www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Old Ritualism

Dear Knowledgeable Forum Members,

I am unclear as to the Old Ritualists and how they came to be. I know of many of their practices, of Patriarch Nikon, etc. However, I don't know the general "storyline" behind it all.

When the rituals were changed by Nikon, were they changed from Slavic to Greek practice (I know he was a Grecophile)? Were the "new rituals" actually just Greek (or non-Slavic) rituals? Are the "old rituals" specifically Slavic?

Thanks in advance for the information.

Logos Teen

This account found in _A Treasury of Russian Spirituality_ gives some background of some of the characters involved:

From Treasury of Russian Spirituality [holytrinitymission.org]

Paul Meyendorff wrote a book about this a few years ago. It is published by St. Vladimir press. I got the book through inner library loan; it may be less expensive than buying it.

SVS Press [secure.svspress.com]

With Best Wishes;
Stefan-Ivan

I recently read a book I surprisingly found in my school's library entitled "Russian Dissenters" which focused on the Old Believers, with minor emphasis on the other groups that were created later (Dukhobors, Molokans, Klists, etc). It was written around the turn of the 20th century, and is antiquated in many ways, but is still an interesting read.

Dave

Dear Teen Logo,

The Old Rite traditions, especially the two-finger Sign of the Cross, were a more Great Russian development.

The Ruthenians in the south-west maintained their ties to Greece and kept to their received Greek and universal Orthodox traditions in this respect.

In the aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople, the Muscovite Tsar saw himself as the new "Byzantine Emperor" over all of Byzantine Orthodoxy.

Tsar Alexis IV was a very pious man (he did 1000 prostrations in church daily and 1,500 during Lent and even when he was ill, he had his clerics come into his room and sing all the liturgical offices during which he would sign administrative documents etc.).

But he made the political decision to forcibly bring all Russia to the uniform Greek traditions of Orthodox practice and Patriarch Nikon, (yes, a great Hellenophile even to the point of preferring Greek food over Russian,) was his instrument in this process.

The reaction of the Russian people of all classes was one of anger and many martyrs were made for the Old Rite. To change the rites was to change the faith etc.

The Stoglav Council of Moscow that produced 100 articles and condemned, as heretics, any that did not perform the Sign of the Cross with two fingers (the two fingers represent Christ and only Christ was crucified on the Cross, not the Father or the Holy Spirit - and so to make the Sign of the Cross with three fingers was, for the Old Believers, an expression of a heresy that said that all Three Divine Persons were crucified etc.).

But this council was condemned by Nikon's subsequent council as "uninformed."

The Old Believers were hunted and martyred - they were excommunicated.

More than 300 Old Believers were shot by Tsarist forces at the Solovetsky Island Monastery alone.

St Avvakum the Confessor and Hieromartyr was burned for the Old Belief as were many others, including Russian aristocracy.

Later on, the ROC allowed for a "United Believer" movement where Old Believers entered into communion with it while being permitted to keep their Old Rite traditions.

In 1971, the ROC lifted the anathemas against the Old Believers. The Old Believer Churches have been canonizing their saints and martyrs in recent times.

Rome also recognizes the Old Rite as one of the two Russian traditions - St Andrew Sheptytsky the Metropolitan also had some Old Believer Catholics under him and was very open to this tradition that he found quite fascinating as an object of historical/liturgical study in particular.

Alex

Dave,

The author was Frederick Conybeare, a prominent lawyer in Alberta, Canada, and a religious scholar. Among his other works were A Grammar of Septuagint Greek (available online) [ccel.org] , and volumes on Armenian and Georgian Christianity.

The book you came across was printed by Harvard as one volume of a theological series. It was reprinted in the early 60s and again in the 80s, both times (I believe) as a single volume. When copies of any edition become available, they usually command a minimum of $150.

Many years,

Neil

Old Orthodoxy was not a new phenomenon that arose in the 17th century, but a continuation of the original Orthodox faith of Holy Russia.When Patriarch Nikon and his reformers rejected the beautiful piety and tradition which had shaped Russian Orthodoxy from its very beginnings, the Old Orthodox, known by the state as Old Believers or 'schismatics', zealously defended the living faith that their forebears had received from Byzantium at the end of the 10th century - though we now admit that this faith had not crystallised into the 'Old Believer' canon by this time.

