Become an author
We invite you to become a participant in the distance course “Church Banner Singing”
Exhibition “Cheremshan. Return" in Bazarny Karabulak
Maltsev readings in Balakovo - new quality!
For the first time in Pakistan, the Orthodox calendar was published in Urdu
Maltsev readings in Balakovo - “atomic energy of the Old Believers”
Let's help create a community in the capital of Belarus
The Samara and Saratov diocese again found its bishop, and the revived monastery in Cheremshan found a new abbot
Under the sign of Ancient Orthodoxy: results of the Fifth Maltsev Local History Readings
Greetings from Metropolitan Cornelius to the participants of the Fifth Maltsev Local History Readings
Program of the religious procession Vereya-Borovsk 2018
The Old Believers and their contribution to the development of Russia and the Volga region will be discussed at the Local History Readings in Balakovo
Video and photos from the annual Cheremshan religious procession 2018
A chapel in the name of the prophet Elijah was consecrated in the Nikolo-Uleima convent
The Old Believer centers of Balakovo and Borovsk are restoring ties
A dome with a cross was erected on the Old Believer church in Balakovo
The Old Believer exhibition “Cheremshan. Return"
We invite you to pray a thanksgiving prayer service on December 24 in honor of the return of the Intercession of the Assumption Church in Maly Gavrikov Lane to our Church!
On December 4, Old Believers of Simferopol celebrated their patronal feast day for the first time in the recently consecrated Church of the Entry into the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary
We invite you to participate in the Scientific and Practical Seminar “Old Believers: History, Culture and Modernity” at the MSDU on Rogozhsky
“The most important thing is what kind of Christian you become.” A youth conference was held in Kazan
At Rogozhsky, a course of public conversations is opening for those preparing for holy baptism: we invite everyone!
Construction of an Old Believer church begins in Ufa
Resolutions of the Consecrated Council of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church (Moscow, October 17–19, 2021)
Report of Metropolitan Cornelius to the Consecrated Council 2021
Ancient Orthodox Archdiocese: historical background
The Educational Department announces the official opening of the church website of the Russian Orthodox Old Believers Church nashavera.com
Press release: The opening ceremony of the III International Film Festival named after Savva Morozov will take place on October 1
In the ancient village of Lopatishchi, a chapel was erected in honor of the holy martyr Archpriest Avvakum
Invitation to the Shamar religious procession
“We are Russians, what a delight!”: Metropolitan Korniliy spoke at the conference of the Russkiy Mir Foundation
On April 15 (25), 1652, on Maundy Thursday, Patriarch Joseph died. The “zealots” offered the rank of patriarch to Stefan Vonifatiev, but he refused, apparently understanding who Alexey Mikhailovich wanted to see on the patriarchal throne. At the beginning of July 1652, the relics of the holy Metropolitan Philip were delivered to Moscow from the Solovetsky Monastery - the initiator of the transfer of the relics to the capital was Metropolitan Nikon of Novgorod, who received an offer from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to replace the patriarchal throne in front of the tomb of the saint. On July 25 (August 4), 1652, Nikon was solemnly enthroned as the Patriarchs of Moscow and All-Russia. During his enthronement, Nikon forced the tsar to promise not to interfere in the affairs of the Church. The king and the people swore to “listen to him in everything, as a leader and a shepherd and a most noble father.” Nikon, in the first years of his patriarchate, when he was still supported by the tsar, began correcting the liturgical books. The task before the church was correct - to unify religious life throughout the country. This presupposed the same text of prayers, the same forms of magical rituals, and the same order of worship. Mid-17th century - a time of fierce theological disputes that ended with a split in the Russian Church into Old Believers (adherents of pre-reform church life) and supporters of Patriarch Nikon, who received official support in the person of the Tsar. Among the Murom residents there were many detractors of Nikon’s innovations. Among them is the Murom archpriest Longin, condemned at the Church Council in Moscow in July 1653. In fact, the Old Believer schism began with the conflict that occurred in September 1652 in Murom between the rector of the local Nativity Cathedral, archpriest Longin, and the wife of the local governor, caused by an unworthy , according to the priest, who was a like-minded person of many of the future important representatives of the Old Believer camp, the behavior of a noble lady. The Murom archpriest Longin was condemned at the Church Council in Moscow in July 1653. Archimandrite Anthony of the Spassky Monastery of Murom actively opposed church reforms, wrote an essay on making the sign of the cross and the bishop’s blessing with mystical interpretations, and even sent a petition and notebooks to the Tsar “ newly corrected books." Murom Archimandrite Anthony was familiar with the patroness of the schism teachers, noblewoman Morozova. In 1662, Archimandrite Anthony, by order of Archbishop Hilarion of Ryazan and Murom (1657 - 1674), was removed from the management of the monastery. In 1666, Archimandrite Anthony was accused of heresy, and in February 1666 he was summoned to a church council in Moscow. There he was forced to repent and admit guilt in his mistakes. The participants of the Council forgave Elder Anthony, but, nevertheless, deprived of the rank of archimandrite of the Murom Spassky Monastery, they exiled him to the north, to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery - “for the sake of perfect correction.” In 1666-1667 under Nikon, a schism occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church
.
The Council of the Hundred Heads
had previously decided to make the sign of the cross with two fingers, and not with three fingers.
The direction of the procession was set in the direction of the sun (along the direction of the Sun), and not against the Sun. In addition, it was prescribed to perform double hallelujah, not three times. Nikon canceled these decisions and ordered to replace “two” with “three”. But the clergy refused to follow Nikon’s instructions. They began to be called Old Believers. Nikon persecuted them for disobedience. The changes themselves were not worth the persecution to which the Old Believers were subjected. Nikon himself spoke about the old and newly corrected liturgical books: “Both are good; it doesn’t matter which way you want, that’s why you serve.” He said this in a private conversation with Ivan Neronov. But in reality he persecuted the Old Believers with fire and sword. Those of them who repented were reunited with the church and allowed to perform rituals in the old way. The main thing was to show power, to demonstrate that it was impossible to disobey spiritual authorities. The scale of persecution was enormous. Not only many representatives of the city clergy, but also the princes opposed the innovations. The most famous of them is Habakkuk
.
