Old believer history and practice

[John Alden]

I'm wondering if there could be some discussion of the origins of the various traditions on the making of the sign of the cross?

...

I'm mostly concerned with people varifying the traditions of the churches and explaining the history behind these various traditions.

Hello Christopher,

Being at an introductory level to the strict Old Believers I also am concerned about making the sign of the cross properly, because it has so much theological and doctrinal importance.

So I made a web page to work out the Orthodox practice in its historical, theological, doctrinal, patristic, monastic and liturgical heritage!

http://MyMartyrdom.com/c.htm

I will be adding more content to the page over the next few months, as time allows. Since this is central to Christ, anyone that would follow Him should have considerate attention to this topic.

Forgive, John Alden

[Paul Cowan]

“Any version of the wrong sign is seen as a derivative of the Latin-inspired three-finger sign introduced by Nikon…The Old Believers interpret this configuration as an attempt…at replacing holy with unholy trinity. The latter is seen as consisting of the apocalyptic beast, snake and antichrist, represented also by the three numerals 666. The view that the Nikonites and other pseudo-Christians sign themselves with a symbol of the devil is further strengthened by the association of the troepersite with tobacco snuffing…”

I have found in my personal life as well as on-line that those who use the strongest of language have the most to prove. They are so insecure about their position, they have to use aggressive language to convince others they are sincere and should be considered authorative. What is a troepersite? I tried to look it up and got no hits.


Even if it is true that Seraphim spoke that way about the sign of the cross, the strict Old Believers would not make much of it due to the document saying Seraphim died while smoking that unholy devil incense tobacco. Seraphim’s mind was no doubt clouded, as he never did repent from many heretical errors. On page 27 of the book Human Tradition in Modern Russia it says that “in fact, Fr. Seraphim had suffocated from a smoldering fire lit when he dropped his pipe onto a heap of rags.” This was well known to those near Sarov, even though his novice would not admit to it. In the times of Holy Russia tobacco was not even allowed at all.


You must be kidding! Many heretical errors??? How much closer could someone be than his novice? I don't recall him having one in the stories I have read about him. As a matter of fact, he spent most of his time away from the monastery and crowds. Perhaps someone has an axe to grind with him? Perhaps someone is trying to push an agenda and St. Seraphim is standing in the way so make him look bad post mortem?


Bede: “The antichrists, the heretics, though they invoke the name of Christ and make the sign of the Cross, they are nevertheless of the world; they savor worldly things

We are ALL of the world. None of us has attained saint hood. Again, more strong language to prove a position.



The salute is made by sports fans, and some players themselves, when celebrating victories in Football (Soccer) as they cheer

Kinda like every sports team everywhere has their own school hand sign. Hook em horns (Univ of Texas) and Gig em Aggies ( Texas A&M Univ). Sounds to me like the laity don't agree with what the church is doing. Or perhaps it has something to do with when it started. I noticed none of your references dated before the 17th century.

I have to agree with Fr. Dcn. There are too much unsubstantiated material in the site and too much refutable material elsewhere to now believe all I have been taught is wrong. Just because the word "Old" is before the word "believers" does not make them right or first. Here is a timeline of the Old Believers (http://www.stnicholas-billings.org/History/GreatMoments/oldbelieversschism.htm)that show their history and birth (http://www.stnicholas-billings.org/History/century17.htm).

I find it interesting this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers)was updated about the same time this thread began and uses most if not all of the same graphics and verbage as the links provided above.

Paul

[Olga]

Dr Matthew has rightly recommended readers to look at the material on John Alden's site with some caution. One section which I find interesting is its feature on the image Angel of Blessed Silence (Blagoye Molchaniye) as representing the "hidden years" of Christ's life, between His childhood and His ministry.

Simply put, as regular readers may remember on this forum, this image is not canonical, as it is a personification of an attribute of Christ, and therefore, according to iconographic canon, and particularly, the well-known Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, an incomplete and deficient revelation of the incarnate, God-Man, Jesus Christ. It is also, unfortunately, not "extremely rare", either.

[John Alden]

Oh, dear! Who is right, and how would we know he is right? Who's Orthodox? Who's heretical? And how much does the method for making the sign of the cross matter anyway? And if Fr Lazarus didn't write St Seraphim's biography, who did? I was thinking of saying some bedtime prayers but I'm wondering how I should cross myself!

Dear Andreas,

We know what is right and wrong (orthodox or heresy) by testing and proving all things as St. John Chrysostom admonishes us. "There is a gift which surpasses all others, the gift of knowing right from wrong, and the courage to choose what is right. This gift is not something which some people possess and others do not. It is like a seed sown by God in every human heart after our birth, and it grows only if nurtured through learning, prayer and practice".