After the horrors and insecurity of the 'Time of the Troubles' following the reign of Ivan the Terrible, God-fearing men and women sought to re-instil the Christian ethos in the life of the nation. A group of churchmen, known as the 'Zealots of Piety' sought to purify the Church and the religious life of the nation, making the Gospel the inspiration and guiding factor in all peoples' lives. They sought a Christian renaissance after the troubles, looking for a return to a pure Orthodox faith.

There was no need to invent anything in this revival of the Orthodox Christian Faith. Zealots such as St Avvakum looked back to the Ancient Piety as the force which could resurrect Holy Russia. Native Christianity had matured and could tranform the lives of the people as it had transformed the lives of their ancestors and of the nation.

Some of the main figures amongst the 'Zealots of Piety' were to be the first leaders of the Old Orthodox believers who refused to renounce the traditional Russian Orthodox ways of worship and living. They deeply loved and valued the path to God which is represented by True Russian Orthodox spirituality. They looked back and recognised the uniqueness of Russian Christianity and its spiritual tradition. Men such as our holy father St Avvakum, burnt alive at Pustozersk for his defence of our faith were men of the people, devout clerics and monastics who took on the prophetic mantle, giving their lives for all that they held sacred. Our holy father Pavel, bishop of Kolomna questioned the reforms, was banished and according to Old Believer history was also burned. Our holy mother the nun Feodosia, in the world the Boyarina Feodora Morozova, was tortured for the faith and died as a result. Both rich and poor, high and low suffered at the hands of the state and the the state Church in their defense of traditional Russian Orthodoxy.

They didnt need to impose alien ways on the people, or bask in Greek splendour to feel Orthodox. Their faith had been confirmed by centuries of God-pleasing men and women, glorified by God as saints. A faith and piety that had produced such exemplary lives could not be faulty and erroneous, as the persecutors of the Old Orthodox/Old Believers were to claim after the schism. However, not all of Zealots of Piety were of the same mind.

One of the zealots, Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod was elected Patriarch, and the root of the schism - lasting to this day - lay in his obsession with things Greek, his desiring to be in complete liturgical harmony with the Greeks and his turning away from the traditional Russian expression of Christianity.

Taking the attitude that all that was Greek was right, Nikon replaced venerable Russian traditions with those of the Greek Church, not understanding that greek liturgical life had changed since the introduction of Christianity in Kievan Rus in the 10th century and that some of the 'authentic' Greek practices which he introduced were very recent innovations. He obsessively questioned foreign hierarchs about insignificant details, showing paranoia about every detail of liturgical life and piety that made the Russians different from the Greeks.

Many Russian believers rejected the changes imposed by Nikon. Their ceremonies had been hallowed by centuries of use, reflecteing apostolic tradition and the faith brought to Kiev centuries before. Their texts, though conataining some errors, preserved ancient Byzantine piety and tradition, unlike the modern Greek books. The sign of the cross with two fingers was a beautiful dogmatic statement in which the fingers representing and proclaiming Christ - the God-man - make the sign of the cross of our salvation. Why should they suddenly make their Orthodoxy unrecognisable because of the rantings of a tyrant who sort to reinvent even the nature of the Church?

The result of the witness of the first Old Believers was a new age of persecution. Believers were tortured, mutilated, burned, frozen buried alive, drowned and subjected to horrible torture and death. At the head of the persecutors of the people of God was a Romanov Tsar, a man whose descendents would continue to persecute the Old Orthodox Christians until the more enlihtened reign of the last tsar.