Old Believers were exiled to separate monasteries, their tongues were cut and they were beaten with whips. Blood and suffering flowed throughout vast Rus'. Avvakum, along with other defenders of the old faith, was stripped of his hair and sent to the Pustozersky prison. Here, in a damp pit, in cold and hunger, he had to remain until death. Many of those exiled had their tongues torn out. In 1682, Avvakum was burned alive in Pustozersk. The Solovetsky Monastery became the support of the Old Believers, where they refused to be guided by the new liturgical books. Troops were sent to suppress the rebellion and kept the monastery under siege for eight years. In 1675, acts of self-immolation by Old Believers began
.
At least twenty thousand people died voluntarily in the fire. These self-immolations continued throughout the eighteenth century. They stopped only under Catherine II. Since the beginning of the 18th century, the government has included the official church in the state system. From that time on, a systematic legislative restriction of the Old Believers began, who had been persecuted quite cruelly before, from the end of the 17th century. One of the forms of this struggle was an attempt to destroy existing ones and prohibit the production of new icons that would preserve images of two-fingered baptism, inscriptions rejected by the official church, and archaic iconography in general. This struggle was masked by a call to remove “incorrect” and “unskillful” icons from use. In 1723 (under Peter) a decree was issued to completely prohibit the use and production of metal icons. In practice, this decree was not implemented. Peter I
restored the Monastic Order for the management of all church and monastic property. This control passed to the state. Then he abolished the patriarchate and introduced a new order of government for the church, similar to the Protestant one. The Church began to be governed by the Spiritual Collegium. So the patriarchate was abolished and the state began to rule the church. Subsequently, Peter I installed the “Holy Government Synod” at the head of the church. It consisted of several senior church hierarchs. See About bearded men and schismatics, so that they pay a fee for a beard and wear the specified dress. The Russian Orthodox Church was ruled practically by a tsar. It was state-owned on the territory of the Russian Empire. Leaving the Orthodox faith was considered a criminal offense. The church had a network of parish schools and diocesan schools. Orthodox theology was taught in higher education institutions. November 9, 2000 marked two hundred years since the official establishment of Edinoverie (Old Believer) parishes within the Russian Orthodox Church by the Sovereign Emperor Paul I and the Holy Synod. They arose on the initiative of the Old Believers, who wanted to emerge from the schism while retaining their right to the Old Orthodox liturgical traditions. Edinoverie parishes are an inextricable part of the Orthodox Church and are canonically subordinate to its bishops. They preserve ancient liturgical regulations, two-fingered singing, and medieval unison znamenny singing.
SPASOVO CONSENT (NETOVSHCHINA, SPASOVSKY TALK)
One of the priestless directions of the Old Believers. It arose at the end of the 17th century in the middle Volga region (Kerzhenets river, Yaroslavl and Kostroma provinces) and was initially not associated with the northern Bespopovtsy (Fedoseevtsy and Pomeranians). Kozma Andreev is considered the founder of Spasov Consent. Adherents of Spasov's consent consider the legendary Kapiton Danilovsky their first teacher. There is other information that does not contradict, but complements the previous one. One of the first teachers in Spasovism, monk Arseny in the late 70s of the 17th century. founded several hermitages in the forests on the Kerzhenets River in the Nizhny Novgorod province. Arseny and his followers recognized as true only those priests who were ordained before Nikon corrected the books. After the death of the last of them, the Arsenyevites became Bespopovites, while maintaining all the charters and customs of the Kerzhen Beglopopovtsy. Until the middle of the 18th century, Old Believers of the Arsenyev persuasion were still mentioned in Kerzhenets. Subsequently, the name “Spasovtsy” or “Netovtsy” spread to them. Other first teachers of Spasov consent at the beginning of the 18th century. on Kerzhenets there were two Kozmas - Andreev and Panfilov, who preached that now all the sacraments have been destroyed by the Antichrist, the priesthood and sacrifice have ceased: “God’s grace has been taken to heaven” and all that remains is “to resort to the Savior, who himself knows how to save us, the poor” . This direction later received the name “Kozminshchina” or “Netovshchina”. We can confidently declare the existence in the 18th century of three directions in Spasov’s agreement: a) the Spasovites themselves (“deaf netovshchina”), widespread in the Volga region and so called because they were not obvious, recorded Old Believers. They accepted baptism and marriage in the official Orthodox Church as a registration of legal status in order to avoid persecution by the dominant church and state; b) the Arsenievites in the Nizhny Novgorod Trans-Volga region, who had only one feature in common with “dumb non-Tovism” - rejection of rebaptism when accepting into their faith; c) unbaptized Spasovites or “non-peasants”, in contrast to the “deaf netovschina”, who considered it impossible to resort to the Orthodox Church for baptism or marriage, and therefore refused all sacraments in general. The Spasovites have moved very far away from other areas of non-priesthood and stand out among them for their religious indifference. Most of the Spasovites do not have houses of worship, mentors or rituals. From its followers, spasovo consent requires everyday asceticism, strict restrictions on food and drink, and also prohibits wearing motley and colored clothes. Pavel Prussky notes that netovshchina surpasses other non-priestly agreements also in the outward severity of life. Abstinence is required, it is forbidden to eat foods prepared with yeast and with hops, potatoes, and it is forbidden to wear colorful, bright clothes. Netov’s zealots even have a saying: “Whoever wears a motley shirt means his soul is the sister of the Antichrist,” or also: “...what is not a speck of color is a servant of an imp.” Suicide in the form of self-immolation was widespread among adherents of Spasov Consent. There are a number of discrepancies within the Passov Concord due to different views on baptism and marriage. Supporters of deep non-Tovism perform baptism and marriage ceremonies in Orthodox churches and consider them as simple registration. For followers of grandmother's consent, children are baptized by their parents or midwives. Novospasovites and Denialists have mentors who perform rituals and conduct services. Self-baptizers believe that only a person himself can be baptized. Strict Netovites dispense with baptism altogether. Non-Molyaks refused to use icons in their cult. The total number of Spasovites at the end of the 20th century was about 100 thousand people, living mainly in the Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir regions and the middle Volga region.
