To many, the Old Believers seem to be a kind of monolithic formation. Meanwhile, it is quite complexly structured both in church and social terms - from taiga hermitages to completely secular urban strata. Moreover, the Old Believers are fragmented, consisting of large and small groups of believers who have little communication with each other. With some Old Believer concords and groups of believers, dialogue, and productive dialogue, is possible, but with others it is simply unthinkable. Some Old Believer communities consist, according to the definition of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971, of “Orthodox believing Christians”; others, depending on the degree of self-isolation, are gradually taking the path of acquiring signs of sectarian formations. It is clear that therefore a constructive dialogue is not possible in principle with all Old Believers.

Let us make some preliminary remarks. Despite all the clarity of the concept of dialogue, as a conversation or negotiation between two parties, church life has developed its own stereotype of understanding this term. Here, dialogue usually means an organized two-way negotiation process pursuing some positive goal - the unification of Churches, the creation of a common doctrinal formula, etc. In relations with the Old Believers, for now, in reality, we can only talk about attempts to find mutual language for potential dialogue. Therefore, it would be more correct to call this phase of the relationship, for example, interviews, meaning by them this form of dialogue when the goal is not to create some kind of joint product, but simply to try to understand each other. To begin further movement forward, it is necessary to come to an understanding, preferably mutual, of what exactly separates us. And for this we need meetings, interviews, maybe even discussions, albeit formally non-binding, but allowing us to better understand each other.

Today, it is important that the results of such interviews become available to the entire Russian Orthodox community, that is, both to the children of the Russian Orthodox Church and to the Old Believers, since they can bring undoubted benefit to both. In our opinion, it is precisely the possibility of self-deepening into Russian national history valuable in such interviews as it can facilitate the search constructive solutions for the future.

If we talk about the problems that arise in today's attempts to establish communication with the Old Believers, then one such problem has already been named - until now, not only has there not been a joint attempt to objectively comprehend the phenomena of the past from the standpoint of modernity, but there is no common terminological base for this. Let us give a simple example: the absolute majority of representatives of one of the two largest agreements of Old Believers-Priests, who have had their own small theological seminary for several years, rightly assert that the members of this agreement have ritual and canonical disagreements with the Russian Orthodox Church, but no dogmatic, doctrinal ones; many representatives of the other consensus constantly emphasize the presence of dogmatic differences, invariably citing ritual ones as an example.

This is another problem in establishing communication. On the one hand, in pre-schism books, say, the sign of the cross, in accordance with the worldview of that time, was called “dogma,” which causes difficulties in attempts at mutual understanding, but difficulties can be overcome if one does not fundamentally deny the value of mastering historical and theological sciences. But, on the other hand, large Old Believer concords have absorbed quite a lot over the past 10-15 years a large number of people who were not brought up in the Old Believer tradition, but were militantly opposed to the Russian Orthodox Church. These people are characterized by aggression and intransigence that is surprising for church-going Christians. With the activity characteristic of neophytes, they tirelessly seek out more and more “heresies” in the Russian Orthodox Church, introducing all kinds of disorder and nervousness into the ranks of their community. I would not like to be mistaken, but it seems that healthy-minded adherents of church antiquity who originally belonged to the Old Believers nevertheless intuitively began to recognize clearly alien voices in their midst, quite openly conducted by the same baton that controls the so-called “alternative Orthodoxy.”

Unfortunately, a certain problem in the development of communication is created by some media, especially secular ones, which are accustomed to looking for sensations and are not burdened with a sense of responsibility for the content of their publications. Of course, a developed church consciousness cannot recognize the state of church schism as a natural and normal phenomenon. But the feeling of grief should not obscure the sense of reality - there is currently no talk of any unification with the Old Believers. No matter how loudly the Christian conscience calls upon us to end, and quickly, with the sin of schism, we must proceed from objective reality. Healing the centuries-old schism that has given rise to violence, resentment, mistrust, and mutual alienation, even if possible in principle, requires a subtle, delicate approach that does not tolerate fuss and haste. There are now many people in the Old Believers who are not ready not only for dialogue, but even for communication with the Orthodox. It should be welcomed in every possible way that the majority of modern leaders of the Old Believers show a willingness to communicate and cooperate with the Russian Orthodox Church. And more than once I heard from these people fair complaints about media reports about supposedly already ongoing negotiations on unification. Such messages today can be assessed as provocative, perhaps intended only to complicate communication, since they are not true and because the reaction to such messages from different groups of believers can vary significantly. It should be remembered that Christian virtue is quiet and unobtrusive by nature, and its opponents, no matter how modest their number, are capable of destroying much and confusing many hearts.

In general, we can say that relations with the Old Believers are now developing dynamically, although not without certain difficulties. And the main goal of these relations at the present time could be called the achievement of a conscious understanding not only by many Old Believer leaders, but also by the majority of believers, that maintaining communication with the Russian Orthodox Church today is not just useful for them and for us, but also necessary. And today we are not talking about prayerful communication, which is what many Old Believers, concerned about preserving their identity, are afraid of. When preserving national identity is on the agenda, it makes sense to look at least a little higher than your fence. What if behind this fence is not an enemy, but a neighbor who faces the same dangers, which can hardly be overcome alone?

Old Believers. Touches to a historical portrait

The history of dialogue with the Old Believers exists as long as the Old Believers themselves exist. For almost 350 years, vast experience in polemics with the “zealots of ancient piety” has been accumulated. Dialogue with them continues to this day, but few of his contemporaries are familiar with it.

