I feel like the saddest part is the end. How can there be a church with no Eucharist or bishop? And yet the liturgical reforms were enforced without any consideration of the people, and thus there was a schism. Many of these ideals would be beneficial but is our time one where to become a Christian one should abounding the Eucharist in favor of an inability to accept change? Moreover, how does one our culture jump into what was barely able to be done by those risen in an austere environment which allowed one to accept such ascetic practice. I sympathize with the old believer’s for there zealousness for holiness but cannot accept breaking with the church out of fundamentalism. The church always has the ability to loose and bind… hmm…
You are right, the saddest part is the end! There are several presuppositions in your comment that I do not believe are correct, and we would go down a rabbit hole to respond in full, but here are some thoughts. Can there be a Church without a bishop? ...
What is left when all of the priesthood is killed? Can the Church be destroyed so easily? Is that all the Church is? If you were alive during the height of Arianism (to take one example), you would almost certainly have found yourself living in a region that, at some point, had no Orthodox priest or bishop. Would that have placed you outside of the Church, assuming you remained faithful? Absurd. This is a big topic, too big for the comment section perhaps. But alas, now, thank God, most Old Believers have the priesthood again.
Second, the Schism was not a result of liturgical reforms, these had been done before, most drastically a few centuries earlier when Russia moved from the Studion to the Jerusalem Typicon. No, the Schism was about condemning the beliefs and practices that had existed already in Russia for centuries, declaring them as heretical, and overturning conciliar affirmations of the same beliefs and practices. The Old Believers did not curse and anathematize Nikon and his cohorts, it was the other way around. I don't know of any major reforms in the Orthodox Church that were enacted with consideration of the people. That is not the standard. The only examples outside of Orthodoxy that come to mind are Vatican II (that should put the whole issue to rest) and the Protestant Reformation - both utter catastrophes. There was no "sensitive" way in which Nikon's curses and rejections would have resulted in a peaceful transition. I don't know what fundamentalism means. Can you clarify? But, again, I do not believe for a moment that holding true to your faith and beliefs in the face of the threat of death or damnation amounts to breaking with the Church. Very much the other way around. Also, speaking negatively about resisting change, in the context of the Orthodox Church, strikes me as a bizarre sentiment.
Yes, the Church has the ability to loose and bind. But what does that mean? I wonder if you just gave it a meaning far beyond what it has meant historically, and biblically. I hope you are not implying the Church has license, because it's the Church, to do what it pleases. No, the Church does not have the ability to declare wrong doctrines, to deny Tradition, or, more specifically to tell the faithful to stop worshiping in the way their saints had been doing for centuries. That is not binding and loosing.
Please do not take my response as a sign of offense. I appreciate very much when someone who has taken the time to read an article comments on it, even when it is to disagree!
I think what I was trying to convey was not how it came across. I do not mean the church has the ability to do anything it wants but that it is always able (with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a council at least) to continue to properly deal with changing circumstances in such a manner as to speak properly to that context. For instance there was not the ability to in the age of the martyrs to develop with the same conceptual sophistication what it was able to express at Nicea and Chalcedon required them to preserve orthodoxy by developing terminology which wasn’t exactly the same as say Cyril. My point is that the faith is always held in the Holy Spirit in the saints as to be able to continue to appropriately deal with each context. As for fundamentalism, I mean sticking to the forms or letter over the spirit. As for the old believers being put out of the church—that is not their fault—but the comparison to Arianism I’m not sure is the same situation. The Arian doctrine would destroy the possibility salvation; I’m not sure we can say though that how one crosses oneself for instance is of the same order of importance. Each patriarchate has introduced subtle differences, but it is still one church. All in all I was not trying to be hostile or offer condemnation but be able to understand. My only concern would be that the church (and in this case either side) wouldn’t be able to mend and restore communion. I am sympathetic to the old believers because they were unjustly treated and I fully agree in principle that the deviation between monastic and layperson is not meant to be near so great. As st Maximus says theology without praxis—ascesis is the theology of the demons. I guess my question would be if you think then that all Orthodox should be following this specific rule? I might have a different answer to this question but I am definitely on the same page with understanding that we are all called to be perfect as the father is perfect and this requires a level of asceticism and prayer which would seem unsettling to the westerner. I just don’t know if the westerner will be able to perform such a level of asceticism without years of receiving grace from the mysteries of the church and prayer and more rudimentary fasting. Again I’m not trying to be quarrelsome, but trying to understand. And most of all I do not mean disrespect. I was less careful speaking earlier and also you much more it seems about the history.