BELOKRINITSKOYE CONSENT
One of the most serious problems facing the Old Believers from the very beginning of the schism of the Russian Church was the lack of bishops of the same faith (the only bishop who opposed the reforms begun by Patriarch Nikon, Pavel Kolomensky, died ca. 1656). This circumstance eventually led to heated discussions among Old Believers about the possibility of borrowing the priesthood from the Russian Orthodox Church, the piety of which, according to the defenders of the “old faith,” suffered significantly from liturgical reforms. Soon the Old Believers were divided into Bespopovtsy, who refused priestly care, and Beglopopovtsy, who accepted priests (fugitive priests) who had converted from the Orthodox Church. Churches. Due to the almost constant shortage of priests, as well as the often dubious moral qualities of fugitive priests, the Old Believers-priests had an inherent desire to acquire their own bishop and, thus, have a tripartite church hierarchy. The first attempt was made by the Starodub and Vetkovo Beglopopovites, who turned to Metropolitan Yassy in 1730. Anthony with a request to consecrate a monk chosen from among the Old Believers as bishop. Since Met. Anthony was slow to answer; the following year, the Old Believers asked the same thing to Patriarch Paisius II of Poland, who was in Iasi, but their appeal was not successful. In 1765, at a council in Moscow, priests and non-priests decided to no avail whether it was possible, on the basis of what was in ancient Russia. Church precedent - the installation in 1147 of the Kyiv Metropolitan. Clement Smolyatich with the head of Clement, Pope of Rome, to ordain an Old Believer bishop with the help of the relics of one of the Moscow saints - Metropolitan Jonah or Philip (Kolychev). Soon after this, the priests made requests to appoint a bishop to the cargo. the archbishop, the Crimean metropolitan, was invited to come to them of certain Russians. archpastors, in particular St. Tikhon (Sokolova). However, all these attempts were unsuccessful. In some cases, the Old Believers' search for their bishop led to the emergence of false bishops-adventurers - Afinogen and Anfim in the 18th century, Arkady "Belovodsky" in the 19th century. Tough anti-Old Believer measures by the imperial government. Nicholas I, supported by relevant legislative acts, threatened the very existence of the Beglopopovshchina and forced the Old Believers to energetically search for their own bishop. OK. 1828/29 abbot of the Kurenevsky monastery in Podolsk province. Heraclius with 15 Old Believer monks, in search of an “Old Orthodox” bishop, traveled throughout Turkey and even reached Egypt. In 1832, at the Rogozhskoye cemetery in Moscow, in the presence of representatives from Vetka, Irgiz, Kerzhenets, Starodubye and other communities, it was decided to make every effort to acquire their own bishop. The many-year search for a bishop, undertaken by the Old Believer monks Pavel (Velikodvorsky) and Alimpy (Miloradov), led to joining the Old Believers on October 28 (or 29). 1846 through Confirmation and renunciation of “heresies” by the retired Greek. Metropolitan Ambrose.
Metropolitan Ambrose
This event caused a mixed reaction among foreign Old Believers, some of whom refused to submit to Ambrose. One of the reasons for the non-recognition of Ambrose was the doubt (expressed even before the metropolitan’s accession) about the existence of three-immersion Baptism in the Greek Church. In March 1847, a delegation of the Old Believer community at the Rogozhskoe cemetery was sent from Moscow to Belaya Krinitsa, consisting of psalm-reader Fyodor Zhigarev and merchant Vasily Borisov, who was one of the most active parishioners of the Old Believer Church of the Intercession in Rogozhskaya Sloboda. They were supposed to deliver to Russia a supply of consecrated myrrh, brewed by Metropolitan Ambrose - this special kind of oily substance was always used by the Beglopopov Old Believers and the Nikonians to perform the sacrament of anointing. This journey was long and risky, but when its main goal seemed to have already been accomplished, Zhigarev and Borisov were arrested by agents of the notorious III Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chancellery. Under investigation, Borisov confessed, essentially renouncing the “old” rituals, while Zhigarev zealously defended his faith, for which he was imprisoned in the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery, where he ended his days on November 27, 1856. In August 1847, M. Ivanov, the charter director of the Sarykey community, “on behalf of the entire community of Nekrasovites living in the Turkish state,” sent a letter to Moscow, signed by more than 40 people. The message said that “in the city of Yunus [Enos], where Mr. Metropolitan Ambrose was born, and even in all of Greece there is no true tremulous Baptism” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 288. L. 41, 42, 50v.). The letter sowed confusion in Moscow; the Moscow tradesman I. Lvov and the St. Petersburg merchant Volkov were sent to Turkey to clarify the exact state of affairs. Doubts about the correctness of the Greek. Baptisms were the reason for the creation by Paul (Velikodvorsky) of numerous works devoted to this problem. Justifying the search for a bishop in Greek. Church, Paul in his letters from abroad persistently pointed out that among the Greeks Baptism is performed in 3 immersions (for example, his letter from Jerusalem dated December 3, 1845 - Subbotin. Correspondence. 1. pp. 36-38). A special study “On immersive Baptism in the Greeks” was included by Paul in “A Brief Consideration on Some Faiths” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 739. L. 27ob.-31; 1846), prepared by him for the council, in which The question of the order of reception of Ambrose was being decided. The latter, together with the monks Paul and Alimpius, at the council on October 27 (according to other sources, 28). 1846, held in Belaya Krinitsa, he personally testified that in the Greek Church Baptism is performed in 3 immersions. Comparing the rites of Baptism in the Greek and Russian Churches, Paul came to the conclusion that the first “sinned” against Orthodoxy much less than the second, in which baptism is supposedly performed through pouring. This served as the starting point for Paul to justify the need to accept Ambrose into the Old Believers “from the Greeks” as the 3rd rank, and not the 2nd (as happened in reality), an opinion to which Paul remained faithful until his death (May 5, 1854 ). There are two more known works by the monk Paul devoted to this problem: “Assurance to a doubting friend” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 739. L. 2-13ob.; 1846-1849) and “Objection from the Ancient Orthodox Church to the arguments of those who doubt and reject Christ-devoted priesthood, due to the supposedly all-embracing pouring of the Greeks at Baptism, from where, on the basis of the patristic rules, the Greek Metropolitan Ambrosius, who joined our Orthodox faith, was received" (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 265. L. 153v.