“It Was Not a Reform, But an Attack on Orthodoxy”: An Interview with B.P. Kutuzov
This contemporary historian, a member of the New Rite Church, is yet of a heart devoted to the Old Belief. For our longer readers, he is the author of “Clothing and Spirituality”, the beloved essay on the spiritual importance of clothing for a traditional Christian:
From the Church website:
When asked what to read about Old Belief and the 17th-century church schism, Old Believers often recommend the works of Kutuzov, Melnikov, and Urushev. Since historians F.E. Melnikov and D.A. Urushev are devout, convinced members of our Church, those interested from the ROC MP—who often join us—are advised to read the works of Boris Pavlovich Kutuzov, one of the leading researchers of Old Belief. Remarkably, despite his deep knowledge of Old Belief, he himself attends and receives communion in the New Rite church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Danilov Cemetery. As Kutuzov acknowledges in this interview, “I wrote all my books for myself, without looking to either the New Rite or the Old Believers, striving for an entirely objective consideration of the issue.” Readers of rpsc.ru can now confirm this firsthand in an interview conducted by the Editorial Council of the Educational Department of the Moscow Metropolia of the Russian Old-Orthodox Church, timed for his 80th birthday on August 8.
— You wrote that the concept “Moscow is the Third Rome, and there will be no fourth” was misinterpreted after the church schism as a claim to an imperial path. What do you think was the original, true meaning of this concept as defined by Philotheus and St. Joseph of Volokolamsk?
— The “Third Rome” was meant only in a spiritual sense, very little in the external, political sense. Yes, the Russian Tsar was considered, as Philotheus said, the sole Orthodox sovereign, and that was it. Ivan the Terrible put it well: I need no other lands. God gave me my own land; it is enough. I need no other lands. He did not take the Jesuit bait of Antonio Possevino or desire the throne of Constantinople.
The idea of the “Third Rome” was put into practice by Grand Duke Vasily II when he imprisoned Metropolitan Isidore, the “raging wolf, false shepherd, destroyer of souls” who had signed the Florentine Union. They did not kill him; they allowed him to flee back to the Catholics. In this way, the secular power, in the person of Vasily II—who was considered almost a Tsar—saved Orthodoxy in Russia, while the bishops, hearing Isidore’s decision at the Florentine Council, “kept silent and slumbered.” Secular power played a significant role in preserving the purity of faith from heresies in Byzantium as well, starting with Emperor Constantine the Great, who convened the First Ecumenical Council.
— So, the original meaning of this concept was that the Russian people were chosen by God to preserve the true faith in a world of all-encompassing apostasy?
— Yes, we were to preserve this treasure; that was and still is the divine calling of our people. Russians are a second chosen people, and our national idea is the Gospel. But we should not take pride in this; it does not befit an Orthodox Christian. One must be humble. The “Third Rome” still exists in this spiritual sense, and its leading force, the primary guide, is, of course, Old Belief. Like Andrei Oslyabya and Alexander Peresvet. This is a war—not against flesh and blood, but against the spirits of evil.
— Who introduced the false interpretation of the “Third Rome” idea? You wrote that it began even before Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
— The false, purely political interpretation was spun by a pair of conspirators—our Patriarch Philaret (Fyodor Nikitich Romanov) together with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris. Philaret played a fatal role in the upbringing of Alexei Mikhailovich, instilling in him the need to adopt the Byzantine throne. Philaret was effectively the ruler, and his son Mikhail was merely a pawn on the throne, seeing the world through his father-patriarch’s eyes. So Philaret was the first Romanov. He was, as Nikolai Konyaev wrote, a completely unspiritual man. Even barbers came to his house to trim and shape his mustache and beard. Cyril Lucaris, meanwhile, sought to free Greece from the Turkish yoke and was more politician than patriarch.
— Today, the restoration of the monarchy is being actively discussed in public forums and even in the State Duma. Do you think restoring the monarchy would benefit Orthodoxy?