The Old Ritualists faced difficulty as those clergy ordained before the schism died out. The Holy Bishop Pavel of Kolomna died and the of the bishops faithful to the old piety, none were left. Many Old Believers accepted priests from the state Church. They came of their own volition, read the confession of belief and were annointed with the holy myron consecrated before the schism. This was the outward sign of their acceptance of Old Orthodoxy. Other Old Believers rejected this and went into a priestless existence, at first intensly monastic, but later divided by the propblem of marriage in a world without clergy. Although these believers were plunged into schism after schism and gave rise to some unorthodox groups, there were nevertheless many very holy men and women amongst them. The Vyg monastery in the Olonets region was a great beacon of faith, culture and learning - an embodiment of Old Russian Orthodox monasticism. Men such as the Denisov brothers were spiritual giants who left an enduring mark on Old Russian Orthodoxy.

For the majority of the priestly Old Believers the life of the Church was 'regularised' when Bishop Amvrosii of Sarajevo embraced Old Rite Orthodoxy in 1846. The Belakrinitsa concord, named after the bishops residence and monastery in Austrian Bukovina, was born.

However, this regularisation was controversial, since the holy canons of the Church require a minimum of two bishops to perform valid consecrations. Because this rule was not kept, some of the priestly Old Believers refused to recognise the validity of Metropolitan Amvrosii's actions. They preferred to continue to rely on the ministrations of clergy who, having left the New-Rite State Church embraced Old Orthodoxy, affirming their loyalty to the Tradition of Holy Russia through annointing with chrism consecrated before the tragedy of the schism.

These Old Rite Christians were able to eatablish a canonical hierarchy when two former bishops of the state Church accepted the Old Belief in the wake of the Russian Revolution.

Archbishop Nicholas of Saratov was unable to accept the directions taken by the State Church after the 1923 sobor, and after negotiations was accepted into the Old Orthodox Church in his dignity of archbishop through confession of faith and chrismation. This took place in the Temple of St Demitrios of Salonika in Saratov on November 4, 1923. He reposed in the Lord on September 1 1934 and was buried in the Rogozhsky cemetry in Moscow.

His succesor Archbishop Stefan also accepted Old Orthodoxy after leaving the State Church, but interestingly was of priestless Old Believer origin. He was born into a family of priestless Old Believers in Ekaterinburg in 1858. Having joined the State Church, he was ordained to the priesthood in the 1920's and was consecrated as bishop by the non-commemorating (i.e. not recognising the canonicity of Metropolitan Sergei) bishop of Buguruslansk on September 16, 1939. His consecrator belonged to the Edinovertsy - the Old Rite Orthodox who submitted to the State Church. He was accepted into the Old Orthodox Church by His Eminence, Bishop Nicholas. By the Grace of God the Old Orthodox Church now had two bishops who could canonically consecrate future bishops, and the episcopate was restored by CANONICAL means. He was arrested by the God-hating Soviets and died in prison in 1937.

Other communities of Old Rite Orthodox Christians exist in 'edinoverie' - union with other non-Old Rite jurisdictions who recognise the full Orthodoxy of Old Rite Christianity and the invalidity of the old anathemas. This also indicates that some Old Believers have moved on from the 17th century mindset and recognised New Rite expressions of the Orthodox Chhristian Faith.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless, Father Mark,

Yes, I have a knack of bringing our great posters out right away - don't I?

I think I provide a wonderful service to this forum in that way!

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Father Mark's comments on the canonicity of the Old Ritualist hierarchy derived from Saint Ambrose of Bielaia Krinitsa are, shall we say, open to discussion. The same is true of Father Mark's encomium to the asserted canonicity of the hierarchy of a much smaller group of Old Ritualists presently centered at Novozybkov. The best historical study of these matters (unfortunately not yet available in English) is Feodor Mel'nikov's Kratkaia Istoria, recently published in Siberia.
Prostite menia Khrista radi!
Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

no amount of historical research can change the fact that Metropolitan Amvrosii single handedly consecrated other bishops for the Russian Old Rite Orthodox Church. This may be acceptable in other Christian traditions, but in Orthodoxy this is not canonical. By economia it can be affirmed by a conciliar decision, but ordinarily it is not acceptable or recognised. In contrast the Novozybkov hierarchy fulfilled the canonical conditions of consecration, having the minimum of two hierarchs implementing conciliar decisions. This is not to say that they cannot be questioned on other points.