- 266v.; 1849- 1854). Those who doubted the truth of the Greek. At baptisms, the Old Believers referred to Arseny (Sukhanov’s) Proscinitary. Pavel in op. “On three-immersion Baptism in the Greeks” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 396; 1849-1854) showed that the “Proskinitary” does not talk about immersion baptism in the Greek Church. This is proven even more convincingly in the Old Believer Op. “A brief account of the initial establishment... of the sacred hierarchy” (author unknown, 1861; OR RSL. F. 247. No. 288). Indeed, this topic was discussed in detail by Arseny (Sukhanov) in another work - “Debate with the Greeks about Faiths,” which in some lists is called “Proscinitary.” Arseny's conversation with the Patriarch of Alexandria testified not to the fact that the Greek Church introduced pouring baptism, but to the fact that in exceptional cases the ritual side of the sacrament could be changed. However, this did not stop Arseny from concluding that “the Greeks no longer have Christianity” (OR NB MSU. No. 1519. L. 8). The long and intense controversy within the Old Believers on the issue of baptism in the Greek Church is largely explained by the fact that the Old Believers did not make a clear distinction between dogmas and rituals. Monk Pavel Belokrinitsky in the mentioned “Brief Consideration” classifies the acceptance of pouring baptism as “sins in the dogmas of church law” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 265. L. 291ob.-292). It should be noted that when constructing their own dogma, Old Believer authors often referred specifically to deviations from the usual practice of the Church when performing one or another rite. Paul's ideas in defense of B. and. received a completed form in the extensive work “Debate with the Bezpopovtsy about the priesthood” (“Ten Epistles to the Bezpopovtsy”; 1852-1854; OR RSL. F. 247. No. 225, 531, 857), created during a polemic with Paul of Prussia. Answering the latter’s question whether the grace of the Holy Spirit descends on “heretical” ordination (this also means ordinations performed in the post-Nikon era in the Russian and Greek Churches), Pavel Belokrinitsky developed his theory about the types of grace. In his opinion, the grace given in the sacrament of the Priesthood is of 2 types: “rewarding” (“ordained”), perceived by both “Orthodox” and “heretical” clergy through the correct performance of the rite of the sacrament (its “impersonation”), and “ affirmative" grace, which is not outside of "Orthodoxy" (Old Believers). “High-ranking” grace is insufficient; the “heretical” cleric who possesses it can fill it with “affirmative” grace by turning to the Old Believer Church: the grace of the Holy Spirit descends on him at the moment when the “Orthodox” priest (or bishop) anoints him with chrism and places hand on him. This theory had many supporters among the Belokrinitsky polemicists and dominated the ideology of consent until the beginning. 80s XIX century, when bishop. Arseny Shvetsov (1840-1908), developing the ideas of Paul, proposed a new doctrine of the sacraments. Traces of this theory are found more than half a century later in the report of the 1st Congress of Russian brotherhoods, where the question of whether the grace of the Holy Spirit descends on the ordination and baptism of heretics is given a direct answer: “It descends... upon their inclusion in the church” (ORRK BAN. F. 75. No. 198. L. 4-4v.). (At the beginning of the 20th century, similar ideas, perhaps under the influence of the Old Believers, were developed by the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and the martyr Hilarion (Troitsky) - in the doctrine of the unification of the heterodox.) Under the influence of the writings of Pavel Belokrinitsky (in particular, “A Brief Review of All religions”), the reader S. Semenov in 1860 wrote a voluminous work “Ancient Orthodox Church exposition on the acceptance of heresies coming from heresies and a refutation of the teachings of the Bezpopovtsy on this subject” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 114, 112; ORRK BAN. F. 75 . No. 94), which consists of a large number of extracts from various texts related to the problem of the reception of heterodox people. The first news of the emergence of B. and. rus. the government received in March 1847 thanks to a report to the Synod of Pavel (Podlipsky), Archbishop. Chernigovsky and Nezhinsky, about the distribution in Novozybkovsky district. rumors that the Austrian the emperor granted the Old Believers “an archbishop of their own, separate from the others, and such as the schismatics desired, and in fact with all the previous rights, and from him the ordained priesthood” (RGIA. F. 796. Op. 128. D. No. 2167. L. 1ob ., 3-4.). Apr 28 archbishop Paul reported to the Synod the name of Ambrose and the ordinations he had performed. Some details (however, already known to the government) were received from the abbot of the Belokrinitsky monastery, archimandrite, who was arrested on May 28, 1847. Gerontius (Leonov), sent from Belaya Krinitsa to the Old Believers in Russia with a message about the accession of Metropolitan. Ambrose and fundraising. Rus. The government demanded the removal of Ambrose from the Old Believer monastery, the Synod turned to the K-Polish Patriarch Anfim VI with a request to return the metropolitan to the fold of the K-Polish Church. Austrian the government expelled Ambrose to the city of Cilli (modern Celje, Slovenia), where he, however, continued to maintain relations with the Old Believers. Measures Russian governments were also unable to stop the “malign influence of the foreign schism on Russia”: in 1847, a project circulated among Russian Old Believers that was to appeal to the Emperor. Nicholas I with a request for permission to establish an Old Believer bishop's department in Russia “in the image and likeness” of the foreign hierarchy (RGIA. F. 796. Op. 128. D. No. 2167; Op. 147. D. No. 538, etc.). It is possible that these hopes, along with the controversy about pouring baptism in the Greek Church, were the reason why the appearance of the Belokrinitsky priesthood in Russia was delayed for several years. During his short stay in Belaya Krinitsa (from October 12, 1846 to December 6, 1847), Metropolitan. Ambrose elevated 10 people to various degrees of priesthood. One of his main affairs was to appoint a successor for himself, which was specifically stipulated in the “Conditions” signed by the Greek. Metropolitan and Old Believers. 6 Jan 1847 Hieromonk Kiril (Timofeev) was ordained bishop of the village by Ambrose. Mainos (settlement of Nekrasovites in Turkey), February 8. Kiril was appointed vicar of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis. Aug 24 1847 Ambrose and Kiril ordained Arkady (Dorofeev) Bishop of Slava (modern Slava-Ruse, Romania). Aug 28 1848 Kiril single-handedly ordained Onufriy (Parusov) Bishop of Brailovsky (modern Braila, Romania). 3 Jan 1849 Cyril and Onufry installed Sophrony (Zhirov) Bishop of Simbirsk. 4 Jan Onuphry and Sophrony elevated Kiril to the rank of Metropolitan of Belokrinitsky (at the same time, in accordance with the practice of the Russian Church until the mid-17th century, the rite of episcopal consecration was repeated), Onuphry became the vicar of the metropolis. In June of the same year, the Belokrinitsky spiritual authorities became concerned about finding a “worthy person” for the empty Mainos diocese, however, how these efforts ended is unknown. Initially, Arkady Slavsky did not recognize the elevation of Kiril to the rank of metropolitan. For negotiations with Arkady in the village. Pavel (Velikodvorsky) and Onufriy Brailovsky went to Slava. As a result, in Aug.