— Under no circumstances should we restore any monarchy, because then they would again seek an anointed ruler. And this would be worse than the Pope, as the anointed ruler’s words would not allow for any discussion or criticism. We have been down that road before. The anointing of emperors was a Byzantine invention by Empress Pulcheria, and the Russians followed the Greeks’ example. I think we would be better off with a Grand Duke. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.” I think the same—better let the presidency remain.
— About a year ago, the President visited the spiritual center of the Old Believer Church, drawing much public attention and raising hopes for significant change. Some consider that Old Belief may become a unifying force. Do you see the risk of the Old Believer Church becoming an alternative “department of Orthodox confession” or a “state-supporting institution”?
— I see the President’s visit to Rogozhsky as positive. It may encourage the New Rite hierarchs to resolve the schism. At the very least, they should recognize the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy. Why has it not been recognized? It is disgraceful. I fully side with the Old Believers on this matter. In the latest Metropolitan’s Bulletin, questions from the New Rite church to Old Believers are addressed, including one on the canonicity of the hierarchy. The Old Believers provided very competent answers. Solzhenitsyn rightly condemned the New Rite Church: they refuse to join the Old Believer Church out of pride. How can they be Christians when so much blood of Old Believers has been spilled and no repentance offered, unlike the ROCOR? Can a Christian pray without reconciliation with all his enemies? So, the New Rite’s refusal to reconcile with Old Believers is a shame.
— Like we read in the life of Archpriest Avvakum: the foundation set from the start should remain forever.
— Yes, “so may it remain forever.” Avvakum’s words hold all wisdom. So many arguments still surround this reform, this schism. Why break so many spears over it? The Apostle John said 2000 years ago that the whole world lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19), and the Savior lamented, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). The disappearance of faith is an objective process. I think that today, as in Soviet times, only 2–3% of the population attends the New Rite Church. Back then, people thought the Soviet government hindered attendance. Not true. If journalists today report 80% are Orthodox, they are doing what journalists do. Can one who attends church once a year, only for half an hour on Pascha until the first “Christ is Risen,” consider himself Orthodox? There is even a joke about this: One man asks another, “Do you go to church? How is it there?” The other replies, “Oh, the same as always; they just keep singing ‘Christ is Risen’ all the time.”
In the 17th century, when church fences fell, a murky sea of wickedness and filth rushed into the New Rite Church from the West and everywhere else. All the enemies of the Church rejoiced.
— Could the revolution and the Soviet era have been avoided if this influx of foreign influences—first in the form of a Greek-styled reform, then other influences—had not occurred? You write in your book Lestovka: “The Byzantine delusion thus distorted church life, launched persecution against the old traditional faith, the mother and first defender of Russian statehood, and eventually destroyed Russian statehood itself.”
— Everything is interconnected. Solzhenitsyn correctly said that the 1917 Revolution grew out of the 17th century. I agree. A New Rite Church leader once said that without Old Belief, the court would have been absorbed by Protestantism, and the people by Catholicism. Previously, the New Rite Church watched what the Old Believers would say, but now they seem to have stopped doing even that. Its standing, especially today, has fallen sharply in the public’s eyes, as I observe. The New Rite has no future. Whatever politics the elite may pursue, our task is to seek salvation.
The late Patriarch Alexy II praised the Old Rite, calling it a great treasure, a liturgical sanctuary to be protected as the apple of one’s eye. He also condemned the division into a "teaching Church" and a "learning Church," advocating instead for conciliarity, which the Old Believers, unlike the New Rite followers, have preserved. But he passed away early. Had he lived another ten years, I believe he would have taken further steps toward Old Belief.
— Indeed, conciliarity is our foundation, as we profess in the Creed, "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Boris Pavlovich, why, then, do so few New Rite followers join the Old Believers individually?
— The main reason is that people simply don’t know about Old Belief. Even now, many think Old Believers are in the wrong or, worse, that they’re schismatics… This myth needs to be dispelled. The schismatics are the New Rite followers! They are ritualists; they beheaded people over the two-fingered sign of the cross. Is this not ritualism? Another reason is that people see the Old Believer way of life as too strict, too ascetic, yet, in reality, allowances are made for believers’ weaknesses or illnesses. For instance, some Old Believers come to a six-hour Vigil not at the start at three o’clock, but at six in the evening, which is considered acceptable, as otherwise it would be hard to endure.