Admittedly, Metropolitan Amvrosii was operating in times of near catacomb conditions for Old Believers, but this cannot canonically validate his actions, though I have no problem accepting his validity as a bishop, despite any pronouncements by the Turkish dominated Oecumenical Patriarchate of the time.

I am not seeking to badmouth the Belayakrinitsy and idealise the Novozybkovtsy, but express the problematic struggle for continuity and legitimacy in Old Orthodox life. I believe that God has made up for anything lacking in the Belayakrinitsy, but still see them as being of irregular status.

If the Old Belief is to be identified, as it is from within, as the faithful continuation of the Orthodoxy of pre-Nikonian Russia, then Orthodox conditions and canons must be applied with an appropriate degree of economia. The question is, how far does this economia go? Can economia justify the actions of Metropolitan Amvrosii?

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless, Father Mark!

But did not St John Maximovych of Shanghai consecrate bishops by himself alone?

And while not canonical, is that the same as not being "valid?"

What about the practice that there is at least some evidence to support in Alexandria and in Persia (and in Kyiv in 1921) concerning the consecration of a bishop with the laying on of hands by 12 or more priests - in dire circumstances etc. ?

Alex

A 'bishopless' priest celebrating the Liturgy is technically uncanonical, yet few would question the efficacy and validity of the mysterion. Equally, until the restoration of the episcopate in Old Rite/Old Orthodox communities, the celebration of the sacramental life of the Church was, strictly speaking, irregular or uncanonical. Temporal and historical circumstances sometimes make strict adherence to the canons impossible.

The question of Metroplitan Amvrosii's consecrations is difficult. In the Russian Old Rite Orthodox Church we see great faithfulness to asceticism, santctity and the ancient Traditions of Orthodoxy, yet this great shadow looms large. Who could give the conciliar recognition of these consecrations in the name of economia? I suppose only another Old Rite Church, but this requires mutual recognition. The Belayakrinitsy may well defend themselves with this! I do not pretend to know the answer. I simply wish the different hierarchies could unite and bring such questions to an end.

As for other means of consecration, we continue the practices ratified by the the Councils of the Church. As the Church is organic and living, some traditions have supplanted former practices, but we see the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in this.

I do not know about a solo consecration by St John Maximovitch and would be shocked if thbis was right. The actions of the first aftokephalna overshadowed the re-establishment of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the 1940's, beacause there was no attempt at the correction of dubious ordinations by bishops of canonically irregular status in the 1920's.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon us sinners!

