www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Old-Ritualists Forum Why the delayed reconciliation?

In the thread on "Multiple Jurisdictions", Fr. Archimandrite Serge wrote the following:


From this, am I correct to infer that the Old-Ritualist Metropolia is willing to reconcile with the New-Rite Moscow Patriarchate, but that the latter is putting up obstacles? In that case, what are the obstacles?

I think that it will be a great day when the Old and New Rite Russian Orthodox Churches are reunited once more -- far more significant than even the reunification of the MP and ROCOR was.

The fundamental problem remains what it has always been - the Nikonian innovations. It is more complicated, in that there is no longer any governmental structure which would even consider attempting to enforce a ritual settlement by the use of state power.

The Moscow Patriarchate does not help matters by canonizing "Saints" who took an active part in the persecution - Philaret of Moscow is a recent example - and discriminating in practice against the Old Rite (it requires the direct permission of the Patriarch for a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate to serve the Old Rite).

Still less helpful is the use of various epithets and attempts to deny the Orthodox of the Old-Ritualists. Reconciliations are seldom accomplished by such means.

In view of all this, the Russian Old-Ritualist Church is remarkably eirenic by simply showing willingness to meet with the various Nikonian hierarchs and so forth. I was agreeably surprised by their letter of condolence on the recent death of Patriarch Alexis II. But I doubt that there is much of a grass-roots movement looking for reconciliation with the Patriarchate.

Nor am I about to offer any advice - I have no reason to believe that the Patriarchate wants my advice, and I certainly have no wish to offend the Old-Ritualists - quite the contrary, in fact.

Fr. Serge

At this point in time, I don't think that it would be realistic for the Old Rite Orthodox to expect the New Rite Moscow Patriarchate to actually switch back to the Old Rite.

I do recall, though, that Bishop Daniel of Erie has spoken of the "Old Rite" and the "Nikonian" Rite as being but two forms of the same Rite. Could not both the Moscow Patriarchate and Moscow Metropolia settle on that formula -- which, by the way, predates by the decades Pope Benedict's use of the same formula in the context of the Roman Rite?

Just asking.

Bishop Daniel is an outstandingly good man. But the "One-Faith-Scheme" has a burden of history to overcome.

It would be well for the Moscow Patriarchate to adopt a statement similar in tone and content to the letter of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to the Old-Ritualists of a few years ago. An apology for the State Church's involvement in the persecution of the Old-Ritualists might do a good deal to help.

Not for the first time, I would like to translate Mel'nikov's useful study of the history of the Old-Ritualist Orthodox Church. At the moment, almost all the relevant material is in Russian and hence not accessible to those who do not speak Russian.

Fr. Serge

What we know about the approach of the "Kirykite" (matthewite) fraction of the Church of True Orthodox Christians in Greece and the splinter-group of "Patriarch" Alexander Kalinin who derivated the ordinations from the "Living Church" ?

Dear Friends,

The issue of Nikonian Saints who strenuously opposed the Old Rite is an important one, as Fr. Archimandrite discusses.

St Philaret of Moscow was, truth be told, an amazing Orthodox theologian and teacher and his attitude to the Old Believers was an inherited one and one that was general throughout the Nikonian Church (if I may call the historic ROC that way).

St Dmitry of Rostov was like-minded in this respect and wrote in strong opposition (sometimes even exaggerating negative claims against the Old Believers).

Why this opposition to the Old Rite by these great Orthodox Saints?

One reason was that the Old Riters were perceived by them as being obstinate in refusing to submit themselves to the judgement of the Orthodox Church on the Old Rite itself. At that time, to continue with the two-fingered Sign of the Cross et al. was to considered a "schismatical snub" of the Church and as an expression of sinful pride.

The Old Believers did not help matters when numbers of them chose to be without priests and the sacramental Mysteries as a result of what was considered a "secondary ritual" consideration. The Venerable New Martyr St Maria of Paris likewise wrote an article chastising the Old Believers for placing ritual above union with Christ in the Mysteries.

