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

Dear asianpilgrim,

This is the point. NOT ONE of the objections of the Starovery contains anything of theological meaning. One of their problems was downright superstitious -their belief that by doing processions around the church building anticlockwise instead of clockwise we should unwind all the processions of previous centuries. Well, we've probably unwound them by now and the world is still spinning.

And what does it matter if Alliluia is sung once or thrice?

But in the matter of the Creed it does matter! Very much. There are anathemas attached to altering the Creed. You could place the word "true" before most of the nouns in the Creed and it would be...well, true. I believe in one true God.... Who was born of the true virgin.... and in one true..Church etc. But it would NOT be the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed composed by our holy Fathers any more.

Dismissing other people's concerns as stupidity, superstition, theological irrelevancies, and so forth at least has an impressive pedigree. But the result of the impressive pedigree is that those who are aware of it are unlikely to be impressed by such obscurantism.

Calling people by various epithets is not conducive to reconciliation.

Fr. Serge

Father Ambrose, with all due respect, your own Synod has not condemned -- but has even approved -- the continuing use by the Old Ritualists (in Erie, Pa. to be exact) of this version of the Creed. And I'm certain that Moscow would be at least as accomodating. After all, Moscow lifted all the remaining anathemas on the Old Rite even before the Synod Abroad did.

Only this year, the episcopal consecration of John of Caracas -- who had lived his monastic life as an "Old Ritualist" in so many ways -- was done according to the Old Rite. Surely Metropolitan Hilarion and Bishop Peter of Cleveland noticed?

No theological differences? Precisely the point. Why condemn an ancient and immemorial custom that has no real theological significance anyway? And I don't think your slippery slope argument would hold, because the Old Ritualists -- we can be assured -- won't add another "True" to the Creed.

I believe that there is a theological principle behind the legitimacy of Old Ritualism. The Old Rite was the liturgy of the Church of Moscow for hundreds of years. It was the liturgy attended by countless saints of Old Russia. If this liturgy is indeed under anathema, then what does that make of the Russian Orthodox Church pre-1667?

Not Guilty!

Guilty as charged! I see the belief that doing processions anticlockwise will unwind the previous clockwise processions as a superstitious attitude to the Faith.

Not Guilty! That was asianpilgrim who sees the addition of "True" Lord as theologically irrelevant. I did agree with him though.

The reasons which caused the Starovery to leave the Church are indeed products of obscurantism. You have hit the nail on the head. Spelling Jesus with one or two i's. Singing Alleluia once or thrice. Using two or three fingers for the Cross, processions in one direction or the other. To go into schism for these reasons is, sadly, a little obscurantist.

Let us pray that the Lord who rejoices in unity will expedite a solution to this schism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~ St Gregory of Nazianzen

Well, if Patriarch Nikon hadn't been so violent in his methods, perhaps no schism would have occured. After all, the process of revising the Russian liturgical books were already begun in the 16th century, and were indeed going apace by the 1640's. Since the schism, there are Old Ritualists who have adopted elements of "New Rite" vesture, and at present even women are allowed to sing at the kliros.

That having been said, Mr. Nikita Simmons (a well-known authority on the Old Rite with whom I've corresponded at times) has this to say:

http://www.synaxis.info/psalom/research/simmons/finland/presentation_2007.html


I am under the impression that the real reasons for the continuing schism are the differences of praxis and liturgical ethos that have developed between Old Rite and New Rite Russian Orthodox since the schism, rather than the actual reasons of the 1650's and 1660's.

But this is exploding the matter out of proportion. It was not the Liturgy which was under attack by the Church of Russia. It was merely the correction of a few MINOR errors which had come in over the preceding centuries and bringing the Russian usage into conformity with the rest of Orthodoxy.

I am sure that in the beginning nobody had the slightest idea that the obscurantism which this would evoke would be so profound as to create a schism of such proportion and durability. Definitely a solid reason not to contemplate any contemporary changes to our Liturgy, even if they are justified by modern scholarship.

.... And Fr Serge speaks of *our* attitude as impeding reunion!

We are accused of:
lacking the authentic liturgical tradition,
brevity of services,
laxity in spiritual discipline,
failing to maintain firm roots in Christian antiquity.

Really, it is no wonder the Starovery are so reluctant to unite with us!