Dear Father Mark,
Well, as I said, these are matters open to some question, so I can't fault you for raising questions. However . . .
No one at all has ever denied that Saint Ambrose of Bielaia Krinitsa was the sole consecrator of the first two bishops after him, so that Saint Ambrose is a "bottleneck" in the Apostolic Succession of the Russian Old Ritualist Orthodox Church. However, this procedure had been agreed upon by several Sobors even before Metropolitan Ambrose united with the Old Ritualist Church (and his subsequent conduct makes it clear that he acted, not for reasons of personal gain, but out of conviction). The search for such a hierarch was carried out with strictness and integrity, accompanied and supported by the fervent prayer and tears of the Old Ritualists.
Not only were the Old Ritualists acting in near-catacomb conditions; they also were acting with a consciousness of what had already happened historically. At least one bishop had been murdered by the Tsar's government to stop the bishop from accomplishing ordinations. Another had died in prison, where he was held in close confinement for the same reason. A third died in mysterious circumstances, unexplained to this day. I do not believe in Presbyterian ordinations, but I most certainly do believe that God sent Saint Ambrose, in response to prayer, at the moment which God had chosen, and that attempting to keep the Metropolitan "in pectore" or something until yet another hierarch could be located would have been tempting God. I feel no compulsion to believe that it is in the power of anti-ecclesial authorities to deprive the Church of the Holy Mysteries by using murder and false imprisonment. God acts in His own time, and God chose to act by sending Metropolitan Ambrose.
The Russian State Church, as I presume you are aware, is known to have held at least one consecration of a bishop performed by only one other bishop (the first bishop of Alaska). At the time of the earlier great persecutions, before the Peace of the Church, there were other such consecrations. And they have happened since, normally in cases of persecution, so that the consecrations in Bielaia Krinitsa present us not even with a need to apply economia, but a need to recognize the canonical value of established custom under these specific circumstances.
By the way, the Patriarch of Constantinople never took any action to prevent Saint Ambrose from accomplishing the episcopal consecrations, nor to depose him, nor anything else of the kind.
The tree is known by its fruits. No one can deny that the restoration of the three-fold hierarchy accomplished by the consecrations in Bielaia Krinitsa has born abundant and good fruit.
It also cannot be denied that the minority who were opposed to the reception of the hierarchy resulting from those consecrations have resorted to the most picayune objections - my favorite is the completely unsubstantiated claim that as a youth, Metropolitan Ambrose had smoked tobacco! As you probably know, I am not making this up - but the Beglopopovtsy were making it up; there is no evidence for it at all. The reality is that no hierarch of the period has been so thoroughly investigated as Saint Ambrose: three empires (Russian, Austrian and Turkish) sifted through his background and personal history; the Beglopopovtsy at least twice sent delegations to investigate his early background on the spot (partly in the "hope" of finding evidence that he had not been baptized by immersion - this also flopped), and the only result was that some of the delegates, convinced by what they had found, proceeded to unite themselves to the hierarchy deriving from Saint Ambrose.
At the time of the reception of Metropolitan Ambrose and the consecrations, there was a thorough discussion at the Sobor called for the purpose, both to determine how Metropolitan Ambrose should be received and whether the consecrations could go forward.
We see that the Old Ritualist Orthodox Church acted with prudence; in only a few months the Tsar brought such pressure to bear on the Emperor in Vienna that the Emperor had to remove Saint Ambrose from Bielaia Krinitsa and keep the righteous hierarch under house arrest for the next fifteen years, until his holy repose. Would you really have wanted this unique opportunity, given by God in response to prayer, to have been wasted?
Now that raises the next question - which concerns the small minority which chose to remain in the position of "Beglopopovtsy" (being without bishops and depending on fugitive clergy from the state church). There was a moment late in the nineteenth century when they were down to no priests at all, which provided a pretty problem. After a time, two more fugitive priests joined them, but who was to receive these two priests, and how? It seems that in one ceremony, the two priests chrismated each other!
In the last decade or so before the Russian Revolution, the Beglopopovtsy confronted the question of the obvious need for a bishop, and the need to justify their refusal to accept the existing Old Ritualist hierarchy. The bishop who finally joined them was actually a bishop of the "Living Church" - whose sacramental Mysteries are recognized by no one (except, of course, themselves, one assumes). As an ironic result, the present bodies derived from the Novozybkov hierarchy are the last organized remnant of the "Living Church" - a strange development for Old Ritualists, one may comment.
Again, the tree is known by its fruit. A couple of years ago the chief hierarch in Novozybkov announced to anyone who cared to listen that he had assumed the title of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. The immediate result was that half of the fifty parishes adhering to his jurisdiction decamped, so this "patriarchate" now consists of 25 parishes. If you've seen the accounts of the Sacred Council in Moscow which recently elected Metropolitan Andrian, you are aware that the Metropolitan was asked about this, and declined to comment on the activity of a religious body to which he does not belong. In response to another question, Metropolitan Andrian said that the Old Ritualist Orthodox Church consists of two Metropolitanates, which would have to come to conciliar agreement in the matter before there could be any possibility of proclaiming a Patriarch, and that he himself (Metropolitan Andrian) held that the Church has more important things to do in the present circumstances.
As to whether the remnants of the Novozybkov hierarch and their followers could unite with the Old Ritualist Church, I'm in no position to comment, because I do not know the personalities involved, nor do I know what efforts may or may not be in progress. I suggest prayer as the best and most appropriate response to that question. I have confidence in Metropolitan Leonty and Metropolitan Andrian; God grant them many years of fruitful service to Him and to the flock which He has entrusted to them.
Protite menia Khrista radi!
Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I recognise the conditions which forced the hands of the Belayakrinitsa old Believers in the 19th century and, as I hinted in my previous email, also recognise problems with the Novozybkovtsy. Archbishop Nilolai repented of his renovationist errors, but of course, was not 'rehabilitated' in any way. However, this can be compared to the question of conciliar recognition of the consecrations of Metropolitan Amvrosii. As regards the reception of priests into the beglopopovtsy, this would have remained by confession of faith and annointing with the pre-Nikonian chrism - but from whose hand? Admittedly, the chrism, not the hand was seen as the crucial feature. When St Andrei of Ufa was united with the Beglopovtsy after the revolution he chrismated himself. This episode, and the ensuing intrigue, sadly showed the Beglopovtsy at their worst.

