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

Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by Justice »

What do the True Orthodox say about the Old believers? I really want to know what they think about the "traditional" way of the sign of the cross.

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 »

The Old Believers have been called the "Russian Amish" for their rejection of modern necessities. Also, the Old Believers have been called "like the Pharisees for their insistence on men keeping beards. in one of the more strict jurisdictions no marriage is allowed! apparently, at the beginning of the Old Believer persecution, the Old Believers believed that salvation was through the Russian Orthodox Church alone and that the Greek Church was punished by God for the council of Florence and the heresy of ecumenism. This they believed, is why the Turks conquered Constantinople.

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 »

Though I guess the main problem with Old Believer theology is that when Saints Cyrill and Methodius converted the Russian slavs, the Greeks weren't using the Old Rite sign of the cross they were using the Byzantine style. Though apparently when you ask an Old Believer this they just respond by saying that all Greeks were using the Old Rite and reaffirming that Patriarch Nikon is a heretic.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Old Believers

Post by Barbara »

I didn't know that ! What a good refutation against the Old Believers.

I have to say that I have the highest distaste for them possible ! I did visit the main Old Believer church in Moscow just to see what they are all about. But though it was interesting to see one time, I did not feel comfortable there.

My feeling about them is that they are resisting for the sake of resisting the correct reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Some people are like that. You tell them to do one thing [ anything ] and they fight it tooth and nail. No matter how sensible the instruction is, they glory in planting their feet and refusing to do what is asked. It's this spirit which permeates the Old Believer world, in my estimation. Obstinacy, lack of imagination, inventing excuses to not go along with a reasonable programme : all these to me characterize the Old Believers.

I was disappointed to see that there is going to be a big celebration of 400 years of Avvakum celebrated by the MP.
That announcement was followed by conciliatory articles praising the Old Believers. I didn't care for ANY of that.
It seems the MP has high on its agenda to reintegrate the Old Believer schismatics into their fold.

Instead, the great hero of the Russian Church, Patriarch Nikon - for there was no greater figure in its history most assuredly, at least as a Church AND political leader - gets NO PRESS from the MP ! Nor anywhere else. There was an exhibit at the State Historical Museum some years ago on this brilliant figure. But comparatively little mention in the broader press. A statue was put up of him in a town called Saransk, which was a start. It's obvious the MP cannot permit him to become too prominent since they are clearly wooing the Old Believers. Also, there is a large element of neglect no doubt as well.
Very minor figures like Alexander Schmorell, killed under the Nazis, are praised and glorified. But no one in the MP dares raise the great Patriarch Nikon 'to the altars', the old Western expression for glorification.

And as for the Old Believers calling him a heretic. No, it's worse than that ! For a long time after the liturgical reforms instituted by him in the mid 1650s, the Old Believers called him 'Anti-Christ', showing how pathetically dark their outlooks were.
The Church Council called to evaluate both his behavior and the reforms happened to occur in 1666. The Old Believers seized upon that number to equate the Anti-Christ with Patriarch Nikon. The Council was ridiculously rigged, with an agent, Paisios of Gaza, who was not even a real Greek Metropolitan, presenting lie after lie. No one dared speak up for Patriarch Nikon and the whole thing was absolutely shameful. This towering figure was reduced to monk status and sent to Ferapontov Mpnastery north of Vologda as a prisoner. Later he was transferred to Kirillov Monastery 7 miles away under still harsher terms.

The Council did affirm, however, Nikon's reforms. That was the only saving grace of a disgraceful conclave. Fear of and scraping before the secular authority by Church prelates is not a new phenomenon ; it stretches way back centuries ago as is witnessed here.

But these are just my own ideas after years of research and travel. They may have NO relation to True Orthodox stands. For that, Justice, you will need more input from other members.


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 »

Barbara wrote:

I didn't know that ! What a good refutation against the Old Believers.

I have to say that I have the highest distaste for them possible ! I did visit the main Old Believer church in Moscow just to see what they are all about. But though it was interesting to see one time, I did not feel comfortable there.

My feeling about them is that they are resisting for the sake of resisting the correct reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Some people are like that. You tell them to do one thing [ anything ] and they fight it tooth and nail. No matter how sensible the instruction is, they glory in planting their feet and refusing to do what is asked. It's this spirit which permeates the Old Believer world, in my estimation. Obstinacy, lack of imagination, inventing excuses to not go along with a reasonable programme : all these to me characterize the Old Believers.