I think we are coming at this from very different perspectives. For example, I cannot say that the post-martyr period, or rather the Nicene period grew out of any sort of conceptual sophistication. The Nicene fathers did not lay out doctrines out of a greater intellectual capacity or development (they all paled in comparison to Origen), but were refuting heresies. The great dogmatic statements of the Ecumenical Councils were not philosophical musings in a vacuum, but only responses to heretical teachings. So, if there were no Arius, there would have been no Nicene Creed, and no need for it. The faith of the Nicene fathers and beyond was the same as that of the early martyr. The notion of the Church responding to the context of the times in each era is not one I would feel comfortable defending. Whenever I hear it asserted, it is done so to excuse an alleged abuse or innovation. The faith is one, and the same throughout the ages, and is sufficient for the ages. To think that the Church has to come up with creative ways to deal with generational issues, for me, is to think that the Tradition of the Church is essentially insufficient to carry the faithful as is. I do not believe that.
As to differences, there are many liturgical differences between Old Believers from different regions and backgrounds. Small differences are not what was at issue. For example, the sign of the Cross. That this could be an issue of fleeting importance for you is as shocking to me as I suppose its seeming over-importance is to me. In the formation of the fingers, in each step of the placement of the hand, and in the prayer that accompanies the sign, there is a definite and intentional confession of faith. You may not know this about the sign, but at the council of 1666, making the sign of the Cross with two fingers to represent the two natures of Christ was cursed as a heresy and for the three-fingered sign that replaced it, it was declared that the two folded down fingers were "inert". They represented nothing. It was only long after the Schism that the two lowered fingers were again claimed to be Christological symbols. The sign of the Cross was, and is, a matter of faith, not triviality. I have posted a few articles on the sign, which explains in detail the significance of each element of the sign. In the sign, the entire essence of our faith is expressed. It is worth dying for.
In the Arian example, I meant to provide a historical situation wherein the episcopate and priesthood was, for many, wiped away. My point was, if you held to your true faith in spite of the Arian takeover, would you still belong to the Church, even if you thought that the Arians had taken over every bishopric in the world?
As for whether everyone should be bound to these rules? No. Not even all Old Believers should be bound to this set. But bound to a set of rules of piety that is a product and expression of the Tradition of the monastic fathers of the Church? Yes. And that may look different in its particulars, but in the ideas behind them, they will not be different. And given the antiquity of just about all of these, I doubt the particular expressions of these rules would look too different.
To reflect on one example - should it be insisted that all Christians refrain from bathing in the nude to avoid any improper contact? No. But, given that the humanism of the modern world has perverted our sexual being, desires, and expression almost beyond belief, it does not seem so fitting to scoff at such zealous defenses.
I think that your assumption is right about Westerners, but I would throw in Easterners as well. But, speaking of Westerners, I don't know your background, but it is almost undeniable that among Roman Catholics, the state of their faith, leadership, and spirituality is appalling...except for those few who are resisting the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, and hold on to their Latin liturgical traditions. They know that with their liturgical tradition comes the complete package. Their own practices of piety, a definite set of doctrinal teachings that are part of their tradition. The liturgy is simply a point around which to rally.
Was your quote from St. Maximus the Confessor? If so, I wonder if I can get it on a bumper sticker... He too was, for a time, seemingly alone in a Church that had, seemingly lost its episcopate to heresy.
I took absolutely no insult from anything you said, and always enjoy stimulating conversation, even debate. It always comes with the terrible risk that I might learn something!
The majority of what I said was simply wondering if such rules couldn’t be able to change to fit content—without changing their ethos. As to the historical context part, this is mainly what I had in mind. Coming from very different starting points I think we have more in common then you might think. My only worry would be that we aren’t allowed to apply such rules to our situation—like today with bathhouses etc… thanks for clarifying.
I agree! I'll get crackin'...
