of priested Old Believers (and all of the priestless communions, I'm guessing) who would disagree with you.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #119 on: February 28, 2015, 07:36:45 PM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't. I was taking seriously your claim that the MP needs to join the Old Believers as your bishop said.

You said it yourself that 85% percent of priested Old Believers are in communion with one another and that 85% of priestless Old Believers are in communion with one another.

Then I'm not sure what your asking.

I'm asking which Old Believer communion is the true Church. I'm guessing you'll say that it's all who are in communion with the Belikrinitsa hierarchy. There are some 15% of priested Old Believers (and all of the priestless communions, I'm guessing) who would disagree with you.

Your point would be? There is a larger number of Nikonians not in communion with each other, in comparison to Old Believers.
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 #120 on: February 28, 2015, 07:38:38 PM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't. I was taking seriously your claim that the MP needs to join the Old Believers as your bishop said.

You said it yourself that 85% percent of priested Old Believers are in communion with one another and that 85% of priestless Old Believers are in communion with one another.

Then I'm not sure what your asking.

I'm asking which Old Believer communion is the true Church. I'm guessing you'll say that it's all who are in communion with the Belikrinitsa hierarchy. There are some 15% of priested Old Believers (and all of the priestless communions, I'm guessing) who would disagree with you.

Your point would be? There is a larger number of Nikonians not in communion with each other, in comparison to Old Believers.
That's because there are more Nikonians in the world than there are Old Believers. 5% of 100 million is still much larger than 25% of one million.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 07:39:53 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #121 on: February 28, 2015, 07:42:07 PM »
Yes, one would expect you to say that from your side. If you're going to keep saying that about us, though, you have no room to cry about being insulted when others say the same of you. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it coming back.

Dish what out? I have not claimed anything contrary to history, nor have I insulted anyone. You, however, have furthered your insults in this dubious manner.
You know what is most lamentable about all this? You can only see things from your point of view.

Well, if I knew how to respond to you I would. This response here, is in my opinion no response at all. I just have no desire to be rude by ignoring you.
And yet we see exactly why reunion is so near impossible between some Old Believers and canonical Orthodoxy. It's because of the intransigence you have shown here. You can see things only from your limited perspective, and you can't understand why others see things from theirs.

Your position seems very odd to me, alien to Orthodoxy. Those who never left the church, how can they return to the Church? So ether you must say the Old Believers were wrong, or the Nikonians were wrong. To say, however, the Old Believers were wrong, would be historically incorrect. The Nikonians claim "we lifted our unjust anathemas against the Old Faith, and declare it to have always been Orthodox contrary to what our father taught". It seems easy to see; and, makes me ask the question: if that is true, (If it is not than I fully misunderstand what they are actually saying.) why are Nikonianas not seeking to rejoin the Church?

Also, you said only 85% of Old Believers are in communion with one another. So which "True Church" are we talking about? And does it have priests or not? I can just imagine 200,000 Russian priests and hierarchs becoming laymen overnight to join the priestless Old Believers.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote correctly, and also, I quoted one of my Bishops, and, that should answer your question.

Well, it doesn't. I was taking seriously your claim that the MP needs to join the Old Believers as your bishop said.

You said it yourself that 85% percent of priested Old Believers are in communion with one another and that 85% of priestless Old Believers are in communion with one another.

Then I'm not sure what your asking.

I'm asking which Old Believer communion is the true Church. I'm guessing you'll say that it's all who are in communion with the Belikrinitsa hierarchy. There are some 15% of priested Old Believers (and all of the priestless communions, I'm guessing) who would disagree with you.

Your point would be? There is a larger number of Nikonians not in communion with each other, in comparison to Old Believers.
That's because there are more Nikonians in the world than there are Old Believers. 5% of 100 million is still much larger than 25% of one million.

I intended comparison as percentage -- meaning scaled.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #122 on: February 28, 2015, 07:57:05 PM »
That's the thing. I can't accept the idea that we're at the "last righteous remnant stage" just yet. The Old Believers of the 17th Century seem to me to have been intensely apocalyptic, "Moscow is the Third Rome, there will not be a Fourth."

Well, it's been 400 years and everybody's still here. Third Rome has fallen twice and is now controlled by the Russian Mafia or whatever Putin really is and Constantinople is even out from under the Ottoman yoke. Admittedly, the Old Believers have a far stronger case than, for example, Darwin Fish's 50-person basement church in California, but still.

This is not about numbers, but rather about being realistic.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 07:57:59 PM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #123 on: February 28, 2015, 08:38:18 PM »
That's the thing. I can't accept the idea that we're at the "last righteous remnant stage" just yet. The Old Believers of the 17th Century seem to me to have been intensely apocalyptic, "Moscow is the Third Rome, there will not be a Fourth."

Well, it's been 400 years and everybody's still here. Third Rome has fallen twice and is now controlled by the Russian Mafia or whatever Putin really is and Constantinople is even out from under the Ottoman yoke. Admittedly, the Old Believers have a far stronger case than, for example, Darwin Fish's 50-person basement church in California, but still.

This is not about numbers, but rather about being realistic.

In that case, if you are fair in this, and,  apply this same method to the New Testament -- you should reject the New Testament; because, the Apostles and the Saints acted in this same way.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 08:41:41 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 #124 on: February 28, 2015, 09:34:17 PM »
That's the thing. I can't accept the idea that we're at the "last righteous remnant stage" just yet. The Old Believers of the 17th Century seem to me to have been intensely apocalyptic, "Moscow is the Third Rome, there will not be a Fourth."