The state authorities and the official Church initially treated the Old Believers as heretics and persecuted them. The scale of persecution was by no means invented by the Old Believers themselves, for it was precisely these persecutions that gave rise to a schism in the Russian Church. The former Greek hierarchs at the Council of 1666-1667 advised the tsar to use executions against “schismatics.” Fearing executions, crowds of thousands of adherents of the old faith went into the deep forests or went abroad. Those whom the persecutors managed to find preferred self-immolation to torture. According to Church historian A.V. Kartashev, by 1690 more than 20 thousand people died in self-immolations.

Secular power and Old Believers

It should be especially noted that it was the state power that initiated both the liturgical reform and the persecution of Old Believers.

The Old Believers suffered especially severe persecution under Princess Sophia. People could even be executed for adhering to the old faith. During the time of Peter I there was no open persecution of Old Believers, but at the same time the Old Believers population was subject to double taxes. During the reign of Catherine II, the Old Believers did not experience any special oppression from the state. Emperors Paul I and Alexander I continued their benevolent policy. Under Nicholas I, new persecutions began: Old Believer churches and monasteries were closed and converted to Orthodox or Edinoverie. A little known fact is that the writer P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky, who wrote the novels “In the Forests” and “On the Mountains,” was an official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and during the “anti-schismatic” campaign he was personally involved in the liquidation of Old Believers monasteries, earning the special dislike of the Old Believers.

During the reign of Emperors Alexander II and Alexander III, the oppression of the Old Believers began to subside. And under Nicholas II, after the promulgation of the “Manifesto on the Principles of Tolerance” in 1905, the Old Believers received freedom. The period between two revolutions in the history of the Old Believers is called the “golden age” by many researchers. During this time, the Old Believers built more than a thousand churches; Congresses and Councils were held almost annually, and several unions and brotherhoods were created. In 1912, the Old Believer Cemetery was opened at the Rogozhskoe cemetery. pedagogical institute with a 6-year training program, led by the father of the future academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences B.A. Rybakova. The institute never saw its first graduation: in 1916, all senior students were sent to active army. Everything achieved was completely destroyed after 1917. The Old Believers, like all Christians, began to be persecuted by the new government, and new martyrs appeared for the old faith.

Evgeniy Yuferev

Church and Old Believers

The Old Believers were relatively unified only during the lifetime of such “zealots of ancient piety” as Archpriest Avvakum, Deacon Theodore, and others. After their death, different trends began to emerge among the Old Believers. Some Old Believers refused to accept priests from the Russian Church and, therefore, were left without a priesthood at all. The name “bespopovtsy” stuck to them. The other, less radical part of the Old Believers did not renounce the “fugitive” priesthood - these are the so-called “priests”. Both the “priests” and the “non-priests” were divided, in turn, into various “talk” and “agreements”.

The official Church continued to treat the Old Believers as heretics. Metropolitan Dimitri of Rostov in his “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” wrote that the Old Believers believe in “another Jesus,” in the “equal-eared one.” The fact is that, in accordance with ancient tradition, Old Believers write the name “Isus” with one letter “i”. Metropolitan Dimitri noted that this spelling is similar to Greek word, which translates as “equal-eared.” Such a low level of argumentation did not contribute to dialogue, but, unfortunately, it was precisely this level that was consolidated and used by the synodal missionaries in polemics with the Old Believers. The tradition of such criticism was supported by such hierarchs of the Orthodox Church as Archbishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod, Bishop Ignatius of Tobolsk and Metropolitan Arseny of Rostov.

This level of controversy outraged not only the Old Believers, but also fellow believers. Edinobelievers are Orthodox Christians-Old Believers who joined the Orthodox Church on the conditions of full preservation of the pre-Nikon rite. In the 18th century, there were several cases of Old Believers joining the Orthodox Church on these conditions. For example, the founder of the Sarov Hermitage, Hieromonk Isaac († 1737), convinced a priestless Fedoseyevite named John to join the Orthodox Church. And in 1799, a whole group of Rogozh Old Believers turned to Metropolitan Platon with a request to join them with the Orthodox Church. In response to this petition, Metropolitan Plato wrote “Rules or Points of Conformity.” According to them, the oaths of the Council of 1666-1667 to the old rites were lifted only from those Old Believers who joined the Orthodox Church. Fellow believers were allowed to receive communion in New Believers churches, but at the same time, New Believers were forbidden to receive communion in a Edinoverie church. Only in case of emergency, in the absence of a New Believer priest in the area, could a New Believer receive the guidance of a priest of the same faith. These restrictions were abolished at the Local Council of 1917-1918.

Due to the preservation of oaths to the old rites, the Old Believers were in no hurry to join the Orthodox Church. Only in 1971 old and new rite s were recognized as equally saving. The resolutions of the 1971 Council created new conditions for relations with the Old Believers. After this, the walls of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church were opened for the Old Believers, which made it possible for such representatives of the modern Old Believers as Ivan Mirolyubov, Bishop Anthony (Baskakov, Old Orthodox Church of Russia) and Archbishop Alexander (Kalinin) (Russian Old Orthodox Church) to receive higher theological education.