The method of making the sign of the cross has had vast significance from the earliest times. How it is made has theological and doctrinal consequences. The two finger sign of the cross places the two natures of Christ on the cross, which is important. The three fingers place the Holy Trinity on the cross, which is not accurate.


I'm sure what has been said against St Seraphim cannot be right. The idea that he smoked I find ridiculous. And as was said, he had no novice. John said St Seraphim was wrong in 'many areas' - I'm wondering what these might be? Considering the great veneration in which he is held I'm sceptical about debunking of him.

I began attending a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America parish in 1995 where I was baptized with the blessing of Elder Ephraim from Athos. I have visited Monachos since it began, no doubt I have met personally some members here. Most would remember me. I know that those ideas which we disagree with seem ridiculous to us. Perhaps we can work through these issues together so that we might all understand things more correctly?

I found it ridiculous when I saw the Antiochian Metropolitan smoking a cigar on the front cover of their official magazine. I found it ridiculous when I learned that the 17th century Patriarch of Antioch did not want to stay in Russia any longer because smoking was totally prohibited in the Empire. The Patriarch’s nephew, a deacon, made an official record of this fact. Smoking was punishable by death in Russia, until the Antiochian influence began to changed it. In Seraphim's Russia smoking was out of control. Today people are still smoking on what they call the ground of their orthodox church. Is nothing sacred anymore?

I do not want to worship with this kind of orthodoxy anymore. I was wrong to have even gone there, I should have known better from the start. Francis of Assisi has perhaps more veneration than Seraphim, but there is more than enough reason for me to disregard both. Some of the many areas where I believe Seraphim to be wrong are all the Latin heretical innovations begun by Patriarch Nikon, like the corruption of the sign of the cross.

I am trying to keep this thread on track, but all these issues do have to do with the thread topic. I did not begin talking about Seraphim. I desire good discussion about this topic and will answer any good questions, as time allows.

By the way, thank you for simply calling me by my first name, John. I do not care much for worldly titles like “Mister” and such. I like to try to keep things as simple as possible. I also thank you for your response to me. Even though we might not completely agree at present, I hope this is the start of a long kinship.

Forgive, John

[John Alden]

I have found in my personal life as well as on-line that those who use the strongest of language have the most to prove. They are so insecure about their position, they have to use aggressive language to convince others they are sincere and should be considered authorative. What is a troepersite? I tried to look it up and got no hits.

You must be kidding! Many heretical errors??? How much closer could someone be than his novice? I don't recall him having one in the stories I have read about him. As a matter of fact, he spent most of his time away from the monastery and crowds. Perhaps someone has an axe to grind with him? Perhaps someone is trying to push an agenda and St. Seraphim is standing in the way so make him look bad post mortem?

We are ALL of the world. None of us has attained saint hood. Again, more strong language to prove a position.

Kinda like every sports team everywhere has their own school hand sign. Hook em horns (Univ of Texas) and Gig em Aggies ( Texas A&M Univ). Sounds to me like the laity don't agree with what the church is doing. Or perhaps it has something to do with when it started. I noticed none of your references dated before the 17th century.

I have to agree with Fr. Dcn. There are too much unsubstantiated material in the site and too much refutable material elsewhere to now believe all I have been taught is wrong. Just because the word "Old" is before the word "believers" does not make them right or first. Here is a timeline of the Old Believers (http://www.stnicholas-billings.org/History/GreatMoments/oldbelieversschism.htm)that show their history and birth (http://www.stnicholas-billings.org/History/century17.htm).

I find it interesting this Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers)was updated about the same time this thread began and uses most if not all of the same graphics and verbage as the links provided above.

Paul

Hello there Paul,

Christ often used strong language to prove His points. Like when He called people children of the devil, brood of snakes, white washed tombs, etc. We must fight the good fight. It took me a long to gain the courage to speak up as I am now, in case you do not know. If we could sit down and talk things over some afternoon it might be nice, so that we could understand each other more. If I was insecure in my position I would never have joined this forum over the weekend. Time will tell who is really insecure or not. What can be shaken will be shaken.

Troepersite is a transliteration of a Russian word for the form of the hand with the two extended fingers signifying the two natures of Christ.

Today we are seeing before our eyes the Great Apostasy, heresies upon heresies. It is true that we are all guilty here on this forum, but we are also all called to be saints. Let's work for Orthodoxy, not against it. As far as novices being close to us, I know that the people closest to me would be the first to lie for me. Even today's employers know this when they ask for personal references that are not your family. This is why such a brother might not be so reliable a source, in the face of so many other witness. That is not to say that our brothers should not be trusted ordinarily, but this is not an ordinary case at all.

I know that Nikonites have an axe to grind with the strict Old Believers. Christ said we all offend, woe to those who start the offenses. In this case Nikon was the one that started with the Latin innovations, not the Old Believers who kept the faith given to Russia. The Old Believers only speak up for themselves, defending themselves against the most brutal attacks. I hope you will learn about the facts. I am willing to compare notes anytime. Everyone has an agenda, let ours be conformed to the Lord's agenda.

As far as sports go, it was a Christian Byzantine emperor who finally banned the Olympic Games which were not reinstated until relatively recently, after Byzantium lost most of its good influence. There is a famous Russian monk who called soccer devilish. Even the heretical protestants in the USA got something right when they first spoke against the novel idea of the YMCA to start doing sports. I could go on but you will have to wait as I am working on a web page about sports with many more specific references, and I do not want to go far off topic here. But suffice it to say, I reject what the churches of today are doing, it is antichrist.

I show many references prior to the 17th century, I think you missed them. I do not agree with the Dcn, nothing is unsubstantiated. We will really have to get away from such general statements and get more specific.

The term Old Believers is a name given to them by the Nikonites which they do not appreciate being called. The Nikonites call them Old because they keep the Old Rites. Even the Nikonites now admit that the Old Believers were not wrong, as all the anathemas placed on them have been removed. The arbitrariness of the Nikonites proves themselves wrong.

The Timeline of Old Believers you offer is especially offensive toward Old Believers for similar reasons. It is the Nikonites again who first called them Raskolniki (schism-makers). The Nikonites are the ones who continue to be Schismatics, not the Old Believers. The title of this thread happens to be one of the many issues. The article further makes false claims about the Old Believers and their break offs. For one, there is much more unity with the Old Believers than it suggests. There are reports that there are 5 million Old Believers today, not one million as the timeline says.

I will quote one misleading statement in that Timeline, "Only Pomory and Fedoseevtsy treat each other relatively well; all the other denominations don't acknowledge each other." What is misleading is the word “only” which makes these groups sound insignificant. They comprise the vast majority of Old Believers. There will always be heresies, "all" those others actually happen to be very, very few. Because of their heresies they should not even be considered. There are a few exceptions, like those called the Stranniki and Hiders, who actually are Pomorsky. Even the Fedoseevtsy call themselves Pomorsky, which is by far the largest and most stable group. The Pomorsky actually comprise many other groups that outsiders like to claim are sects, when they are not. So there is a lot of misunderstandings about the Old Believers. For what it is worth I happen to agree with the more strict Pomorsky. I have been considerately studying them for over a dozen years, the last eight years very seriously. I have over a hundred manuscripts in my personal reference, some Nikonite but mostly prior to Nikon.

You suggest that my posts here might have something to do with recent content at wikipedia.org page. The only thing there that is related to me is the link to my website, and one photo that I use on my web site that I found there, the Boris and Gleb icon. That is all. I find their information rather general, and they seem to break apart the Old Believers much like the Timeline you offered, so I disagree with them on that area. This is not an exhaustive critique of their content.

We all get at least one or two things right, this goes to show that we have no excuse if we do not follow through and correct ourselves in all other points as well.

I know this is lengthy, I tried to make as brief a response as possible. You did cover a lot of areas and it is a lot to think about. These things are important to me and I would be most grateful if you would consider them carefully, learn about what broght me here and take a more serious look at the Old Believers.

Forgive, John

[Effie Ganatsios]

Dear Andreas,




I began attending a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America parish in 1995 where I was baptized with the blessing of Elder Ephraim from Athos.


Forgive, John

John, this is off topic but are you referring to Ephraim of Vatopedi Monastery?

Concerning how we cross ourselves : I would rather be someone who crosses himself once a day with reverence than someone who crosses himself 50 times a day automatically.

Certain things change over time. If we cross ourselves wrongly today, this is the way we have been taught. If I started crossing myself in the apparently right way I would feel as if I were pretending. My feelings run deeper than the actual actions - I feel God when I cross myself.

If we have been taught wrongly, where were our priests to instruct us? Why has this wrong method been taught us by our priests?

There are so many questions that I do not know the answers to. It seems very curious though that our priests are also mistaken and are crossing themselves in a way that is apparently wrong.

Effie

[John Alden]

John, this is off topic but are you referring to Ephraim of Vatopedi Monastery?

Concerning how we cross ourselves : I would rather be someone who crosses himself once a day with reverence than someone who crosses himself 50 times a day automatically.