-Sept. In 1850, the Tulchin diocese was established (modern Tulcea, Romania), and the priest of the Slavsk monastery Alimpiy (Veprintsev) was appointed its bishop with the duties of vicar Arkady (Dorofeev). 28 Sep. the same year, Bishops Alimpiy Tulchinsky and Onufriy Brailovsky erected Slavsky bishop. Arkady to the rank of archbishop (with a repetition of the episcopal consecration), Arkady was given the right “to have under his jurisdiction... all the dioceses of the same faith that currently exist and may still be established in the future, located along the Danube River on the right side, and has the right to supply bishops to these dioceses” (quoted from: Subbotin. History of the so-called Austrian, or Belokrinitsky, priesthood. Issue 2. P. 299). Arkady, for his part, recognized Kiril as metropolitan. After the transition Russian troops of the Danube in April. 1854 bishop Alimpy Tulchinsky, Archbishop. Arkady Slavsky, as well as priest. Fyodor Semenov were arrested, sent to Russia and imprisoned in the Suzdal Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery (Bishop Alimpiy died in the monastery on August 25, 1859, Archbishop Arkady was released in 1881). Arkady (Shaposhnikov) succeeded Arkady (Dorofeev) at the Slavic department at the end of the Crimean War, January 1. 1854, appointed by Arkady and Alimpy as “bishop of wandering Christians, exarch of Nekrasov.” The 2nd Bishop of Tulchin was Justin (installed in 1861) before he joined Edinoverie in 1867. In 1853, an unsuccessful attempt was made to establish a province in Chernigov. Novozybkovsky diocese. Delivered 17 Feb. Novozybkovsky Bishop Spiridon turned out to be so unworthy of his rank that less than a week later, on February 23, he was forbidden to officiate, and on August 7. That same year, in Belaya Krinitsa, a trial took place over him, according to which he was deposed. The new Bishop Konon (Durakov) was ordained in 1855, October 16. In 1858, he was arrested and imprisoned in the Spaso-Evfimiev Monastery, where Arkady (Dorofeev) and Alimpy (Veprintsev) were already located. In 1854, the Vaslui diocese was established in Moldova, at the head of which, first as a bishop, then as an archbishop, the former archimandrite was placed. Belokrinitsky monastery Arkady; subsequently he was transferred to Izmail. After the short-term management of the Vaslu diocese by Gennady (Belyaev) at the end. 80s XIX century the diocese remained without a bishop until 1922. Since the 60s. XIX century The influence of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis on the church-hierarchical affairs of the Old Believers in Russia noticeably decreased, and the Russian hierarchy began to play a leading role in the history of consent. The first bishop ordained in Belaya Krinitsa for Russian Old Believers is the Bishop of Simbirsk. Sophrony (Zhirov) - had the right to correct the services not only in his diocese, but throughout Russia; after the arrival in a certain diocese of a bishop ordained in Belaya Krinitsa, Sophrony had to stop performing sacred rites in it (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 24 L. 87-87v.); On May 1, 1850, Sophrony was given permission to install 2 bishops in Russia at his own discretion. Since Sophrony was seen in abuses (simony, covetousness, etc.), in February 1853 Vladimir Archbishop Anthony (Shutov) was installed in Belaya Krinitsa, who was given even broader powers to manage church-hierarchical affairs in Russia. On February 9, 1953, Sophrony was forbidden to appoint bishops in Russia and was asked to affix his signature to the “Charter established for the Vladimir Archdiocese” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 24. L. 89ob.-90.). Nevertheless, in 1854 Sophrony, together with his protege Vitaly, bishop. Uralsky, elevated the fugitive Cossack I. Brednev to the “Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'.” Sophrony himself became Metropolitan of Kazan, Vitaly - Metropolitan of Novgorod. All these orders, of course, were not recognized either by foreign or Russian Old Believer bishops. In 1856, Metropolitan. Cyril sent Sophronius a ban on performing sacred acts; in 1858, the latter brought repentance to the “consecrated assembly” of bishops Onuphrius, Paphnutius of Kazan and Archbishop. Anthony of Vladimir and asked to be sent to Kazan. On Nov. 1861 Sophrony received control of the Novozybkov diocese (vacant after the arrest of Bishop Konon in 1858), but his future. the congregation opposed this appointment, and it did not take place. On June 12, 1862, Sophrony was returned to the Simbirsk diocese; on June 20, the Spiritual Council under the Moscow Archbishop asked Sophrony to accept the Penza, Tambov and Voronezh dioceses into temporary administration. In a letter dated Oct. 1862 Sophrony refused the appointment and asked to leave him in Kazan, arguing that the Kazan bishop. Paphnutius (Shikin) allegedly renounced this diocese. On Nov. That same year, Sophrony, having arrived in Moscow, proclaimed himself “Bishop of Moscow and All Russia.” 18 Jan 1863 The Spiritual Council destroyed the letters issued to Sophrony, the Simbirsk diocese passed into the temporary control of the Saratov bishop. Athanasius (Kulibin), Penza, Tambov and Voronezh - “under the jurisdiction of the administrator of the church-hierarchical affairs of the saint” (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 25. L. 359ob.-363). In June 1863, Sophrony was charged with 12 points, in response to which he refused to recognize the council of bishops of B. and. operating in Moscow. legal. On July 29, 1863, by the resolution of the council, signed by 7 Russian and 2 foreign bishops, Sophrony was deposed. In fact, the beginning of B. and. in Russia it was founded by Anthony (Shutov). Having become Archbishop of Vladimir, Anthony received the right to establish dioceses and install bishops in them not only throughout Russia, but also in Persia, notifying the Belokrinitsky Metropolis about this. Diploma of Metropolitan Kirila from 25 Nov. 1859 Anthony was declared Archbishop of Moscow and All Russia, to whom all Russian hierarchs must submit. Aug 10 1861 Archbishop. Anthony resigned from the management of church-hierarchical affairs in Russia, because many. the bishops did not accept the letter of Metropolitan. Kirila. 