In the 19th century, state power, in fact, used Edinoverie to abolish the Old Believers. IN Russian Empire Old Believer monasteries and monasteries were closed by violent methods. They were either completely destroyed or handed over to fellow believers. In particular, in the 1840-1850s, the famous Old Believer center in Moscow - the Rogozhskoe cemetery - was transferred to the Edinoverie, as part of its parishioners joined the Edinoverie. One of the Rogozhsky churches - Nikolsky - became Edinoverie, and in Pokrovsky cathedral At the request of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), the altars were sealed. They were revealed again only in 1905 by decree of Tsar Nicholas II.

In 1862, the so-called District Epistle appeared among the Belokrinitsky Old Believers. His goal was to get rid of some “non-priestly” ideas from among the Old Believers-“Priests”, which they mistakenly accepted as true. The message stated that the Russian Orthodox Church is the True Church, and the name Jesus in the new spelling is not the name of the Antichrist. The message caused a split, which the Belokrinitsky Old Believers failed to heal. Subsequently, the “anti-okruzhniks” lost their hierarchy, but small communities of them existed in Guslitsy near Moscow until recently.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the attitude of the Church and the state towards the Old Believers gradually changed. After the publication of the “Manifesto on Strengthening the Principles of Tolerance” on April 17, 1905, religious communities became free from state pressure. Changes also occurred in missionary work with Old Believers. Now the missionaries could no longer count on help state power in the fight against division. At the meetings of the Pre-Conciliar Presence (1905-1906), devoted to the problems of mission, the need was stipulated to “fundamentally change the methods of missionary work among schismatics.” In 1908, the Synod issued “Rules for the organization of an internal mission,” according to which state power could not be involved in it. However, the reconstruction of missionary work proceeded very slowly.

At the Local Council of 1917-1918, the work of the Department for Issues of Common Faith and Old Believers was headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Two reports were submitted to the plenary meeting, containing directly opposite points of view: Archpriest Simeon Shleev proposed a project for the establishment of coreligionist bishops subordinate to diocesan bishops, and Bishop Seraphim (Alexandrov) of Chelyabinsk feared that the establishment of a coreligionist episcopate would lead to a separation of coreligionists from the Church. After 1905, attitudes towards co-religionists also changed, therefore, by decision of the Council, 5 co-religionist episcopal sees were created. One of them, Okhtenskaya (in Petrograd), was occupied by Simeon (Shleev), who was ordained bishop. Having received bishops of the same faith, the coreligionists by no means left the Orthodox Church. Bishop Simeon proved his loyalty to the Orthodox Church by the fact that, without going into any schisms, he accepted martyrdom. At the Council of Bishops in 2000, he was canonized as a saint in the host of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. During the time of persecution of the Church, it was not possible to preserve the Edinoverie see in Russia.

At the Council of Bishops in 2004, it was decided to create a Commission for the Affairs of Old Believer Parishes and for interaction with Old Believers, which opens a new page in relation to the Old Believers.

The snake, which the Moscow Patriarchate so carefully warmed on its chest, nurturing the schismatic Old Believers, has grown up and is ready to begin the struggle for power. The other day, an article appeared on the website ura.news under the very intriguing title “The future second patriarch of Russia: “Putin has come, like the king before!”,” in which the author clearly hints that not only the head of the Old Believers claims to be the Russian Patriarch, but They are waiting for him in Russia as a Patriarch!

The very title of the article is a low deflection towards secular power. In addition, its author is trying to prove that it is Cornelius and his followers who are close to the people and are the bearers of the true faith, and not the Russian Orthodox Church: “Despite the strictness of the rules, the Old Believers turned out to be much more democratic than the ministers of the Russian Orthodox Church: we, journalists, were accepted as relatives, were inundated with gifts and even invited to dinner... It turned out to be easier with an audience with the primate: unlike the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, to whom the FSO guards will not let you come closer than a pistol shot, you can easily talk with the main Old Believer of Russia while sitting on the bench and asking any questions..."

Corniliy himself, in the spirit of his Ukrainian colleague, the schismatic Philaret, declared that the Old Believers are “the entire fullness of the church, starting with Prince Vladimir, and all the millions Orthodox people. I think that they are all in our church, because we, the Old Believers, are keeping, have kept and will keep the Old Believers, the true unreformed church that Prince Vladimir brought.” But, as we said above, none of the saints of the Church RECOGNIZED the Old Believers, and everyone, as one, called them schismatics, anathematized and excommunicated from the Church.

Despite this, the author of the article maintains his line. “So we ask. For example, why in the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill is the Patriarch of All Rus', and you in the Russian Old Believer Church are the Metropolitan of All Rus'? In terms of position, you are the same - you must be a patriarch! ...One day the head of the Russian Old Believer Church will become a patriarch?” he asks the head of the schismatics.

“Perhaps,” Cornelius replies. “Nothing is impossible for the Lord.” And he further states that the Old Believers are actively establishing connections with the Bespopovtsy sect, “with whom they have not met for almost 300 years”; but with the support of the state, several years have already passed between them round tables" “Their senior mentors from St. Petersburg and the Baltic states come, we solve general issues, establish contact. Because there are not so many of us, the keepers of the ancient faith... And the government is interested in restoring Russian Orthodoxy - hence the attention of the authorities and the president personally to us,” explains the chief Old Believer.

“We, at URA.RU, published a long interview with you when you met with Vladimir Putin. Has anything changed since this meeting? Have the authorities, local administrations become more loyal to the Old Believers?” the correspondent asks the interlocutor.