I was disappointed to see that there is going to be a big celebration of 400 years of Avvakum celebrated by the MP.
That announcement was followed by conciliatory articles praising the Old Believers. I didn't care for ANY of that.
It seems the MP has high on its agenda to reintegrate the Old Believer schismatics into their fold.

Instead, the great hero of the Russian Church, Patriarch Nikon - for there was no greater figure in its history most assuredly, at least as a Church AND political leader - gets NO PRESS from the MP ! Nor anywhere else. There was an exhibit at the State Historical Museum some years ago on this brilliant figure. But comparatively little mention in the broader press. A statue was put up of him in a town called Saransk, which was a start. It's obvious the MP cannot permit him to become too prominent since they are clearly wooing the Old Believers. Also, there is a large element of neglect no doubt as well.
Very minor figures like Alexander Schmorell, killed under the Nazis, are praised and glorified. But no one in the MP dares raise the great Patriarch Nikon 'to the altars', the old Western expression for glorification.

And as for the Old Believers calling him a heretic. No, it's worse than that ! For a long time after the liturgical reforms instituted by him in the mid 1650s, the Old Believers called him 'Anti-Christ', showing how pathetically dark their outlooks were.
The Church Council called to evaluate both his behavior and the reforms happened to occur in 1666. The Old Believers seized upon that number to equate the Anti-Christ with Patriarch Nikon. The Council was ridiculously rigged, with an agent, Paisios of Gaza, who was not even a real Greek Metropolitan, presenting lie after lie. No one dared speak up for Patriarch Nikon and the whole thing was absolutely shameful. This towering figure was reduced to monk status and sent to Ferapontov Mpnastery north of Vologda as a prisoner. Later he was transferred to Kirillov Monastery 7 miles away under still harsher terms.

The Council did affirm, however, Nikon's reforms. That was the only saving grace of a disgraceful conclave. Fear of and scraping before the secular authority by Church prelates is not a new phenomenon ; it stretches way back centuries ago as is witnessed here.

But these are just my own ideas after years of research and travel. They may have NO relation to True Orthodox stands. For that, Justice, you will need more input from other members.


I agree, it seems the Old Believers split because of over correctness. Though I'm not sure if this is true, but I recently read that patriarch Nikon supported the persecution of the Old Believers. Is that true?

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Old Believers

Post by Barbara »

Oh NO, Justice !
I was on my way out of the door, but I saw this and had to give a quick answer.

This is a common misbelief due to strange machinations. I don't believe it is by chance that so many historians kept repeating the same lies about this matter. I would attempt a guess that it was a way to shift blame onto a disgraced Patriarch for what Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich did, which was understandable though harsh in going after the resisters to the reforms which he and Patriarch Nikon had together approved of and decided to implement.

However, by the time the persecutions came, these were done by the secular government. Not by Patriarch Nikon who had left for the gorgeous New Jerusalem Monastery in protest over the Tsar's treatment of him. Then after that dastardly "Council" of 16 - 66, Patriarch Nikon was demoted to the status of a simple monk and treated as badly or worse than the Old Believers by his fickle 'friend', the Tsar.

So how could the best of all the Russian Patriarchs have been able to lift a finger either way : against the persecutions of Old Believers or letting them keep their fanatical opposition to well-weighed-out and much needed corrections to the service books ? Many Old Believers fled to Siberia. The only thing remotely connected with Patriarch Nikon here is that, while in office, he cracked down on dissolute and drunken clergy. This firm prelate would not tolerate the mockery of God at the altar and did send some of these offenders to Siberia, possibly in chains. But Nikon never had the authority to take action against the Old Believers. I think he was angry at the low quality of some of the clergy, including monastics, of the mid-1600s and wished to clean out the bad apples, which is laudable. But whether he would have sanctioned the persecution of Old Believers is not known and can not be presumed based on many distortions of the facts of this case over succeeding centuries.

I noted that the MP rotely follows this general line - at least as of a couple of decades ago. I doubt much has changed in the interim. At that time, the biography by Kapterev was newly published by the MP publishers. Kapterev was just typical of these critics who didn't research and parroted the same old party line that previous Russian historians had done. Why did they do that ?
I spent much time thinking about this. Even tutors to the Tsareviches were of this school, so Tsars grew up with the same perceptions, quite unfortunately for the cause of finding a fair assessment of Patriarch Nikon, and leading to his eventual glorification.

I will write more later.

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

Old Believers

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

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.

Last edited by Maria on Sat 16 September 2017 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply