www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Old Believers and Rome

Alex, I am undoubtedly simplifying in many ways the diverse movements that are now grouped under the general heading of Old Believers. All of these movements though come from a common source, and were at one time very much united. I would say there are several common aspects that go back to this source. The chief ones in my mind I would say are a general distrust and hostility to the west, suspicion of philosophized faith, and a belief in the eschatological destiny of Russia. Now granted, these may over time have manifested themselves in different ways and at different levels; but my overall argument that Old Believers establishing any type of relations with any western church would result in spite of and not because of history I believe still stands. That was the original question, and that is the wider scope of history that I would say would specifically preclude ordinary priested Old Believers from establishing any sort of relations with the Roman bishop. That I believe would have been true in the 17th century and the early 20th. Changes in the Roman Church since that time I would say make this even more unlikely.

I would agree with two parts of this, namely there has been a section of the aristocracy open to the ideas of the West, and the Old Believers were not made up entirely of peasants. However�

Many of the Russian aristocratic class, educated clergy and intelligentsia were quite hostile to western influence in general and Rome in particular. In Russia still, Rome often conjures up images of Teutonic knights or the Poles, and the term Jesuit is generally one you would not apply to a friend. You could cite numerous examples, from the educated Ukrainian clergy in the Muscovite church in the 17th century, to the Slavophiles in the 19th to see hostility to Rome was not simply a matter of being a peasant or lacking an education. The differing tides of European thought � German Idealist philosophy, Freemasonry, Marxism, the Reformation and so on have all met with varying levels of acceptance, suspicion and outright hostility. Usually the goal was to somehow keep these things bottled up somehow, often in a physical sense such as the walled merchant communities of Moscow or Novgorod.

I would say those who looked specifically to Rome in religious matters, or accepted the ideas of de Maistre were and are a minority. In general I would say those who do are what you would call theological �liberals� for lack of a better term. It is not the conservatives (who the Old Believers of course would be part of) who are looking to Rome. That is certainly one of the conundrums of ecumenical relations. The conservatives in the Roman Church look to Orthodoxy for allies, and it is the liberals in Orthodoxy who generally are the only ones who respond.

Regarding the Old Believers, they certainly are not only a movement of uneducated peasants. One need only read the writings of Avakkum, the Denisov brothers and others to realize that is the case. However in the writings I think one can clearly divine an ethos and worldview that is not open to the west, supports an idealized Muscovy, and is quite suspicious of a form of religion that is overly intellectualized in nature.

Andrew

Most Byzantine Slav Churches in Australia tend to split on gender lines. Men to the right, women to the left. Few Catholic women cover the head even at communion although older Russian women taking communion at the Russian Catholic Centre would go to communion wearing a head scarf. Orthodox are more likely to wear head scarfs in Church (not lace, they are NOT encouraged). Ukrainian GC still divide and tend to have mens and womens sides of the Church here.

ICXC
NIKA

Andrew, it seems we actually do have something in common. I was within inches of permanently moving to Nikolaevsk back in the 80s. I often, even sometimes daily, wonder if I did the right thing by not going.

There just isn't much if any evidence other than the polemic of ultra nationalists or atheistic socialists(both who also despised the Old Ritualists) to indicate widespread sentiment amongst Soloviev's contemporaries to think he was anti-Russian. Actually most like Dostoyevsky (who most certainly would have penned Soloviev so if he thought him to be overtly anti-Russian) marveled at his erudition.

I believe exactly the opposite - his thinking incorporates some of the best aspects of the philosophical tradition of Rus', which always saw nothing inherently contradictory with dual relations between the West and Rus'.

The reality remains - Old Ritualists have been historically in communion with Rome. And perhaps there will be Old Rite communities again in communion with Rome (some of us haven't given up yet). We can speculate all day about why or why not it makes sense or is rational. Back to the example of the Western Rite, there is plenty of historical disdain for the Anglicans amongst certain quarters of the Orthodox. Again, that communion happened perhaps with some seeming contradictions.

I am glad that you agree the Old Ritualists are not wholesale simpletons. The thinking of Soloviev was not unknown amongst some quarters of them, driving at least a few into deeper consideration of communion with Rome by their own admissions.
FDD

Dear Andrew,

You raise many points that would require many posts to discuss!

As for looking to Rome for religious authority, I think, if I'm reading you correctly, that the Old Rite would NEVER do that.

In fact, the case can be made that the Union of Brest was likewise NOT about seeking communion with Rome to "add" anything to doctrine or to see in the Pope someone who would be telling them what they didn't already believe.

The group of Old Believers that sought communion with Rome simply saw it, as did the EC's, as a place of refuge from what was, at the time, a much worse situation i.e. the Soviet Union and the the EP/Church brotherhood domination of the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops.

They were not "normal" times and under "normal" circumstances, surely the Old Believers would not have sought union with Rome (and neither would the Ruthenian Orthodox bishops in 1596). A situation of anxiety and unrest generated both unias at the time they occurred. People truly do "strange" things at such times!

So your argument about the historic character of the Old Believers holds true, to be sure.

Alex

Diak, reading your posts I would say we probably have several things in common.

I read a travel journal the other day that was interesting. The writer said that in communities like Nikolaevsk a piece of Russia is maintained that no longer exists in Russia itself.