I feel like the saddest part is the end. How can there be a church with no Eucharist or bishop? And yet the liturgical reforms were enforced without any consideration of the people, and thus there was a schism. Many of these ideals would be beneficial but is our time one where to become a Christian one should abounding the Eucharist in favor of an inability to accept change? Moreover, how does one our culture jump into what was barely able to be done by those risen in an austere environment which allowed one to accept such ascetic practice. I sympathize with the old believer’s for there zealousness for holiness but cannot accept breaking with the church out of fundamentalism. The church always has the ability to loose and bind… hmm…
You are right, the saddest part is the end! There are several presuppositions in your comment that I do not believe are correct, and we would go down a rabbit hole to respond in full, but here are some thoughts. Can there be a Church without a bishop? ...
What is left when all of the priesthood is killed? Can the Church be destroyed so easily? Is that all the Church is? If you were alive during the height of Arianism (to take one example), you would almost certainly have found yourself living in a region that, at some point, had no Orthodox priest or bishop. Would that have placed you outside of the Church, assuming you remained faithful? Absurd. This is a big topic, too big for the comment section perhaps. But alas, now, thank God, most Old Believers have the priesthood again.
Second, the Schism was not a result of liturgical reforms, these had been done before, most drastically a few centuries earlier when Russia moved from the Studion to the Jerusalem Typicon. No, the Schism was about condemning the beliefs and practices that had existed already in Russia for centuries, declaring them as heretical, and overturning conciliar affirmations of the same beliefs and practices. The Old Believers did not curse and anathematize Nikon and his cohorts, it was the other way around. I don't know of any major reforms in the Orthodox Church that were enacted with consideration of the people. That is not the standard. The only examples outside of Orthodoxy that come to mind are Vatican II (that should put the whole issue to rest) and the Protestant Reformation - both utter catastrophes. There was no "sensitive" way in which Nikon's curses and rejections would have resulted in a peaceful transition. I don't know what fundamentalism means. Can you clarify? But, again, I do not believe for a moment that holding true to your faith and beliefs in the face of the threat of death or damnation amounts to breaking with the Church. Very much the other way around. Also, speaking negatively about resisting change, in the context of the Orthodox Church, strikes me as a bizarre sentiment.
Yes, the Church has the ability to loose and bind. But what does that mean? I wonder if you just gave it a meaning far beyond what it has meant historically, and biblically. I hope you are not implying the Church has license, because it's the Church, to do what it pleases. No, the Church does not have the ability to declare wrong doctrines, to deny Tradition, or, more specifically to tell the faithful to stop worshiping in the way their saints had been doing for centuries. That is not binding and loosing.
Please do not take my response as a sign of offense. I appreciate very much when someone who has taken the time to read an article comments on it, even when it is to disagree!
I think what I was trying to convey was not how it came across. I do not mean the church has the ability to do anything it wants but that it is always able (with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a council at least) to continue to properly deal with changing circumstances in such a manner as to speak properly to that context. For instance there was not the ability to in the age of the martyrs to develop with the same conceptual sophistication what it was able to express at Nicea and Chalcedon required them to preserve orthodoxy by developing terminology which wasn’t exactly the same as say Cyril. My point is that the faith is always held in the Holy Spirit in the saints as to be able to continue to appropriately deal with each context. As for fundamentalism, I mean sticking to the forms or letter over the spirit. As for the old believers being put out of the church—that is not their fault—but the comparison to Arianism I’m not sure is the same situation. The Arian doctrine would destroy the possibility salvation; I’m not sure we can say though that how one crosses oneself for instance is of the same order of importance. Each patriarchate has introduced subtle differences, but it is still one church. All in all I was not trying to be hostile or offer condemnation but be able to understand. My only concern would be that the church (and in this case either side) wouldn’t be able to mend and restore communion. I am sympathetic to the old believers because they were unjustly treated and I fully agree in principle that the deviation between monastic and layperson is not meant to be near so great. As st Maximus says theology without praxis—ascesis is the theology of the demons. I guess my question would be if you think then that all Orthodox should be following this specific rule? I might have a different answer to this question but I am definitely on the same page with understanding that we are all called to be perfect as the father is perfect and this requires a level of asceticism and prayer which would seem unsettling to the westerner. I just don’t know if the westerner will be able to perform such a level of asceticism without years of receiving grace from the mysteries of the church and prayer and more rudimentary fasting. Again I’m not trying to be quarrelsome, but trying to understand. And most of all I do not mean disrespect. I was less careful speaking earlier and also you much more it seems about the history.
