Old Believers and Old Calendarists

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Old Believers

Post by Justice »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:

Regarding the Old Believers (a.k.a. Old Ritualists), you'd be surprised what they are alright with. (I'm referring mainstream, priested Old Believers, FYI.) Their issue with the Nikonian reforms has far more depth than the English-language articles on them imply. They rejected Nikon's reforms primarily for canonical and theological reasons, not just a mere attachment to ritual.

First for all, they insisted upon the two-finger sign of the cross because to use three fingers would be a form of monophysitism (a crucifying of the Trinity rather than Christ). St. John Chrysostom and other saints backed them up on this.

Second, they rejected polyphonic singing because it was demonstrably against the canons and spirituality of the Orthodox Church.

Third, Nikon's reforms flew in the face of the Stoglavy Synod of 1551, which had been overseen by multiple great Russian saints and had specifically defended the two-finger sign of the cross as Orthodox. Furthermore, they rejected Nikon's reforms because during the implementation dozens of Russian saints were de-canonized who had defended the Russian rite, including saints who died with their hand making the two-finger sign of the cross. (The rest of the Orthodox Church was also started issuing indulgences at the time, which the Old Believers rejected. In fact, it wasn't until the mid-20th century that Constantinople stopped issuing indulgences.)

I could go on. But ultimately the interesting thing about the Old Believers is that they were dead right. Virtually all their arguments are technically correct. Their arguments, however, led to them losing the priesthood for a time. (Basically discrediting them in my eyes). So no, they have no problem with pews, because the externals of Orthodoxy is not actually their chief concern (and never has been). The canons and the theology expressed in some externals, however, are a matter of concern to them.

NVY,

I have granted you permission to post in the Private Forum: Intra-TOC Polemics

Maria
Administrator

Edit: Thanks Maria.

But when saints Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavic people, they used the three fingered sign of the cross. That doesn't make any sense as it would imply the sign of the cross evolved into the Old Believer style and was eventually changed back into it's original form. Also wasn't polyphonic singing instigated in Greece at that time? if so, why would it be heresy to replace something with something else used by another Orthodox jurisdiction? Also, pews only came in during the Protestant reformation and are uncanonical in Orthodoxy.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:
NotChrysostomYet wrote:

Regarding the Old Believers (a.k.a. Old Ritualists), you'd be surprised what they are alright with. (I'm referring mainstream, priested Old Believers, FYI.) Their issue with the Nikonian reforms has far more depth than the English-language articles on them imply. They rejected Nikon's reforms primarily for canonical and theological reasons, not just a mere attachment to ritual.

First for all, they insisted upon the two-finger sign of the cross because to use three fingers would be a form of monophysitism (a crucifying of the Trinity rather than Christ). St. John Chrysostom and other saints backed them up on this.

Second, they rejected polyphonic singing because it was demonstrably against the canons and spirituality of the Orthodox Church.

Third, Nikon's reforms flew in the face of the Stoglavy Synod of 1551, which had been overseen by multiple great Russian saints and had specifically defended the two-finger sign of the cross as Orthodox. Furthermore, they rejected Nikon's reforms because during the implementation dozens of Russian saints were de-canonized who had defended the Russian rite, including saints who died with their hand making the two-finger sign of the cross. (The rest of the Orthodox Church was also started issuing indulgences at the time, which the Old Believers rejected. In fact, it wasn't until the mid-20th century that Constantinople stopped issuing indulgences.)

I could go on. But ultimately the interesting thing about the Old Believers is that they were dead right. Virtually all their arguments are technically correct. Their arguments, however, led to them losing the priesthood for a time. (Basically discrediting them in my eyes). So no, they have no problem with pews, because the externals of Orthodoxy is not actually their chief concern (and never has been). The canons and the theology expressed in some externals, however, are a matter of concern to them.

NVY,

I have granted you permission to post in the Private Forum: Intra-TOC Polemics

Maria
Administrator

Edit: Thanks Maria.

But when saints Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavic people, they used the three fingered sign of the cross. That doesn't make any sense as it would imply the sign of the cross evolved into the Old Believer style and was eventually changed back into it's original form. Also wasn't polyphonic singing instigated in Greece at that time? if so, why would it be heresy to replace something with something else used by another Orthodox jurisdiction? Also, pews only came in during the Protestant reformation and are uncanonical in Orthodoxy.

The three-finger sign of the cross only started being used in the mid to late 15th century; it wasn't until the 16th century that it became the dominant form in Churches under Turkish control. (Georgia, for example, would continue using the Old Rite until Russia invaded in the 19th century). Cyril and Methodius, along with Maximus the Greek and the others who converted the Slavic peoples, all used the two-finger sign of the cross.

Semi-polyphonic singing/chant (monophonic with an ison) started being used by those under Turkish control in the early 16th century. (Which is why Byzantine chant today has a distinct "wail" which the ancient Russian chant, (monophonic) Znamenny, did not.) During the same period the Orthodox in Eastern Europe started using full-blown polyphonic chant due to influence from the west (as during the same time their theological schools started switching to Latin-language-based studies). In the view of the Old Believers it was heresy because as I said earlier, it was crucifying the Trinity.

Lastly, they (correctly) argued with Patriarch Nikon and the rest of those supporting Nikon's reforms that the two-finger sign of the cross, as well as the rest of their traditions, were in fact more ancient that the contemporary Greek practices.

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Old Believers

Post by Justice »

So if the Old Believers didn't lose their priesthood would you be an Old Believer today? and do you use the two finger sign of the cross in worship?

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:

So if the Old Believers didn't lose their priesthood would you be an Old Believer today? and do you use the two finger sign of the cross in worship?