Here are a few more false and crafty statements of the main Old Believer, which clearly show his intentions to discredit the Russian Orthodox Church and expose his schismatic organization as the true church: “Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, whose 100th birthday will be celebrated at the end of this year, once said that the sad 17 The 17th century gave birth to the 17th year. What Nikon and Alexei Mikhailovich did, this deviation from the ancient faith, undermined the basis, the foundation of Orthodoxy, which was created by our ancestors - Prince Vladimir, Sergei of Radonezh and other Russian saints. And people lost faith."

To the question: “For the Russian Orthodox Church, the cornerstone today is the topic of the remains of Nicholas II and members of his family, found near Yekaterinburg: the Russian Orthodox Church does not recognize them in any way, despite the investigation carried out twice by the state, numerous examinations and the position of members of the House of Romanov around the world . What about your position? Do you recognize the royal remains?

He replies: “We are very grateful to Tsar Nicholas II for giving the Old Believers relative freedom in 1905. It was such a joy... But, on the other hand, he is outside our church - he was a new believer. Talking about the remains is not very relevant for us: he is not canonized in our country. Yes, we are grateful to him, but we remember that throughout the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, the Old Believers were persecuted - sometimes more, sometimes less, but they never stopped. If the Romanovs had protected us, there would have been unification - that would be a different matter.”

Correspondent: “And if an Orthodox person in your church, out of habit, crosses himself with three fingers, is that scary?”

Cornelius: “We have never been afraid to pray the correct way - with two fingers, and now the New Believers are not afraid to be baptized with two fingers - since 1971. Their superiors gathered and said: sorry, brothers, a mistake has occurred, we admit both, pray as you wish. And we, Old Believers, leave two-fingered, but partly accept three-fingered” (interestingly, representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, lobbying for the establishment of a so-called dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believer Church, are naive to such an extent that they do not see outright ridicule on the part of schismatics, who are clearly enjoying exaggerating "apology" of the Orthodox hierarchs to them? - editor's note religruss.info).

“And now we must, by any means, and sometimes with our lives, like our ancestors, our saving Old Believer Orthodox faith preserve in order to save your souls and enter the kingdom of God, which is what I wish for you,” - finally, the head of the schismatic Old Believers practically called for war with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Old Believers are schismatics who left the Orthodox Church in the 17th century and were anathematized. Here is what Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) writes about this: “The essence of their [schismatics’] teaching<…>consisted not only in the fact that they wanted to adhere to only old printed books and supposedly old rituals and did not submit to the Church, did not accept newly corrected printed books from it, but at the same time that they considered these latter books to be full of heresies, the Church itself was called heretical and they asserted that the Church is no longer the Church, its bishops are not bishops, its priests are not priests, and all its Sacraments and rites are desecrated by the filth of Antichrist; The schismatics not only opposed the Church, but completely denied it, denied it and, according to their convictions, were already completely separated from it. It was necessary for the Church, for its part, to publicly declare that it no longer recognizes them as its children, that is, for it to anathematize and cut off from itself those who had previously voluntarily fallen away from it and became its enemies.<...>It was not the Church that rejected them and is rejecting them, but they themselves rejected the Church even before and do not cease to stubbornly reject her, calling her in their pathetic blindness a spiritual harlot, and all her faithful children, all Orthodox, sons of lawlessness, servants of the Antichrist.”

However, in 1971, at the Local Council, the ecumenist and traitor to the Orthodox faith, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), ​​who died at the feet of his master, the Pope, initiated the abolition of the “oaths of 1667.” It was after his report that the modernists present at the Council adopted a resolution on the “abolition of oaths.”

It should be noted that from the very first lines of the report “On the abolition of oaths on old rites”, presented to the Council on May 31, Metropolitan Nikodim stood in solidarity with the “Old Believers”, calling the traditional Orthodox Byzantine rite “new”, and the schismatic one “old”, and leveled the Orthodox with schismatics: “A lot of effort on both sides - both the New Believer and the Old Believer - was spent in the past on proving the other side wrong.” “Sober-minded church people on both sides understood the destructiveness and worthlessness of mutual strife and deeply mourned the division of Russian Orthodox Christians,” he further stated, wittingly or unwittingly blaspheming in his words a whole host of Russian saints and ascetics of piety and a great many faithful who had cared for the former times about healing the “Old Believer” schism, who worked on compiling polemical literature, organizing all kinds of debates and conversations with those who had fallen away from the Church, creating anti-schism missions, etc., as not possessing sobriety of mind. If we follow the logic of Metropolitan Nikodim, the great Russian saints Demetrius of Rostov, Ignatius (Brianchaninov), Theophan the Recluse, Venerable Seraphim Sarovsky, the Optina Elders and many other spiritual pillars of the 17th-20th centuries, who exposed the lies of the schismatics and called them to repentance, were not among those who “understood everything” and “deeply grieved.”

Thus, Metropolitan Nikodim himself, and all those present at this renovation Council, went against the decision of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, which imposed an anathema on the schismatic Old Believers, as well. And 29 hierarchs took part in that Council: three Patriarchs - Alexandria, Antioch and Moscow, twelve metropolitans, nine archbishops and five bishops, among whom were delegates from the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople. In addition, it was attended by many archimandrites, abbots and other clergy, Russian and foreign. Thus, the fullness of the Church sat at the Council Eastern Church Christ's. The Fathers of the Council commanded that everyone submit to the Holy Eastern Apostolic Church: accept the liturgical books corrected and printed under His Holiness Patriarch Nikon and after him, and serve all church services according to them; made the sign of the cross with three rather than two fingers, etc. Having consolidated the decisions of the Local Council of 1666 and other previously held church meetings that considered the issue of schism, the Great Moscow Council decided: “We command this conciliar command and testament to all to keep unchanged and to submit to the Holy Eastern Church. If anyone does not listen to our command and does not submit to the Holy Eastern Church and this Consecrated Council, or begins to contradict and resist us, we, by the authority given to us, will cast out and curse such an opponent, if he is from a sacred rank, and betray him if he is from a secular rank. curse and anathema as a heretic and rebellious and cut off from the Church of God until he comes to his senses and returns to the truth by repentance.”