— A public figure once observed that in the historical split between Eastern and Western civilizations—Orthodoxy and Catholicism—there might be a divine purpose, suggesting that without “competition,” stagnation occurs. He applied Paul’s words about divisions existing so that "those who are approved may become manifest" (1 Cor. 11:19). Can we imagine, even if only loosely, that the divergence of the Old Believer Church and the New Rite served God’s plan to sustain zeal for the Lord? Although we know that, according to St. John Chrysostom, Paul’s words mean that division is a result, not a cause.
— No, we cannot. Otherwise, we would have to justify every disgrace that has occurred since the coming of the Savior. How much have His teachings been distorted, how many schisms have there been? And should all this be attributed to God’s Providence? Human foolishness is to blame! That’s first. And secondly, the enemy acts—he is “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Take, for example, the heretic Leo Tolstoy, whom intellectuals have always praised and continue to praise. He slandered the Church left and right. I could never read him, even before I began attending church; I found him completely unappealing. And now, all the more so! Philosophically, he was weak, to put it mildly. Yes, he could paint a literary picture with words, but what did he depict? His immoral society, which didn’t even attend God’s church. The lines from P. Yershov’s The Little Humpbacked Horse come to mind:
"...he dines with the devil,
To church he does not go,
He holds a Catholic cross
And eats meat during Lent."
— How did you come to study Old Belief during the Soviet period, when it seemed nothing encouraged this kind of research?
— This interest arose from a chance event during my service at the Danilov Monastery. I was baptized only in 1968. Before that, I thought there was no God… But gradually, by the time I turned 30, I had read and thought about many things and decided to be baptized. Like many convinced converts, I was very zealous. It wasn’t enough for me to be a regular parishioner; I wanted to become a priest! So, I left my secular job (I worked as an engineer in the Ministry of Energy) and enrolled in a theological seminary in 1971. I had a higher education, though technical (I graduated from the Ural Polytechnic as a thermal energy engineer), so I entered directly into the third class, passing exams externally. I only had a year of study left, and I graduated in 1972. I stayed with the Church, serving as an altar server in the Nikolo-Khamovniki church. Later, I moved to the church of Martyr Tryphon by the Riga Station, where the rector put me in the choir. I didn’t want to, but I had to. I had always been involved with music and played the piano. In my childhood, I lived in northern Kazakhstan at a resort called Borovoye, where there was no music school. Private teachers taught me from ages eight to about eleven, and from there, I reached a conservatory level on my own.
I served at the church by Riga Station for about ten years and, in 1984, transferred to the newly opened Danilov Monastery, which is near my home. Then, in 1985, I came across an Old Believer Psalter! At that time, people were bringing icons and old service books to monasteries from all over. I decided to see how the Old Believer Psalter differed from ours. I made so many notes on the differences that it was overwhelming! I realized there was more to it. I became interested in what the Old Believer schism truly was. Now, I call it the “New Rite schism.” The schismatics are by no means the Old Believers but the Nikonians, the New Rite followers. Nikon was a schismatic, and the chief one was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. If it hadn’t been for the Tsar, there would have been no schism. If Nikon hadn’t been there, he would have found someone else, as the Tsar was raised with a focus on adopting the Byzantine throne from a young age. He was brought up to disdain and even hate everything Russian. That’s why I say that the world lies in evil, and the enemy of humanity has been at work since the beginning, even before Adam and Eve lost paradise. He is at the root of all evil. I mention this briefly in my book, enough for the discerning reader. That’s why my book needs to be read carefully, not hastily.
— Boris Pavlovich, how did you find literature for your research during Soviet times?
— It felt as if the books I needed were being placed in front of me. They just “came” to me. The library at the Danilov Monastery was extensive; the elders brought all sorts of treasures with joy at the monastery’s reopening! I set myself the question: Was the 17th-century church reform a tragic mistake or a sabotage? My first work was published in 1992 by the Grebenshchikov Community in Riga under the title The Church Reform of the 17th Century: Its True Causes and Goals. I had simply shared my materials with Fr. Ioann Mirolyubov, and he went ahead and published them, which I hadn’t expected. In 2003, I self-published a book called The “Reform” of the 17th Century as an Ideological Diversion and National Catastrophe. I consider this edition the standard. Everything published before and after contains distortions. Publishers like “Eksmo,” “Algorithm,” and others gave their titles and edited my text without consulting me. They did as they pleased.