I can only repeat that I don't maintain that Soloviev/Soloviov was anti-Russian, only that many of his influences, viewpoints and conclusions were distinctly un-Russian. He felt that many of the answers to Russia's problems could be found by taking in aspects of the west, as did the westernizing monarchs. Whether in philosophy, literature, music, religion or politics, there has always been a strongly traditionalist element of Russian society that has resisted such influences.

Dostoevsky may have interacted with the thought of Soloviev/Soloviov, but I would say he and others (like Khomiakov) would not have shared his conclusions. The tale of the inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov perhaps is the best summation of how Dostoevsky viewed the western church.

Best is of course completely subjective here. Regardless, I would say those who have been most open to the west have consistently been a minority within Russia.

Yes, perhaps with a number of contradictions. However I would say the WRO and the Old Believers are an apples and oranges comparison. There is a long history of Anglicans looking to the East for validation of themselves going back to the Non Jurists. The two sides in general have enjoyed fairly congenial relations. There is no eschatological school of thought in Anglicanism that sees itself as a pure and full fulfillment of the church. The WRO in my understanding have also made concessions to the East in several ways such as the Filioque or the use of leavened bread. All of this I think would vary significantly from the self understanding of the Old Believers.

I hope I did not give the impression that I believed this was the case.

Alex,

No, I simply said it was highly unlikely and would be incongruous with the history and traditional core principles of the Old Believers.

Yet the results in many ways ran contrary to the intentions as you outlined them. This is probably the sort of thing that the Old Believers would fear would happen through contact with the west.

My understanding is the examples cited of the handful of Old Rite priests seeking ecclesial relations with Rome happened long after the brotherhoods, before the Bolshevik Revolution, under the influence of Soloviev/Soloviov and roughly timed with the Ukaz granting tolerance of them. I hope I haven't misunderstood this timeline.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Yes, there is just so much to discuss here!

As for the Brotherhoods, it is interesting that the Old Ritualist Orthodox, at least the ones I have come across, would seem to have been in FAVOUR of the Orthodox brotherhoods of the Immaculate Conception!

If you have an explanation for that one, I'm all ears, Sir!

Alex

I can't speak for what their beliefs would be in this regard. I could only comment on what my understanding is, and that was that in general historically speaking the brotherhoods and the Old Believers were distinct movements, in different situations, with some varying beliefs (especially those having to do with Latin influence). No doubt they share much though. In regards to the particular devotion in question, I will simply re-quote something posted on the FAQ section of the Erie church:

The Orthodox Church firmly believes that the Mother of God was born into this world in a natural, although miraculous, manner, and does not accept the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Andrew

Dear Rilian et al,

A comment and a question:


In the FAQ page Rilian cited, there's a statement that "While we regard them [Orthodox] as our brothers and sisters in Faith, we politely abstain from communion with them until there is full agreement among us." I would assume that the Old Believers who have been in communion with Rome have nevertheless continued there practice of only receiving communion in their own liturgies.

What about the other direction? Does anyone know whether they refused communion to other Catholics (with whom they were officially in full communion)?

Blessings,
Peter.

Dear Andrew,

Certainly, the RC dogma of the IC would appear as entirely foreign to Orthodox theology!

But the idea of the conception of the Theotokos in holiness would not . . .

Alex

The claim that the Old-Ritualists accept and teach the Immaculate Conception can be found in many reference works, but I've not been able to trace it to any Old-Ritualist source. Enough people of presumed intelligence have stated this claim as fact that it must rest on something, but what?

Incognitus

Perhaps the key to this apparent impasse might be to write a letter to the OB metropolitan in Moscow and ask him this question?

The trouble is that the identity (!) and context of a question usually has an effect on the answer.

Incognitus

Ed, I don't know about Metropolitan Kornelij, but Metropolitan Alimpij of blessed memory was always very cordial in correspondence, at least in my experience. But I have to admit I never corresponded with him about that particular subject (i.e. the IC).
FDD

Peter, there is not much evidence left from when the parishes of the Old Ritualists in communion with Rome were openly active before the intense Soviet persecutions. Several persons reported visiting Fr. Patapii Emilianov; but no mention was made to that level of specificity about Communion.

Fr. Patapii understood the idea of full communion, as he communicated to Exarch Leonid who examined him before accepting his profession of faith. He knew the Fathers very well (which precipitated his desire for communion), and was exposed to the "Soloviev circle" amongst the other Russian Catholic clergy, and we can only conjecture what he might have done. He did make a few reports to Exarch Leonid and Metropolitan Sheptytsky before his arrest, but these were more general in nature.

It is interesting that when Fr. Patapii was forced into a public meeting in 1918 to defend himself in front of representatives of the Tsarist church supported by the police, the Old Ritualists of the area not in communion with either Rome or the state church publically sided with Fr. Patapii and voiced their support for his activities.

Of course this didn't endear him with either the local Russian Orthodox clergy nor the public officials. He was imprisoned by both the Whites and the Reds and suspected of being sympathetic to the other. This was a true cross, and much like the Old Ritualists before him, he was an outcast and always under suspicion.

Holy Hieromartyrs Leonid and Patapii, pray to God for us.
FDD

Do the Old Believers touch their foreheads and bodies with the 2 fingers or just trace the cross in front of their bodies when they make the sign of the cross?