In addition, the decisions of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667 on the “Old Believers” were accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church and all its saints who lived from 1667 to 1971. Over the past centuries, the “Old Believers” themselves, as is known, have split into many sects warring with each other, united only in their hatred of the true Church of Christ. Thus, it is obvious that the anathemas were imposed fairly, and, therefore, the only way out from under them for schismatics remains sincere repentance and reunification with the Orthodox Church.

Let's see what, for example, the Monk Paisiy Velichkovsky says about the oaths and anathemas that were conciliarly imposed in the 17th century on the Old Believers opposing the Conciliar Church: “An oath or anathema on those opposing the Conciliar Church, i.e. on those who are baptized with two fingers or who resist and do not submit in any other way, having been collectively imposed by the Eastern Patriarchs, the grace of Christ will remain firm, unshakable and insoluble until the end of the age. You also ask: was the imposed anathema subsequently resolved by some Eastern Council or not? I answer: could there be such a Council, with the exception of some one contrary to God and the Holy Church, which would gather to refute the truth and confirm lies? There will never be such an evil Council in the Church of Christ. You also ask: can any bishops, apart from the Council and the consent and will of the Eastern Patriarchs, authorize such an oath? I answer: this is in no way possible; There is no discord with God, but peace. Know for sure that all bishops, upon their ordination, receive the same grace of the Holy Spirit and are obliged, like the apple of their eye, to preserve the purity and integrity of the Orthodox faith, as well as all the apostolic traditions and rules of the holy Apostles, ecumenical and local Councils and God-bearing fathers, which the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church contains. From the same Holy Spirit they received the power to bind and decide according to the order that the Holy Spirit established through the holy Apostles in the holy Church. To destroy apostolic traditions and church rules - the bishops did not receive such power from the Holy Spirit, therefore, it is impossible for either the bishops or the Eastern patriarchs to resolve the above-mentioned anathema on opponents of the conciliar Church, as correctly and in accordance with the holy Councils, and if anyone attempted to do this , then it would be contrary to God and the holy Church. You also ask: if none of the bishops can resolve this anathema without the Eastern patriarchs, then was it not resolved by the Eastern patriarchs? I answer: not only is it impossible for any bishop without the Eastern Patriarchs, but also for the Eastern Patriarchs themselves to resolve this oath, as has already been said enough, for such an anathema is eternally insoluble. You ask: won’t some of the Christians, in their resistance and unrepentance, die in this conciliar oath? Woe to us! I answer: this question of yours contains three perplexities for me... In the first case, I am perplexed, what kind of Christians are they who resist the Catholic Church without any repentance? Such people are not worthy to be called Christians, but according to a fair church court they should be called schismatics. True Christians obey the Holy Church in everything. Second: won’t they, in their resistance and unrepentance, die in this anathema of theirs? I am perplexed about this question of yours: for how can these imaginary Christians, remaining unrepentant in their constant disobedience to the Church, not die in this conciliar anathema? Are they immortal, the ones you wonder if they will die? And how can they not die, being mortal, and even being under anathema, and doubly mortal both mentally and physically, just as they died under the same conciliar anathema without repentance and countless schismatics always die? So these imaginary Christians, if they do not turn to the Church of Christ with true repentance with all their hearts, then they will undoubtedly die under the above-mentioned conciliar anathema. My third bewilderment relates to your words: woe to us! These words of yours put into my soul the thought whether you are those certain Christians who unrepentantly oppose the Church, and fear and tremble at the anathema imposed by the Catholic Church on such opponents, and therefore inquire so carefully about it, whether some Eastern Council has resolved it ? Afraid of dying under anathema and unable to bear the constant remorse, you cry out: woe to us! If you are true Orthodox Christians, obedient in everything to the Church that gave birth to you through holy baptism, and baptized according to the tradition of the holy Apostles with the first three fingers of your right hand, and you ask me not about yourself, but about others, then the above-mentioned anathema does not apply to you, and therefore you should never have spoken of yourself so pitifully: woe to us! These words of yours inspired me with the above-stated opinion about you, which may be destroyed from my soul. I ask you, give me, through a case known to you, perfect evidence of your wisdom, for we cannot have any communication with those who resist the Holy Church and cross themselves with two fingers. You also ask: will church commemoration be pleasant for them? I answer: if you are talking about those who resist the Conciliar Church and die in their resistance and unrepentance, then believe me that church commemoration of such will not only not be pleasant, but will also be disgusting to both God and the Holy Church, and the priest who dares to commemorate them , sins mortally."

Dialogue with the Old Believers

One of the aspects of Metropolitan Kirill’s activity as chairman of the DECR was establishing contacts with the Old Believer consensus in order to overcome the schism that had existed for about 350 years.