In the Kyivan Church of that time especially, the Muscovite Old Believers and their insistence on the old Rite was considered yet another instance of the Muscovite people's decided "lack of education and culture" and as an expression of their "spiritual darkness."

And that view was by no means limited to the Old Believers only - but to the entire Russian Church at the time.

Patriarch Nikon was considered a revolutionary of his time by the "enlightened Orthodox hierarchy" of the time and this estimation has continued to this day so that Patriarch Nikon is now a candidate for sainthood.

For its part, the Moscow Patriarchate today sees the Old Rite as one of "the two Rites of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church" and encourages the establishment of "yedinoverie" Old Rite parishes - which are currently few and far between.

It has also glorified Saints who were "biritual" or who served both Old Rite and New Rite parishes - as well as St Maximos the Greek who defended the Old Rite traditions and suffered greatly for it.

My own view is that there is no way the Old Believers will ever come under the New Rite ROC Patriarch and that the best that could be done would be to allow a future united Old Rite Orthodox Church to have its own Metropolitan/Patriarch that would be "in communion with" the MP.

The experiment with the "United Believers" has been a failure as a kind of "Orthodox uniate" paradigm.

Spasi Khrystos!

Alex

Philaret of Moscow was also involved, by what is in fact no coincidence at all, in the persecution of the Greek-Catholics. If one looks at the parallels, it becomes quite interesting.

Old Ritualist writers these days enjoy pointing out that the Soviet secret police used in the general persecution of religion methods developed by the Tsarist police and the State Church in the nineteenth century.

Prostit' mene Khrista radi.

Fr. Serge

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants viciously persecuted each other until the middle of the 20th century. Quite frankly, I don't see much point in condemning Orthodox canonizations of saints who persecuted Catholics, unless we Catholics are also prepared to revoke the canonization of men such as St. Peter Martyr (Inquisitor against the Cathars in 13th century Italy), St. John Ribera (who, more than any other, was responsible for the violent expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain, costing at least 100,000 lives), SS. Thomas More and John Fisher (who supported the execution of Lutheran heretics), St. John Capistrano (who was terrible against the Hussites) and many others. As recently as the 1950's we have the now-canonized St. Josemaria Escriva, who supported the Franco regime despite its complete denial of religious toleration for non-Catholics.

I am Catholic, but I also believe in fairness. We should not insist on one standard for ourselves and another for everyone else. If, for us, there is nothing wrong in canonizing holy men who -- due to the standard of their times -- sincerely believed in the efficacy and compatibility of persecution with the Gospel, then we should not protest when other Churches act in the same way.

The Russian Church annulled the anathemas against the Old-Ritualists circa 1970.

It is probably not an irenic turn of phrase to name our bishops "Nikonian hierarchs." There is the risk of enflaming feelings on both sides which have not been felt for a long time.

We recall the words of Metropolitan Saint Philaret of Moscow in the 19th century at a time when some of the Edinoversty were being reconciled to the Russian Church: "Мы Единоверцы вам, и Вы Единоверцы нам" -- We are of one faith with you, and you are of one faith with us.

To the best of my knowledge, the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church has never persecuted anybody (and has never really had the chance to persecute anybody!).

I know of no one who is attempting pursue a reconciliation between the Cathari and the Catholics, so there's no reason to comment.

Persecution of the Jews is outrageous, and the excesses of the Spanish inquisition on that issue are only too well known. I know nothing, however, of St. John Ribera.

Saints Thomas More and John Fisher are two of my favorite saints. If they offended by persecuting Protestants, they certainly paid for it in full measure. Here's a poem for your collection:

To a Dean who Spoke Contempuously of a Saint

Tell me not, Dean, I am unkind
if from the snuggery
of thy well-cluttered, cultured mind to Chelsea's strand I flee,

Where England's Chancellor, by grace
of courage so was steeled,
to meet thy tyrant, face to face,
to die - but not to yield.