The word “reform” in the title is in quotation marks because it was not a reform but an attack on Orthodoxy. Jesuits gave the pretender instructions on how to introduce unionism in Russia, essentially a blueprint for Nikon’s reform. In a recently published well-known book on Old Belief, it says on the first page that the main reason for the reform was the inclusion of Ukrainians and Belarusians… This is a deliberate falsehood from a scholar.
Historians are called investigators. I wrote all my books for myself, without considering either the New Rite or the Old Believers, striving for a completely objective examination. After writing the chapter on the two-fingered and three-fingered sign of the cross, I myself began crossing myself with two fingers, about twenty years ago.
— But you still attend a New Rite church?
— I live near Dukhovsky Lane, and it’s only 300–500 meters to the Church of the Holy Spirit at Danilov Cemetery. I can still manage that distance; I’m weak, barely able to walk. But I cannot bear to hear partesnoye singing; I only go when I absolutely need to confess and receive communion. If only the Old Believers could get their church back on Khavskaya…
Prepared by Olga Zakharova, Curator of the Educational Department of the Moscow Metropolia of the Russian Old-Orthodox Church, in collaboration with the Editorial Council of the Department, 2018.
So,I made the comment on the "curses" with the added comment about their being no possibility of repentance and applying it even to those already departed not because I have an exaggerated view of an anathema, but because that was the actual language used in the 1666/1667 council. To my knowledge, it is the only time such an extreme punishment has ever been used. I am aware of course of the anathemas and their corrective purpose, but that is not what was used against the Old Believers.
Your questions are wonderful! They are never a bother, even when they challenge. The position of the Old Believers is, as you know, that the faith and piety it received is both Apostolic and without corruption (broadly speaking). Having the only consistently Orthodox political environment since the Crusades and Islam, this stands to reason. So, when dealing with other Orthodox Churches, yes, it is true that the same issues that separate us from the MP would also separate us from them as well.
It is illustrative to look at the history of the Roman Cathoic church, whose footprint was similar to the Orthodox, historically. Those items that ultimately caused division and divergent liturgical practices (like the Filioque, etc), started off locally, but soon spread throughout the west so that now, you would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who thinks there was ever a time when their practices or beliefs were different. My point is that beliefs and practices spread and things tend to homogenize over time. Russia, politcally, was intentionally self-isolated until the Old Believer Schism and viewed all Greeks with deep suspicion since the time of Florence, which caused the Greeks to be seen as betrayers of the faith long before the Old Believer issue.
I think the issue is that, like the Roman Church in the West, the Orthodox Church comprises, statistically, essentially all believers in the Christian East. So, like the absurdity of claiming all Western Christians fell away from the Church, so too do Old Believers fall into the absurdity of thinking the same way of the East, but nevertheless it is the reality of the worldview wherein these churches, dependant upon Italian printers, under Islamic rule, etc, found their faiths corrupted in ways unacceptable to Old Believers. This of course is not a nice thing to say or think, but it is an Old Believer reality. When you believe your faith and its practices are Apostolic, they must be defended and preserved.
There is a nice book by an OCA scholar/priest, Meyendorff, called Russia, Ritual, and Reform, which looks in detail at the liturgical changes made to the Old Rite. His finding, which mirrors all the modern Russian scholarship, is that the "corrections" were in fact innovations from Venetian printing presses, and did not correspond to any ancient Greek texts. But this is another topic altogether. Likewise, I hope you are not offended in what I hope is as straightforward and honest an answer as I can give!
May I ask for some clarification on the comment regarding ROCOR? Is he saying that the New Rite church offered repentance to ROCOR, and thus should do the same to the Old Believers? Or is he saying that ROCOR has offered repentance to the Old Believers?