The origins of this schism go back to the activities of Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681), who in the mid-17th century initiated a number of liturgical reforms. In particular, he continued the “book law” begun by his predecessors, but he went much further in correcting liturgical texts and church customs. He demanded the replacement of the traditional for Rus' two-fingered sign (the sign of the cross with two folded fingers) with three-fingered one, in accordance with contemporary Greek practice.

Archpriests John Neronov and Avvakum, who were popular among the people, opposed Nikon's reform.

In 1654, Nikon convened a Council, which decided to correct the liturgical books in accordance with the Greek ones and approved triplicity. Bishop Pavel of Kolomna tried to object, but Nikon overthrew him from the pulpit and subjected him to severe corporal punishment, as a result of which he went crazy. Nikon's activities were regarded as blasphemous by opponents of the reforms; the leaders of the schism saw Nikon as the Antichrist.

The oaths (curses) on the old rituals imposed by the Moscow Council of 1656, in which the Patriarchs of Antioch and Moscow participated, did not prevent, but, on the contrary, contributed to the further spread of the Old Believers. The schism did not stop even after Nikon left the patriarchate and even after his deposition, since the Great Moscow Council of 1667, which followed Nikon’s deposition, upheld the oaths to the old rituals and approved the reform carried out by Nikon.

In XVIII-XIIn the 10th centuries, the Old Believers, despite state repression, spread throughout Russia and beyond its borders. The Old Believers have broken up into many opinions, or “agreements”, of which the main ones at present are priests and bespopovtsy- the former have a church hierarchy and priesthood, the latter do not.

As we have already said, in 1971, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, on the initiative of Metropolitan Nikodim, canceled the oaths imposed by the Councils of 1666 and 1667 on the old rites. In its definition on this issue, the Council emphasized that “the salvific significance of the rites is not contradicted by the diversity of their external expression, which was always inherent in the ancient undivided Church of Christ and which was not a stumbling block and a source of division in it.” .

Some Old Believers responded positively to the decisions of the 1971 Council. In particular, the Ancient Orthodox Pomeranian Church “welcomed this decision of the Russian Patriarchal Church and called it a “manifestation of good will”, which “eliminates mutual alienation and hostility, creates the preconditions for better mutual understanding” . A fundamental readiness for dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church was expressed .

A full-fledged dialogue, however, never began during Soviet times. In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, relations between the Russian Church and the Old Believers were quite formal. Individual representatives of the Old Believers met with representatives of the Patriarchate at various events, but there was no systematic dialogue aimed at overcoming differences.

Only in the 1990s did systematic work begin to prepare a full-scale dialogue between the Russian Church and the Old Believer consensus. In 1998, Metropolitan Kirill initiated a discussion of the topic of Old Believers at the December meeting of the Holy Synod. Having discussed the Metropolitan’s report on the state of Orthodox-Old Believers relations, the Synod recognized the importance of developing and deepening cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Believers in order to strengthen the traditional spiritual values ​​and norms of life of our society. The Department of External Church Relations was instructed to carefully study the forms and prospects of cooperation between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Old Believers, preparing appropriate proposals for the development of dialogue between them.

After this decision, official meetings with representatives of various Old Believer accords became more regular. In particular, on June 3, 1999, at the DECR, a meeting took place between Metropolitan Kirill and a delegation from the Ancient Orthodox Pomeranian Church of Latvia, headed by the Chairman of the Central Council, senior mentor of the Riga Grebenshchikov Old Believer community Ioann Mirolyubov. At the meeting, ways to eliminate the negative attitude towards the use of old or new rites in Orthodox worship were discussed. The parties outlined some aspects of bilateral cooperation in the spiritual revival of society and discussed action plans to develop mutually acceptable agreements that do not introduce any fundamental innovations into what was determined by the Local Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971 and 1988 in relation to the Old Believers . Following the meeting, a memorandum was signed, which formed the basis for further activities in this area.

The next day, June 4, 1999, the Holy Synod of the Russian Church adopted a definition in which it called on diocesan bishops and clergy to take into account in their practical activities church-wide decisions that abolish oaths to the old rites. The Synod called on church publishing houses to “take a critical approach to the republication of literature published in pre-revolutionary times, when, under the influence of secular power, the Old Believers were criticized by incorrect and unacceptable methods.” The Synod condemned “the violent methods of overcoming the schism that have taken place in history, which were the result of the interference of secular authorities in the affairs of the Church.” .

On July 19, 1999, by decision of the Holy Synod, a Commission was created under the Department for External Church Relations to coordinate the relationship of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Old Believers. The commission included representatives of various Old Believer communities. However, according to Metropolitan Kirill, “life has shown that the commission, within the framework of which it was supposed to unite both representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church and representatives of various Old Believer agreements, encounters constant difficulties in its work. And this slowed down the development of dialogue.” As the Metropolitan noted, “dialogue with the Old Believers develops more successfully separately with each agreement” .

At the Council of Bishops in 2000, Metropolitan Kirill made a report in which he optimistically assessed the prospects for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and various branches of the Russian Old Believers. Until recently, he noted, due to the mentality that had developed among the Old Believers, conditioned by the preservation of old rituals and way of life and expressed in some closeness and alienation from the outside world, they did not show a willingness to make regular contacts with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. This circumstance made it impossible to solve emerging problems in a balanced, systematic and joint effort.” However, the Metropolitan continued, after the decisions of the December 1998 Synod, interviews and consultations were held with representatives from the Old Believers. As a result, a coordination commission was created, designed to “on an ongoing basis have normal, business-like, bilateral contact in order to discuss emerging issues and problems face to face without bias” .