One of the developments that saddens me the most, is the 'Patriarchate' nonsense you mention. The schism with Bishop Apolinarii of Kursk and the Rumanian eparchy also relate to this. One of the biggest problems seems to be the dominance of the Kalinin family, and the perception that they control all in the Russian Old Orthodox Church. The Belayakrinitsy are not totally immune to this nonsense, since the Rumanians entertained ideas of the patriarchal title some years ago.

I know, through personal contact, that 'Patriarch' Alexander desperately wants to expand the Church in the light of the losses you mention. This could also be to do with mission, after all they did consecrate bishops for a Georgian Old Orthodox Church. They are interested in Old Orthodoxy for non-Slavs, which I think admirable. The disaster of their position is that the patriarchal claims wrecked any chance of rapprochement with the larger Russian Old Rite Orthodox Church.

I think your comments regarding knowing people by their fruits are very true. Sadly it was bad and bitter fruits that prevented some of us in Britain from going further in considering the Belakrinitsa soglasie as our home. However, this bad and bitter tasting fruit was on the part of a Machiavellian bishop bending every rule of honesty to gain his place amongst the bishops of Metropolitan Alimpii, of thrice-blessed memory. His lies and deceit left us out 'in the cold' forcing consideration of the novozybkovtsy. However, this is not for public discussion.

I would be interested on your views on those Old Believers united to New Rite hierarchies. I wonder whether some time this is the only way forward for those of us far from other Old Rite Orthodox Christians and clergy. We wonder, who will give us Holy Communion when we can no longer manage the holy Liturgy, who will give us Holy Unction, who will bury us? It sometimes makes ideals, very hard, just as canonical ideals have been an impossibility in the past.

May the Lord forgive you.
Forgive me a sinner for Christ's sake.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Since this thread has taken a turn toward discussing the Old Rite episcopate, I would like to ask a few questions that came to mind when I read the "Russian Dissenters" book.

First, a preliminary story: Prior to reading the above book, I had seen some pictures online of fully-vested Belayakrinitsy hierarchs. I noticed, with some curiosity, that their epigonation/palitsa was attached to their sakkos by a button as in "Greek" practice and not slipping out of the side of the sakkos as in "Russian" practice. Why, I wondered, did the Old Ritualists and the Greeks share this feature but Nikonian Russian usage, so shaped by the Greek tastes of the 17th century, did not? Was it something that was not "in vogue" among Greeks in the 17th century and thus not adopted by Nikon? Anyway, fast forward a couple years.

I read with great interest in the previously mentioned book about Metropolitan Ambrose and the whole situation surrounding his entering of the Old Rite. According to this book, he did not speak Russian or know Slavonic, had to have anything he needed to say in Russian or Slavonic transliterated into Greek letters, and even served his parts of the services in Greek (presumably according to the same type of books the Nikonion reformers used as their basis?). I started to think of those pictures, and then I wondered...

Were the hierarchical vestments of the Belayakrinitsy bishops just modeled on the Greek sort that Met. Ambrose had in the 1800's? The deeper question would then be that since the Old Ritualists did not really have a hierarch until Met. Ambrose (despite some attempts), thus leaving a rather lengthy gap between the Nikonion reform and gaining a bishop, how were the hierarchical traditions of the Old pre-Nikonion Rite passed on until the 1800's? Or were they to some degree reconstructed at the time of Met. Ambrose?

Oh, the book also said that Ambrose was not anointed with chrism but plain oil, as pre-Nikonion chrism could not be obtained for the event of his reception. Is this true?

Dave