Yeah, those Russian Orthodox! They are known far and wide for their short and snappy services. Can you imagine parish Vigils lasting only two and a half or three hours? Or Liturgies over in only an hour and a half? Scandalous!

I admire the devotion to tradition that the Old Ritualists have and there is a certain draw they have for me, and I am happy that they maintain their traditions. (I must state that I hope that they will be able to do it from within the Orthodox Church rather than without.) However, as a Pastor I must say that our ('New' Rite) Russian Orthodox Vigils and long Liturgies are too much for some people to bear. They compensate by coming late or leaving early. I think that God uses different liturgical traditions to meet the needs of different people.

Fr David Straut

Just to clarify, I quoted Nikita Simmons to illuminate Old Believer concerns about the "New Rite" Russian Orthodox. I was in no way approving of his criticisms of the "New Rite." However, I must say that Mr. Simmons' essays and posts scattered all over the Internet are very fascinating to read, enumerating as they do so many of the beautiful and ancient liturgical traditions of Old Russia that have been all but lost today. (The article I linked to discusses some of these extensively)

Regarding the "accusations" of abbreviating the services, I remember Mr. Simmons writing somewhere that even the Old Ritualists of today abbreviate (e.g. by rushing through the Psalms, cutting some parts of the services), although not as much as the "New Rite" Russians. And I really do not see that as an "accusation" since not only do many Russian Orthodox today actually abbreviate and admit it, it may very well be a pastoral necessity. Indeed, my impression (as an outside observer who has to rely on his readings and research) is that the Russian Orthodox have longer liturgies now than, say, 20-30 years ago. (I had a book published in the 1970's in which Fr. Robert Taft refers to the "hour-and-a-half long" All Night Vigil)

Being Roman Catholic, I can easily sympathize with what Fr. Straut says about some people finding contemporary Russian Orthodox liturgies too much to bear. Heck, a lot of people can't even bear a 45-minute Roman Catholic Mass!

I myself think that long liturgies are easier to bear in "traditional" and not-yet-so-secularized Catholic and Orthodox cultures because, in these countries, life is often organized in such a way that it is still very easy and convenient to go to Sunday or feastday Liturgy, and the people are still brought up to expect that they will have to spend some quality time in church on Sundays. However, in "diaspora" and secularized situations, where flocks are scattered and churches could be very few and far between, it may be a considerable effort (involving, say, long drives) to go to church, and without a culture or environment that praises or encourages church attendance, a lot of nominal or weak believers could end up slacking off.

You are correct about this. A generation ago (and still in some places) there were several common abbreviations made in the Divine Liturgy: Using shortened forms of the 1st & 2nd Antiphons, not using troparia in Beatitudes, shortening the number of troparia & kontakia after the Small Entry, not singing of Psalm 33 at the end of the Liturgy. Many parishes have reverted to a fuller order.

Fr David Straut

Dear Alex,

I think that "Old Believers" is quite acceptable.

They refer to themselves as both Starovery (Old Believers) and Staroobryadtsy (Old Ritualists.)

Could you please refer to the other articles you mention. The one you linked to said a lot about the variation in music but almost nothing about differences in liturgical praxis or belief. I would love to see articles where he addresses these things. Many thanks.

Faoi bhrat Mhuire Mhathair sinn,
Fr Ambrose

He has a lot of postings in the "Ustav" and "Typikon" yahoo lists, both of which have archives open to the public (e.g you don't need to be a member to read the posts).

I'll trawl for other writings.

Dear Father David,

I have attended the Old Rite Divine Liturgy as often as possible, and can testify from experience that it is not notably longer than a Nikonian Liturgy - perhaps because the simplicity of Znammeny chant does not take as long as much of the polyphony that one finds. In any event, I have not noticed the phenomenon of people drifting in and out to anything resembling the phenomenon observable in . . . well . . . "other" Churches.

It is quite true that an Old Rite parish insists on a high standard of practice. This actually seems to attract people.

When I have served the Old Rite myself, I immediately notice that what does indeed take more time are the prayers before and after the Divine Liturgy - but these are for the clergy. I've been working for quite a while on a translation.

fraternally in Christ,

Serge

Father, I must be a lot older than your good self. I remember the days when bi-ritual faculties had to be granted from Rome.

Rome granted them infrequently because it was considered a little precarious to the spiritual and psychological balance of the priest to ask him to co-exist in two ritual cultures.