The fall of 2000 marked 200 years since the establishment of the first Edinoverie parishes within the Russian Church.. In connection with this anniversary, a conference was held in Moscow on the topic “200th anniversary of the canonical existence of Old Believer parishes in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church.” The conference opened with a solemn prayer service in the Assumption Patriarchal Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, performed according to the old rite by the clergy of all co-religion parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate. Addressing the participants and guests of the conference, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy said: “In the face of historical facts, it is impossible not to admit that persecution and restrictions against Old Believers, violent methods of overcoming the schism were the result of ill-conceived state policy of Russia in past centuries, which created an insurmountable division in the Russian Church, existing to this day. Thus, it was not so much the correction of liturgical books and the change in rituals that took place under Patriarch Nikon, but the harsh and unjustified methods of bringing to obedience that played the decisive and most tragic role in deepening the schism. Assessing the events of three hundred years ago, we do not consider ourselves to have the right to judge the responsibility of individuals involved in repressive actions against part of their flock, for all of them long ago appeared before the judgment of God. Now, following the Savior’s commandment “by this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one another” (John 13:35), we extend our love to all followers of the old rites, both those who are in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church, and and outside it, calling for the abandonment of previous grievances and injustices, not to resume fruitless ritual disputes, and especially not to allow mutual blaming, since with the unity of the dogmas of faith and Orthodox confession, both rituals are sacred and equally saving.”

The conference was chaired by Metropolitan Kirill and brought together delegates from the Edinoverie communities of Moscow and the Moscow region, St. Petersburg and Leningrad region, Nizhny Novgorod, Ivanovo, Yekaterinburg and Samara dioceses.

The conference was attended by hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as representatives of the public, scientific circles and guests from Old Believers from Russia, Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania .

In February 2004, the VIII World Russian People's Council was held in Moscow, among the participants of which was the Old Believer Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' Andrian. In his report, he touched upon the tragic fate of the Old Believers: “Since the middle of the 17th century, since the time of church reforms and schism, the Russian people have found themselves divided not only spiritually, but also physically. A huge number of Russians were forced to flee to the outskirts of Russia, and then completely go abroad. Orthodox Christians who wanted to preserve their fatherly faith found it safer to live and pray surrounded by Turks and Poles than next to their half-brothers. The scale of the “Russian exodus” is difficult to imagine. In terms of its numbers, its tragedy, and the depth of the mark it left on the Russian heart, it can only be compared with post-revolutionary emigration. According to our data, today the descendants of the Old Believers live in more than 17 countries, and, unfortunately, there is little that connects them with modern Russia. However, even now, three centuries later, thanks to their faith, the Old Believers remain Russian people, preserving the language and customs of their ancestors in a foreign land. They did not find, and did not look for, a new homeland.” .

On May 11, 2004, a meeting between Metropolitan Kirill and Metropolitan Andrian took place. The meeting, which took place in an atmosphere of openness and trust, marked the beginning of a new stage of interaction between representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church. The topics of this and subsequent conversations were the various needs of Old Believer communities, cooperation in the fields of cultural, information and publishing activities, and common efforts aimed at improving the moral life of society. During his short service at the Moscow Old Believer See, Metropolitan Andrian made many trips to various regions, and, as a rule, met with local hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church .

In October 2004, the topic of dialogue with the Old Believers was discussed at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Metropolitan Kirill's report at the Council contained detailed analysis history of the Old Believers, problems and prospects for dialogue. As the Metropolitan noted, “the problem of the Old Believers is not exclusively ecclesiastical; it also has other aspects - social, political, cultural. The church schism dealt a severe blow to national identity. The breakdown of traditional church and everyday foundations and spiritual and moral values ​​divided the once united people not only in church terms, but also in social terms. The national body, which at that time completely coincided with the church body, was inflicted a wound, the disastrous consequences of which live on for centuries. The division of Russian society caused by the church schism became a harbinger of further fractures that led to a revolutionary catastrophe.”

The division, which has lasted for centuries, is becoming habitual, the Metropolitan noted. But “even if an old wound at some point almost stops disturbing, it continues to weaken the body until it is healed. The gathering of the Russian Church cannot be considered complete until we unite in mutual forgiveness and fraternal communion in Christ with the primordial branch of Russian Orthodoxy.”

The Metropolitan pointed out three reasons why he considers it timely to develop a dialogue with the Old Believers. “Firstly, and this is the most important thing, the schism that occurred in the 17th century, by the grace of God, did not lead to the emergence of a different model of civilization, as happened, for example, as a result of the great schism between East and West. We and the Old Believers share the same faith, not only in dogmatic terms, but also in life terms; we have the same value system. Therefore, in practical witness and service to society, the Old Believers are our natural co-workers... Secondly, the Old Believers and I have the same and equally beloved Fatherland. The heritage and ideals of Holy Rus' are equally dear to us... Thirdly, now - for the first time in for a long time- have developed the most favorable conditions for a friendly and trusting dialogue. Gone are the days when the “dominant” Orthodox Russian Church could actually be considered as an appendage of state power, as a “department of the Orthodox confession”, when the state, in its concern for the interests of the Church, as it understood them from its point of view, acted by methods of coercion inherent in the state , including persecuting Old Believers and restricting their religious freedom.”