It's extremely likely, yes. (Though I wouldn't become one personally just because of the stuff I've talked about above - there's still a lot more that causes my to sympathise with the Old Believers). Part of the reason I am not an Old Calendarist is that there are many more issues of (arguably) bigger importance that the Old Believers resisted, and still they were wrong. So if they were wrong, how could the Old Calendarists be right? Though like the Old Believers, I definitely sympathise with you.

I use both, though I primarily use the three-finger sign of the cross, especially when at Divine Liturgy or any other service at my parish. Again, I feel like their (at least temporary) loss of the priesthood invalidates the possibility of them being right.

Edit: You may be interested in knowing that I use an Old Rite prayer book (a Church Slavonic-English prayer book published by a parish in Erie, PA that is under ROCOR-MP) and a lestovka (the traditional Russian prayer rope) when at home.

Last edited by NotChrysostomYet on Sun 17 September 2017 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Old Believers

Post by Justice »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Justice wrote:

So if the Old Believers didn't lose their priesthood would you be an Old Believer today? and do you use the two finger sign of the cross in worship?

It's extremely likely, yes. (Though I wouldn't become one personally just because of the stuff I've talked about above - there's still a lot more that causes my to sympathise with the Old Believers). Part of the reason I am not an Old Calendarist is that there are many more issues of (arguably) bigger importance that the Old Believers resisted, and still they were wrong. So if they were wrong, how could the Old Calendarists be right? Though like the Old Believers, I definitely sympathise with you.

I use both, though I primarily use the three-finger sign of the cross, especially when at Divine Liturgy or any other service at my parish. Again, I feel like their (at least temporary) loss of the priesthood invalidates the possibility of them being right.

It does seem like the Old Believers suffered for more at first glance, but the old calendar is part of holy tradition as determined by the first ecumenical council. Not only that, but the Old Believers have either united with the MP or have died of completelyfor the most part. There's only two groups that remain and keep the Old Rite but they sound pharasitic in their beliefs (such as regular men not shaving their beard
and complete celibacy) but the Old Calendarists, have always had priests and haven't given into such judaized beliefs.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:

It does seem like the Old Believers suffered for more at first glance, but the old calendar is part of holy tradition as determined by the first ecumenical council. Not only that, but the Old Believers have either united with the MP or have died of completelyfor the most part. There's only two groups that remain and keep the Old Rite but they sound pharasitic in their beliefs (such as regular men not shaving their beard) but the Old Calendarists, have always had priests and haven't given into such judaized beliefs.

It could be said that Old Calendarism is perhaps more concerned about a perceived violation of tradition as was witnessed by the Ecumenical Councils, that I will grant you. At the same time, I would argue that Old Ritualism is more concerned about the perceived violation of Sacred Tradition as a whole. Both Old Calendarism and Old Ritualism, meanwhile, have major councils (though not necessarily ecumenical councils) defending them. Another way of putting it is that while Old Ritualism does not perceive "Nikonianism" (as they call us) as violating any specific parts of the Ecumenical Councils (with the exception perhaps of Chalcedon), they do perceive the Nikonian Reforms as going against the faith itself in a new (though Roman Catholic-esque) manner. Does that make any sense?

Let's give an example: polyphonic singing, performances of "songs" by choirs, may not violate any specific teaching of an Ecumenical Council (that I can think of at the moment anyway). But does (at least appear to) go against the unwritten tradition of the Orthodox Church. To the Old Believers, the appearance of the Nikonian Reforms are sort of like the appearance of Iconoclasm - neither really went against any belief specifically stated as Orthodox in an ecumenical council, but they understood it as attacking Orthodoxy nonetheless. That's a poor example I'll admit, but I hope it gets the idea across.

Just to briefly comment on a few of your remarks at the end there. Regarding your "judaized" remark, I think that's unfair. Because in so doing you're implying that the Orthodox Church judaized (including some great saints) for a significantly long time. As for "pharasitic", that accusation is thrown around a lot within Orthodoxy or against the Orthodox. It's been thrown at Old Calendarism a lot, that's for sure. It's probably unwise to throw that accusation out there before actually examining the whats and whys of the Old Believers. Same goes of anyone talking about Old Calendarism, I might add.

Finally, as for the current status of the Old Believers, you couldn't be further from the truth. Only a few dozen parishes have united with the MP or the ROCOR-MP. Some of those parishes that united have since died out. The vast majority of them are a part of the largest priested Old Believer jurisdiction, a jurisdiction I should add that is growing rapidly. (They're not as big as they were before the Soviet Union came on the scene, of course, but then again nobody is.) In fact, they have an advantage over the mainstream Moscow Patriarchate at the moment, as they are gaining more converts from the young adult (teens, early 20s) demographic than anyone else. (Though, yes, numbers wise they are growing at a slower rate - not that that matters).

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Two quick points I would like to make before we continue this discussion:

First: At the end of the day, while discussing the Old Believers as they are today is fine, I have much more of an interest discussing the Old Believers as they were when they initially rejected the Nikonian Reforms. Because otherwise I feel like this discussion will move (as it seems to have already at some level) towards a discussion on the validity of the Old Believers as they stand today, which there isn't much point in as I've already said that I think their loss of the priesthood invalidated their ability to be correct.

Second: I just want to point out the irony in your criticizing the Old Believers because of their size. According to Wikipedia, all the Old Calendarists combined have an estimated 400,000 to 500,000 members. Right before the rise of Communism the Old Belief could claim over 10 million members, most of whom were in the only priested Old Believer group. (The second would only arrive on the scene when "bishops" of the "Living Church" would start a new priested Old Believer sect, which remains incredibly tiny to this day). Today their numbers have drastically decreased, but they still boast about 2 million members (Wikipedia lists an estimated 1 - 2 million members as of 2006, but they have grown since then).

Post Reply