Well, it's been 400 years and everybody's still here. Third Rome has fallen twice and is now controlled by the Russian Mafia or whatever Putin really is and Constantinople is even out from under the Ottoman yoke. Admittedly, the Old Believers have a far stronger case than, for example, Darwin Fish's 50-person basement church in California, but still.

This is not about numbers, but rather about being realistic.

Also, your ideas about Third Rome are your own --your personal ideas about third Rome are heresy, and, do not represent the Old Faith, or demonstrate that you understand it.
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #125 on: February 28, 2015, 10:23:28 PM »
Your words from post #68:
Quote
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.

What is that if not "Third Rome" theology?

Does your view allow for a "Fourth Rome?" I didn't think that such was the traditional view promoted by the Tsar's theologians prior to Nikon.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #126 on: February 28, 2015, 10:27:51 PM »
That's the thing. I can't accept the idea that we're at the "last righteous remnant stage" just yet. The Old Believers of the 17th Century seem to me to have been intensely apocalyptic, "Moscow is the Third Rome, there will not be a Fourth."

Well, it's been 400 years and everybody's still here. Third Rome has fallen twice and is now controlled by the Russian Mafia or whatever Putin really is and Constantinople is even out from under the Ottoman yoke. Admittedly, the Old Believers have a far stronger case than, for example, Darwin Fish's 50-person basement church in California, but still.

This is not about numbers, but rather about being realistic.

In that case, if you are fair in this, and,  apply this same method to the New Testament -- you should reject the New Testament; because, the Apostles and the Saints acted in this same way.

It was a different time. Christianity was just beginning so was naturally few and they didn't realize that the Olivet Discourse was to be partially fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and other travails. Also, judgment is near enough at hand through every man's own death.

There will come another time when there are very few true Christians on the earth, but things aren't that bad yet- though every generation has thought so from time to time.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #127 on: February 28, 2015, 10:37:36 PM »
That's the thing. I can't accept the idea that we're at the "last righteous remnant stage" just yet. The Old Believers of the 17th Century seem to me to have been intensely apocalyptic, "Moscow is the Third Rome, there will not be a Fourth."

Well, it's been 400 years and everybody's still here. Third Rome has fallen twice and is now controlled by the Russian Mafia or whatever Putin really is and Constantinople is even out from under the Ottoman yoke. Admittedly, the Old Believers have a far stronger case than, for example, Darwin Fish's 50-person basement church in California, but still.

This is not about numbers, but rather about being realistic.

In that case, if you are fair in this, and,  apply this same method to the New Testament -- you should reject the New Testament; because, the Apostles and the Saints acted in this same way.

It was a different time. Christianity was just beginning so was naturally few and they didn't realize that the Olivet Discourse was to be partially fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and other travails. Also, judgment is near enough at hand through every man's own death.

There will come another time when there are very few true Christians on the earth, but things aren't that bad yet- though every generation has thought so from time to time.

There wont be a fourth Rome, and, 3rd Rome still exists. The Nikonians Russia was not 3rd Rome, Communist Russia was not Third Rome, and, certainly Putin's Russia is not Third Rome.

Your apparent understanding of Old Believers, is unsurprisingly Nikonian, but, it has little to do with actual Old Believers. The Old Believer position is not at all different then those held by the Apostles, Christ Jesus himself, the Saints etc. 
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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,413
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #128 on: February 28, 2015, 10:58:08 PM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date. The Man of Lawlessness will not come unless the falling away occurs first. 1667 simply doesn't cut if for a start date. The Jehovah's Witnesses make a better case with 1918.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:02:46 PM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #129 on: February 28, 2015, 11:07:54 PM »
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

And that was the veiwpoint at the time. All this subsequent casuistry is just the result of the Lord inconveniencing the Old Believers (or Anabaptists, or any other apocalyptic cult) by not appearing in the sky.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

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

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #130 on: February 28, 2015, 11:18:13 PM »
So was Constantinople still the Second Rome while it was being ruled by monothelites and iconoclasts? How can you tie God's primacy to political fortunes on the one hand (saying they lost their status when they fell to the Turks) and then spiritualize it on the other? Russia in 1667 went a direction you didn't spiritually approve of, but it remained the same geopolitical entity. Indeed, politically the Tsardom's best days were still arguably ahead of it.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

The Reason Russia is third Rome is because it alone never submitted. The ones who fell away were invited to repent and be part of 3rd Rome, but their pride got the better of them.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:40:05 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 #131 on: February 28, 2015, 11:19:56 PM »
I can't accept the idea that God will allow His true Church to be so drastically whittled down without the end being months or years away from that date.

And that was the veiwpoint at the time. All this subsequent casuistry is just the result of the Lord inconveniencing the Old Believers (or Anabaptists, or any other apocalyptic cult) by not appearing in the sky.

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

Offline Rhinosaur

  • Homo Vivius
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 988
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #132 on: February 28, 2015, 11:20:21 PM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:20:35 PM by Rhinosaur »

Offline вєликаго

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 389
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #133 on: February 28, 2015, 11:21:32 PM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

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

This is why second Rome fell, it lost faith in God, and, associated new Rome with their earthly glory, their earthly kingdom, they thought this was second Rome.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2015, 11:36:14 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,419
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Old Believers and Orthodoxy
« Reply #134 on: February 28, 2015, 11:25:19 PM »
So where exactly is Third Rome?

Woodburn, Oregon.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

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