18 Feb 1863 Anthony, by decision of the council, again took control of the Russian Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky consent. By the end of the archbishop’s life († Nov. 8, 1881), there were 14 dioceses of B. and. in Russia: Moscow-Vladimir, Kolomna, Nizhny Novgorod-Kostroma, Novozybkov, Kazan-Vyatka, Samara-Simbirsk, Saratov-Astrakhan, Perm, Tobolsk-Siberian , Don-Caucasus, Ural-Orenburg, Baltovo-Kiev, Izmail-Bessarabian, Kaluga-Smolensk (the list did not include the short-lived Tula diocese, not recognized by Russian Old Believer bishops, founded by Metropolitan Kirill in 1863), most of them were established by Anthony . During his bishopric, Anthony ordained over 200 Old Believer priests. He not only never took money for ordination, but, on the contrary, gave the newly ordained clergy books, vestments, utensils, and sometimes even camp churches. In addition, Anthony made significant monetary donations to the foreign Mon-ri and churches. Aug 23 1861, after Anthony (Shutov) resigned the management of the Russian Old Believers, the cathedral of bishops in Moscow made a decision, which can be considered as an proclamation of the independence of the Russian Old Believers from the Belokrinitsky Metropolis, 7 Russian bishops and 5 priests decided to elect the saint to the saint The Moscow throne regardless of the Metropolis. The Saratov bishop Afanasy (Kulibin), Anthony (Shutov) was to go to Vladimir to go to Vladimir. The cathedral also ruled that the bishops should be collected once a year, in the intervals between the cathedrals, all cases are decided by the spiritual advice at the Moscow Archbishop. In addition, the archbishop is obliged to appoint a governor for himself, in the absence of the primary hierarch, a local -observation of the Moscow throne must be appointed. Ep. Athanasius August 25. 1861 put forward the Old Believers 7 conditions (related to a number of ritual issues, as well as deanery), before the fulfillment of which he would not take the Moscow department. 17 Sep. The cathedral decided to appoint a locomotor, a month later the election of Athanasius was canceled. In con. 1861, the governor of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis of the BEP arrived in Russia. Onufry (sails). Metropolitan Kirill instructed him to equip the affairs of the Russian Old Believers of the Belokrinitsky consent, and first of all to build the bishop for the Moscow throne, as well as to establish a spiritual council in Moscow. 20 Jan. 1862 was adopted by the "Cathedral Decree for the future leadership of the established Spiritual Council." The new "Rules for the leadership of the Moscow Spiritual Council" approved the 18th Fevr. 1863 On the same day, the cathedral of Russian bishops chaired by Meter. Kirila, who came to Moscow in the beginning. months, again handed the archbishop. Anthony Office of Church and Hierarchical Affairs in Russia. On July 2 of the same year, Anthony was elected to the Moscow throne with the title “Archbishop of Moscow and Vladimir”, and he was entrusted with the Office of the Russian Old Believers Church with the participation of the Spiritual Council under its chairmanship. On July 9, 1863, members of the Spiritual Council were elected: Ep. Paphnutius Kazan, priests Peter Fedorovich, Pavel Kozmich, Maxim Semenovich.
Old Believer saints
Anna Kashinskaya, holy blessed princess. Habakkuk, martyr and confessor. Ambrose, Metropolitan of Belokrinitsky. Arseny, Bishop of the Urals. Pavel Velikodvorsky, blessed ktitor of the Belokrinitsky Metropolis. Konstantin and Arkady, Shamarskys. Kornily Vygovsky. Methodius Bishop of Perm. Loggin, hieromartyr and confessor of Murom. Markel and Mavra. Spiridon, Archimandrite of the Intercession Monastery, confessor. Isaiah, martyr and confessor, burned in Moscow. Philip the singer, martyr and confessor. Fedor, martyr and confessor, burned in Moscow. Prokhor, Vavila, Leonid, Iyakov, Vyaznikov martyrs. Sampson, martyr and confessor, suffered in Vyazniki for his orthodoxy. Archimandrite Nikanor, Samuel the centurion, Macarius the monk and others like them suffered in the Solovetsky monastery. Holy Righteous John Fedorov. Andrei Rublev, venerable icon painter. Official website of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church. Old Believer prayers. Old Believer "Princess". Old Believers in the village of Borisoglebsky, Murom district. Church of Cosmas and Damian, Suzdal. Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, an active Old Believer church in Vladimir, st. Bolshaya Moskovskaya, 106a. Church of the Life-Giving Trinity, Vladimir. On the illegal trade in schismatic books in 1844. On the illegal trade in schismatic books in 1844. Granting civil rights to schismatics in 1883. The Brotherhood of the Holy Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky in Vladimir. The activities of the Alexander Nevsky Brotherhood against the schism A report on the anti-sectarian and anti-Old Believer activities of the Brotherhood of the Holy Blessed. Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky for 1912-1913. Report on the anti-sectarian activities of the Brotherhood of the Holy Blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky for the first half of 1913-1914.
Copyright © 2021 Unconditional love
Who are the Old Believers and how do they divide among themselves?
Self-baptizer. Engraving. 1794
This priestless sect differs from others in that its followers baptized themselves, without priests, through triple immersion in water and reading the Creed. Later, the self-baptizers stopped performing this “self-rite.” Instead, they introduced the custom of baptizing babies as midwives do in the absence of a priest. This is how the self-baptized people received a second name – grandmother’s. Self-baptized grandmothers disappeared in the first half of the 20th century.
Ryabinovtsy. Ryabinovites refused to pray at icons where anyone other than the image depicted was present. There were few such icons, and in order to get out of the situation, the Ryabinovites began to carve eight-pointed crosses from rowan wood without images or inscriptions for prayers.
The Ryabinovites, as the name implies, generally revered this tree very much. According to their beliefs, the cross on which Christ was crucified was made from rowan. In addition, the Ryabinovites did not recognize church sacraments; they themselves baptized their children in the name of the Holy Trinity, but without the rite of baptism and prayers. They generally accepted only one prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners!” As a result, they buried their dead without a funeral service; instead, they bowed to the ground for the repose of the soul of the deceased. Completely disappeared in the first half of the 20th century.
Hole makers. This is a movement of non-priest-self-baptists. The name of the sect appeared because of the characteristic way of praying. Dyrniks do not venerate icons painted after the church reform of Patriarch Nikon, since there was no one to consecrate them.
At the same time, they do not recognize “pre-reform” icons, since they were desecrated by “heretics”. To get out of their predicament, the hole-makers began to pray like Muslims, on the street facing east.
In the warm season this is not difficult to do, but our winter is very different from the Middle East.
It is a sin to pray while looking at the walls or a glass window, so hole piercers have to make special holes in the walls, which are plugged with plugs. Separate communities of hole makers exist to this day in the Komi Republic.
Middles. Sredniki is another non-priest-self-baptismal movement. Unlike other self-baptizers, they do not recognize... the days of the week. In their opinion, when during the time of Peter the celebration of the New Year was moved from September 1 to January 1, the courtiers made a mistake by 8 years and moved the days of the week.
Like, today's Wednesday is former Sunday.