I think we are coming at this from very different perspectives. For example, I cannot say that the post-martyr period, or rather the Nicene period grew out of any sort of conceptual sophistication. The Nicene fathers did not lay out doctrines out of a greater intellectual capacity or development (they all paled in comparison to Origen), but were refuting heresies. The great dogmatic statements of the Ecumenical Councils were not philosophical musings in a vacuum, but only responses to heretical teachings. So, if there were no Arius, there would have been no Nicene Creed, and no need for it. The faith of the Nicene fathers and beyond was the same as that of the early martyr. The notion of the Church responding to the context of the times in each era is not one I would feel comfortable defending. Whenever I hear it asserted, it is done so to excuse an alleged abuse or innovation. The faith is one, and the same throughout the ages, and is sufficient for the ages. To think that the Church has to come up with creative ways to deal with generational issues, for me, is to think that the Tradition of the Church is essentially insufficient to carry the faithful as is. I do not believe that.
As to differences, there are many liturgical differences between Old Believers from different regions and backgrounds. Small differences are not what was at issue. For example, the sign of the Cross. That this could be an issue of fleeting importance for you is as shocking to me as I suppose its seeming over-importance is to me. In the formation of the fingers, in each step of the placement of the hand, and in the prayer that accompanies the sign, there is a definite and intentional confession of faith. You may not know this about the sign, but at the council of 1666, making the sign of the Cross with two fingers to represent the two natures of Christ was cursed as a heresy and for the three-fingered sign that replaced it, it was declared that the two folded down fingers were "inert". They represented nothing. It was only long after the Schism that the two lowered fingers were again claimed to be Christological symbols. The sign of the Cross was, and is, a matter of faith, not triviality. I have posted a few articles on the sign, which explains in detail the significance of each element of the sign. In the sign, the entire essence of our faith is expressed. It is worth dying for.
In the Arian example, I meant to provide a historical situation wherein the episcopate and priesthood was, for many, wiped away. My point was, if you held to your true faith in spite of the Arian takeover, would you still belong to the Church, even if you thought that the Arians had taken over every bishopric in the world?
As for whether everyone should be bound to these rules? No. Not even all Old Believers should be bound to this set. But bound to a set of rules of piety that is a product and expression of the Tradition of the monastic fathers of the Church? Yes. And that may look different in its particulars, but in the ideas behind them, they will not be different. And given the antiquity of just about all of these, I doubt the particular expressions of these rules would look too different.
To reflect on one example - should it be insisted that all Christians refrain from bathing in the nude to avoid any improper contact? No. But, given that the humanism of the modern world has perverted our sexual being, desires, and expression almost beyond belief, it does not seem so fitting to scoff at such zealous defenses.
I think that your assumption is right about Westerners, but I would throw in Easterners as well. But, speaking of Westerners, I don't know your background, but it is almost undeniable that among Roman Catholics, the state of their faith, leadership, and spirituality is appalling...except for those few who are resisting the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, and hold on to their Latin liturgical traditions. They know that with their liturgical tradition comes the complete package. Their own practices of piety, a definite set of doctrinal teachings that are part of their tradition. The liturgy is simply a point around which to rally.
Was your quote from St. Maximus the Confessor? If so, I wonder if I can get it on a bumper sticker... He too was, for a time, seemingly alone in a Church that had, seemingly lost its episcopate to heresy.
I took absolutely no insult from anything you said, and always enjoy stimulating conversation, even debate. It always comes with the terrible risk that I might learn something!
The majority of what I said was simply wondering if such rules couldn’t be able to change to fit content—without changing their ethos. As to the historical context part, this is mainly what I had in mind. Coming from very different starting points I think we have more in common then you might think. My only worry would be that we aren’t allowed to apply such rules to our situation—like today with bathhouses etc… thanks for clarifying.
I would love to see the longer version with references. It is always good to be able to show sources for such things.