Certain things change over time. If we cross ourselves wrongly today, this is the way we have been taught. If I started crossing myself in the apparently right way I would feel as if I were pretending. My feelings run deeper than the actual actions - I feel God when I cross myself.

If we have been taught wrongly, where were our priests to instruct us? Why has this wrong method been taught us by our priests?

There are so many questions that I do not know the answers to. It seems very curious though that our priests are also mistaken and are crossing themselves in a way that is apparently wrong.

Effie

Hi Effie,

Vatopedi was one of the Athos monasteries he had been (was) abbot of when I sat down in conversation with him. Philotheou is what I understood as being his principle one.

It is better not to cross ourselves at all than to do it even once in a heretical manner.

The Ecumenical Councils say to keep the anceint ways, either way we should never accept a heretical change.

It is not often that heretics correct themselves. We have always had a good example of what is right. Heresy has no excuse.

If we keep on always seeking we will find the truth.

I have other questions to answer, perhaps we can correspond more when things slow down. Your post was rather simple, so I took you ahead of others, but I must get back.

Forgive, John

[Andreas Moran]

A few points occur. I'm not sure what is meant by 'Old believer' in the thread title. There are numerous groups and sub-groups of Old Believers, quite apart from the Old Ritualists (Edinovertsie) some of whom in Russia I know. The Pomortsy (the correct spelling for this group - Pomorsky are people who live in northern Russia near Arkhangelsk) are one of these groups. They have a church in Moscow to which my wife has been; she has some sympathy towards them. How uniform are their practices? It depends as much as anything on the individuals. Some shun contact with outsiders; others are loving and hospitable. It may well be that there is much that is correct in what non-Nikonites assert. But I don't see why the word 'heretic' has to be thrown about so much. Our Edinovertsie friends do not call us heretics. Also, I was sat here at my desk with the first two fingers of my right hand outstretched, the other two fingers gathered in the palm, and my thumb against my first two fingers. With the slightest of movements, I bent my thumb to my palm to join the other two fingers. This little (two inches) movement of the thumb is easily done. And I thought, 'how can someone believe that salvation might depend on this?' At the dread judgment seat of Christ, I will not be asked, ' was your thumb here or here?', but I will be asked, 'did you love as I loved you?' Of course, I may wrong and it may be that such things do matter. I'll find out one day.

[Owen Jones]

While I wish to know more about the "Old Believers," I think it is important to point out a couple of issues that are being conflated. Heresy is not to be confused with laxity. They are two different things. Just because someone is lax in the faith does not make him a heretic. And just because someone is devout, dedicated and committed, as was Arius and many of his followers, does not mean he can't be a heretic. A heretic is someone who knowingly believes in something contrary to Orthodoxy, and knows why. So the average person who has not been adequately taught in the faith does not rise to the level of heresy. It is not that we are not all equally responsible to learn what the faith teaches, but if I am acting out of ignorance it hardly condemns me as a heretic.

The other issue is traditionalism. Mere traditionalism does not make one more Orthodox. Because something, some practice or belief, is more traditional does not in and of itself make it true or right. Moreover, a religious belief or practice that grounds itself, self-consciously, as being more pure because it is more traditional is really a form of gnosticism.

I think that the issue of how one makes the sign of the cross surely falls into that category.

The other issue really is historical and cultural influences. Yes, there were a number of foreign, Lutheran and Catholic influences in the Russian Church due to cultural and political developments that took place hundreds of years ago. The practice of confession before each communion is one example of a Jesuitical influence on Russian Orthodoxy. Does that mean it is a heretical practice? I don't think so. Does that mean it is required for salvation, and that other Orthodox who do not follow this rule are heretics? Doubtful in the extreme.

If we were all true traditionalists, we would have to junk about 90% of our liturgical practices because these are all historical accretions that came in as the result of imperial influences on the Church and monastic practices that developed somewhat independently. The sign of the cross itself is not apostolic, so far as I can tell, but a later practice. There was little emphasis in the early Church on the cross.

If someone would like to detail something of the historical development of the Old Believers, and what they believe and practice, without all of the condemnatory statements attached, I would be interested in learning more. I realize it can be a deeply personal subject, but perhaps some detachment is called for just the same.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Address of various 'old believer' groups is really outside our remit in this Discussion Community - especially such groups as are clearly not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches as defined in this forum. While there may be valid place for such conversations, and insights to be gleaned from them, they really do fall into the area of 'inter-church' discussions which we've always kept outside this forum's remit.

As such, I'm closing this thread, with thank to participants for understanding.

INXC, Dcn Matthew