Our Sunday is Thursday according to them. Completely disappeared by the beginning of the 20th century.
Fedoseevites. The Fedoseevites are adherents of the priestless Old Believer movement. Their views are somewhat similar to those of modern Russian protesters.
Gifts to Napoleon. Preobrazhensky Fedoseevites send a bull and gold to the Kremlin as a gift to Napoleon in 1812. From an engraving.
Fedoseevites are convinced of the historical depravity of the Russian state. In addition, they believe that the kingdom of the Antichrist has come and adhere to celibacy. The name arose from the name of the founder of the community - Feodosius Vasilyev from the family of Urusov boyars.
The vow of celibacy did not prevent the community from attracting new supporters.
For a hundred years - from the second half of the 18th to the second half of the 19th centuries, the Fedoseevites were the most numerous and influential movement in non-priesthood; communities appeared throughout the country.
At the beginning of the 20th century, due to internal contradictions, the Fedoseevites were divided into several directions: the liberal Moscow (they accept “new wives” for confession, allow them to participate in services without making the sign of the cross), the
conservative Kazansky
(“new wives” are not accepted, sing and read in church only unmarried),
Filimonovites and non-community members can.
They did not disappear even after the revolution. In 1941, in one of the centers of the Fedoseev movement, the village of Lampovo near Tikhvin, the Fedoseevites showed themselves to be malicious collaborators
.
source https://rustradition.blogspot.ru
Orthodox Church and Old Believers
Response to criticism of the article “Explosive one-sidedness”, dedicated to the analysis of Archpriest Alexander Sokolov’s monograph “The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers”...
My review of Archpriest Alexander Sokolov’s monograph “The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers,” published on the Russian People’s Line website on February 21 under the title “Explosive one-sidedness,” caused a lively, but completely unconstructive discussion on the RNL forum. As one would expect, the opinions of forum members regarding the Old Believers were grouped around two positions - justifying and critical. Surprisingly, not one of the critics of my article bothered to read the book by Father Alexander Sokolov! However, this did not stop many from criticizing the author of the monograph rather harshly. I was accused of supporting the position of Father Alexander. My critics have probably forgotten what the purpose of a review is. “The difference between a review and other newspaper genres is, first of all, that the subject of a review is not the direct facts of reality on which essays, correspondence, sketches, reports, etc. are based, but information phenomena - books, brochures, performances, films, television programs,” writes A.A. Tertychny in the textbook “Genres of Periodical Press.” I dare to hope that I was able to sufficiently fully, objectively and impartially present the main content of Archpriest Alexander Sokolov’s monograph “The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers.”
The dispute on the RNL forum flared up mainly around one of the positions defended by the author of the book, namely the assertion that the old rituals that the Old Believers defended never actually existed, they are a fiction created as a result of making “corrections” in church books " Defenders of the Old Believers, focusing on this position, either consciously or due to their logical sloppiness, substituted the thesis. In most of the remarks on the forum, they tried to prove the advantages of the Old Believer translation of liturgical and church literature over the translation carried out on the initiative of Patriarch Nikon. I do not know the reasons for the substitution of the thesis; it probably occurred due to the reluctance of the apologists of the Old Believers to study the rather voluminous body of sources used by Archpriest Alexander Sokolov to substantiate the thesis they ignored. As a result, the correspondence dispute between the defenders of the Old Believers and Father Alexander took place in the format “I’m talking about the bald one, and you’re talking about the gray-haired one.” In this regard, it seems inappropriate to analyze the thesis they put forward about the superiority of the Old Believer translation, since it is absent in the book “The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers.”
Despite the fact that, in general, criticism of the proposed monograph turned out to be worthless and biased, two relevant questions were asked: whether the author considers the Old Believers schismatics and how he feels about the decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 on the withdrawal of oaths to the old rites. These are fair questions. Indeed, in my review I avoided them, as it turned out, in vain. Let me remind you that my previous article says: “The monograph is devoted to the substantiation of mainly three theses. According to the first thesis, the old rituals that the Old Believers defended never actually existed; they are a fiction created as a result of “corrections” made in church books. In accordance with the second thesis, Patriarch Nikon is a holy man, therefore it is necessary to raise the question of his canonization. The third thesis states that there are certain contradictions between the church-state views of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon.” The review emphasizes that the three theses I discuss in Father Alexander’s book are not the only ones, as evidenced by the expression “mainly,” which clearly indicates the presence of other theses in the monograph. The majority of the monograph is simply devoted to the justification of the three theses I have chosen; of course, other theses are also discussed in the book along the way, which I ignored due to their unimportance for this book. “The author of the review must be able to notice in the work being analyzed something new that can become a “center” around which his thoughts and judgments will “revolve,” notes A. A. Tertychny in the textbook “Genres of Periodical Press.” Trying to write the article in strict accordance with the canons of the review, I isolated its main provisions from the book. At the same time, some of the author’s theses, which are not given much importance in the book, were ignored by me, which is quite natural for a review, which should not be likened to a simple retelling of the work being analyzed.
However, due to the fact that members of the RNL forum asked two very relevant questions: does the author of the monograph consider the Old Believers to be schismatics and how does he feel about the decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 on the withdrawal of oaths to the old rites, it became necessary to note that the analysis of these questions Chapter XIII of the book “The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers” is devoted. This is the penultimate chapter of 30 pages. The volume of the book itself is 432 pages. Thus, less than 10% of the book is devoted to the two above-mentioned questions, and their rather cursory analysis is carried out at the very end. In view of the confusion that has arisen on the forum, it seems appropriate to briefly summarize Chapter XIII of the monograph under discussion.
Are Old Believers schismatics?
Archpriest Alexander Sokolov believes that “the schismatic Old Believers, despite the clear indication of the ancient rules, believe that baptism can be performed by the laity, and it is effective. If they were guided by church canons, they would be forced to admit that all the descendants of those who went into schism in the 17th century remained unbaptized” (p. 363). The priest asks the question: “What canonical definition do the Old Believers fall under?” (p. 364). “Our Church “does not cleanse them with true baptism,” but accepts them according to the third order, through repentance, that is, it recognizes them as schismatics, people who are still not alien to the Church and who have been correctly baptized. This leniency towards the Old Believers goes back to the ancient tradition of the Church to use less severe measures of punishment, so as not to alienate with excessive severity those being saved who fell into heresy or schism out of ignorance or were born into it” (p. 364).