And though his views, dear Dean, were such
as you will still deplore,
I could not love thee, Dean, so much,
loved I not Thomas More!

All I know about St John of Capistrano is that he is reputed to have flown through the air, and he has a famous shrine in California.

Josemaria Escriva is no hero of mine - nor is Franco!

As always, much depends on whose ox is being gored. Historically, it is the case that the same people who persecuted the Old-Ritualists also persecuted the Greek-Catholics. Forgive me if I sympathize with the Old-Ritualists and am myself a Greek-Catholic, but have relatively little interest in the Cathari.

If you want to read a defense of persecution (!) try Benson, The Dawn of All. I prefer freedom of religion.

Fr. Serge

Bless me a sinner, Holy Father Ambrose!

Yes, I only use "Nikonian" since that is what Old Believers call us and as a point of distinction.

And I don't like "New Rite" either since that would be to accept uncritically the arguments of the Old Believers.

So I'll go out on a limb and refer to the Orthodox as "Orthodox" and to the Old Rite as "Old Believers" (without denying their Orthodoxy of faith etc.).

That's probably the way things should be.

Somehow I think I'm now in trouble with Father Archimandrite Sergius . . .

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing, Holy Father,

Alex

Dear asianpilgrim,

There can be little doubt that St Thomas More went after the Lutherans in England - so did the Anglicans, in fact. (And it is ironic that Martin Luther himself joined St Thomas More in denying the legitimacy of Henry VIII's divorce from the Servant of God Queen Catherine of Aragon).

However, Protestant detractors, even in More's day, accused him of all sorts of things, including the charge that he took a suspected Lutheran to his own home in Chelsea where he personally tortured him - a charge More denied strenuously.

There was a reason why Lutheranism was unwelcome in England and why both Anglicans and Catholics opposed it - the reason had nothing to do with religious freedom or conscience, but with the "socialism" that Lutheranism was perceived to be advancing (i.e. "all Christians are priests" and the like).

And even the great St Nicholas punched the heretic Arius in the face - and we all love him for it!

As you know, during the canonization process of Pope St Pius X, it was noted that, as a parish priest, he once actually knocked out a parishioner on impulse when that fellow curse loudly outside the church after Sunday Mass . . .

The Church didn't seem to find that to be a roadblock to his canonization though . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

Since your parish and priest presumably do not use the Nikonian Liturgy, why should anyone call you Nikonians? Do you perhaps use a Nikon camera?

More to the point, one would assume that clergy and people who do use the Nikonian Liturgy prefer it, so why would they not appreciate being termed "Nikonians"? I've not encountered any attempt to argue that Nikon was not the Patriarch who produced that set of books.

All this without discussing (yet) the epithets which the State Church applied to the Old-Ritualists!

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

My Old Rite friend in Kyiv does indeed call me a "Nikonian" and I told him to use "Nik" for short!

When it comes to Nikon cameras or Nikonian liturgies, the finer points are lost on me.

God bless our Byzantine Irish! There's just no keeping up with you!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Dear Father Ambrose,

Interesting, but questionable:

The Confidentes (=Единоверцы) were welcomed, even encouraged, to receive Holy Communion in the places of worship of the State Church - while the State Church forbade everyone except the Confidentes to receive Holy Communion from priests of the Confidentes (the State Church also referred to "the Confidentes" and "the Orthodox" as if they were two different religions).

To this very day, a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate who, for whatever reason, wishes to serve according to the pre-Nikonian books, must obtain the personal blessing of the Patriarch of Moscow before doing so. [To the best of my knowledge, this stringent requirement has not been applied to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.]

All mixed marriages between a member of the Moscow Patriarchate who is a parishioner of a parish where the later books are in use and a member of the Confidentes must be solemnized according to Nikon's books and in a parish where Nikon's books are in regular use. The children of such a marriage must be baptized according to Nikon's books and in a parish where Nikon's books are in regular use.

Does that really sound like "We are of one faith with you and you are of one faith with us"?

fraternally in Christ,

Fr. Serge