“Old Believers schismatics (as, indeed, any schismatics) never recognize themselves as such, but on the contrary, they consider themselves true believers, moreover, the very Orthodox Church that is spoken of in the ninth clause of the Creed. However, such a statement can mislead the reader - and here's why. In the literature of the schismatics themselves about themselves and in those articles that appear in “public pages” (as St. Philaret called the newspapers), real forgery is regularly and deliberately committed. The use of the word “Old Believers” should instill in readers fantastic ideas about some single “old church” where the “old faith” was preserved. It is known, however, that nothing like this existed initially, much less after centuries. The term “Old Believers” is very convenient for all kinds of speculation precisely because of its uncertainty, as we have seen. It unites dozens of agreements and interpretations, each of which considers itself to be that very true “Old Orthodox”, if not a church, then a faith. At the same time, members of each agreement consider not only “Nikonians,” that is, Orthodox Christians, to be perishing, but also all other Old Believers” (p. 364).
“So, judging by the use of ranks, the Church treats the Old Believers (if such an expression is appropriate in this case) more tolerantly, does not consider them heretics and accepts them as schismatics, perhaps based on considerations of economics” (p. 365).
According to Archpriest Alexander Sokolov, the Old Believers are schismatics. What is the canonical status of co-religionists? “At the end of the 18th century, the schismatics themselves began to make attempts to somehow get closer to the Church, and as a result, a strange form of joining the Church arose from a canonical point of view, known as “edinoverie”,” notes the priest (p. 366). “In the 19th – early 20th centuries, Edinoverie was considered the “conditional unity” of the Old Believers with the Orthodox Church, in contrast to the unconditional accession of the Old Believers to the Orthodox Church, which implied the rejection of the “old” rite” (p. 367). Unity of faith, oh, was considered only as a step towards complete unity with the Russian Church, including in ritual” (p. 372).
“Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), the author writes, saw in the Edinoverie movement the best way to weaken the split from within, since he considered the mission among the priests and especially the non-priests hopeless. The emergence of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy forced Filaret to pay special attention to his co-religionists. The Moscow saint’s judgment on Edinoverie shows, however, that he never considered it as something independent or as a potential beginning of a special Church; for him it was simply a movement that was supposed to return “those alienated from the Orthodox Church to the unity of faith, the Church and the hierarchy.” (p. 376). Archpriest Alexander Sokolov notes that even at the end of the 19th century, “the view of Unity of Faith as a temporary phenomenon prevailed,” “as evidenced by the decisions of the Second Missionary Congress (1892)” (p. 378). However, the author continues, in the 20th century, under conditions of anti-Christian persecution, the Russian Orthodox Church began to make concessions to the Edinoverie movement. “In the 20th century, the Church, hoping to preserve faith in Christ at any cost, actually compromised” (p. 384). Next, he traces in detail the history of Edinoverie.
Decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 on the removal of oaths to old rituals
The radical change in the Russian Orthodox Church towards the Old Believers is usually associated with the decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 on the withdrawal of oaths to the old rites. The first cancellation of oaths, notes Archpriest Alexander Sokolov, occurred as a result of the adoption by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of three resolutions on April 23, 1929: 1). On the recognition of old Russian rites as salutary, like new rites, and equally honorable to them; 2). On the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingeredness; 3). On the abolition of the oaths of the Moscow Council of 1656 and the Great Moscow Council of 1667, imposed by them on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and to consider these oaths as if they had not been (p. 387).
“In the first decree,” writes Father Alexander, “the Old Believer teaching about the “salvation” of rituals was voiced - a teaching that the Church itself does not profess. The second resolution rejects the negative expressions about the “old rituals” in the writings of Russian bishops, but does not reject the blasphemous expressions about the “new” ones, which are still filled in the writings of the schismatics. In the third resolution, the Synod abolished the “oaths of 1667.” in the version that the Old Believers insisted on, that is, as “oaths to the old rituals.” But no Council made such oaths, and the members of the Synod in 1929 (and then the participants in the Council of 1971) could not have been unaware of this fact. No Council can anathematize rituals and books. Anathema is excommunication from the Church, and therefore only people can be anathematized. If “oaths” are abolished, then those on whom they were placed are thereby justified. Thus, the Synod in 1929 recognized as members of the Church and called “Orthodox Christian believers” those who had not repented for three centuries and continued to criticize the Church. These decrees indicate that the Church consciously agreed to this, wanting to attract into the church fold those who aspired to this” (p. 387).
Speaking about the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, the author notes that at the Council Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) delivered a report “On the abolition of oaths to old rites and those adhering to them.” “Metropolitan Nikodim explained in his report that “the very introduction of Edinoverie essentially meant the abolition of oaths to the old, pre-Nikon rituals.” Further, the speaker spoke about the needs of the Old Believers, co-religionists, to whom “it seemed that, although they had united with the Greek-Russian Church, they continued to remain under an oath, as preserving the old rituals.” After this, Metropolitan Nikodim proposed to approve three Resolutions of the Synod of 1929. The Council approved them. From this explanation it follows that the Resolutions approved by the Council apply to fellow believers, and it is they who must be understood as Orthodox Christians. However, the Council of 1971 did not bring sufficient clarity: who should be considered those who still reject the Church - schismatics or a special variety of Orthodox Christians who blaspheme the Church” (p. 388). Thus, according to the author, the decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 apply to co-religionists, and not to Old Believers.
At the anniversary conference dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Edinoverie and held in the St. Daniel Monastery in November 2000, Father Alexander notes, “it was decided from now on to call Edinoverie parishes Old Believer parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, gradually abandoning the previous name, since the use of the old and corrected rites is “equally honorable.” and equally saving” makes all the children of the Russian Orthodox Church “co-religionists” with each other, regardless of the ritual” (p. 390).
Afterword
With this, already the second review of Archpriest Alexander Sokolov’s monograph “The Orthodox Church and the Old Believers,” I would like to complete the analysis of this book. My goal was to introduce readers to the new monograph. The last thing I would like is for readers to evaluate Father Alexander’s book based on my reviews. In my opinion, to truly appreciate any book, you need to read it. Otherwise, we will become like excavator operator Philip Vasiltsev, whose article “Frog in the Swamp,” published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, preserved for us unforgettable words: “Newspapers write about some Pasternak. As if there was such a writer. I still didn’t know anything about him, I’d never read his books... he’s not a writer, but a White Guard... I haven’t read Pasternak. But I know: literature is better without frogs.”
Alexander Timofeev, deputy editor-in-chief of Russian People's Line