What needs to be done to achieve genuine reconciliation with the Old Believers? According to Metropolitan Kirill, it is necessary, first of all, for the decisions of the church authorities to be embodied in specific actions at the diocesan and parish level: “Unfortunately, this has not been achieved to this day, which is why the Old Believers brothers sometimes reproach us for insincere declarativeness.

We are told, for example: if both rites and especially both methods of making the sign of the cross have long been recognized by you as equal, why in the textbooks of the Law of God, of which many have been published recently, do we not find any indication of the possibility of two ways of making the sign of the cross - at least in small print , in a note? Why don’t you publish liturgical literature printed under the first five Russian Patriarchs, collections of hook singing? Why is it that in your theological schools you can get only extremely scant information about the features of worship according to the old rite? Why is it that in conversations with your clergy it is not uncommon to hear a biased or incompetent opinion about the causes of our division, gleaned without any critical approach from the polemical literature of a century ago, and sometimes one encounters blasphemy against old rituals? Why, despite the aforementioned definition of the Holy Synod, are books and brochures still being republished and offered in parish shops, in which it is easy to find not only a biased, but sometimes simply offensive view of the Old Believers?” Metropolitan Kirill referred to the words of one Old Believer figure, who said that a paradoxical situation arises: “Councils accept decisions to consider oaths against Old Believers and disparaging expressions about old Russian church rites “as if they had not happened,” but locally the level of awareness of the clergy about this is so low, that these definitions themselves become “as if they were not.”

Pointing out that there are only 12 parishes of the same faith in the Russian Church, while in 1917 there were about 600, Metropolitan Kirill recalled the importance of full support for these parishes. According to the Metropolitan, Edinoverie parishes could become “real working bridges between the Russian Orthodox Church and Old Believer consensus. The question of clarifying the canonical status of such communities must be worked out... We must think about giving the Old Believer communities in the Russian Orthodox Church an organizational and unifying principle, without which modern Edinoverie remains ideologically and structurally disunited.”

According to Metropolitan Kirill, “the development of dialogue with the Old Believers could be facilitated by a more thoughtful understanding of the reasons that gave rise to the tragedy of the schism.” Joint conferences and seminars are needed, during which it is necessary to “reconsider the history of our division, striving for the highest scientific honesty, abandoning polemical tasks and considering the problem of church-state relations through the prism of the norm now formulated in the Russian Orthodox Church.” .

The conclusions made by Metropolitan Kirill in the final part of his report formed the basis of the “Definition of the Council of Bishops on the relationship with the Old Believers and on the Old Believer parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church,” adopted on October 5, 2004. The Council decided: “To consider it necessary, both in the development of dialogue with the Old Believer consents, and in everyday intra-church life, to carry out the systematic implementation of previously made decisions of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the old rituals... To consider it important to develop good relationships and cooperation with the Old Believer consents, especially in areas of concern for the moral state of society, spiritual, cultural, moral and patriotic education, preservation, study and restoration of historical cultural heritage. Instruct the Holy Synod to establish, under the Department for External Church Relations, a Commission for the Affairs of Old Believer Parishes and for Interaction with the Old Believers. The said commission shall assist in the publishing, educational, cultural and other activities of Old Believer parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, coordinating their services in cooperation with the diocesan Right Reverends, under whose canonical jurisdiction the Old Believer parishes reside.” .

19 On October 2004, the Consecrated Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Old Believers Church opened in Moscow. Metropolitan Andrian made a report on the current situation of the Old Believer Church.

He, in particular, spoke about the meetings that had taken place with the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. These meetings convinced the head of the Old Believer Church of the possibility, “without deviating from paternal piety,” to jointly discuss various social problems. The head of the Old Believer Church especially noted the report of Metropolitan Kirill at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. This report, as Bishop Andrian emphasized, contains answers to the wishes expressed at the meeting with Metropolitan Kirill on May 11, 2004. According to the head of the largest Old Believer consensus in Russia, at present in the Russian Orthodox Church “there are people who are ready to listen to the opinion of the Old Believers on the essence of the differences between us. In fact, a unique situation has arisen that has never happened before." .

After the sudden death of Metropolitan Andrian, Metropolitan Cornelius was elected in his place in October 2005. On March 3, 2006, he visited the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, where he had a meeting with Metropolitan Kirill. The meeting participants unanimously came to the conclusion that at present there are many areas of church and public life in which combining efforts could lead to a fruitful result. Issues of cooperation between the Old Believers and the recently created DECR Commission for the Affairs of Old Believer Parishes and for Interaction with the Old Believers were discussed .

In an interview with the Interfax agency, Metropolitan Korniliy positively assessed the meetings with Metropolitan Kirill and other hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church. These meetings, he says, “help eliminate centuries-old mediastinums of misunderstanding, wariness and alienation,” although they often require overcoming somethe wariness of the Old Believers’ flock, for “the genetic memory of the unkind attitude towards the Old Believers on the part of the church and secular authorities in the past is still strong.” According to Metropolitan Cornelius, the time has come to “coordinate our efforts to help the Russian people regain their traditional values, largely lost as a result of the dramatic change of historical eras” and “direct common efforts to fight for the preservation of our people, their moral and mental health, for rampant drunkenness, drug addiction, moral laxity, and outright propaganda of all kinds of vice have now reached unprecedented proportions in our country.” The head of the Old Believer Church noted that the theological and historical discussion between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Old Believers is “not only possible, but also desirable”, about “the essence of the great church tragedyXVIIcentury still requires a comprehensive understanding in the spirit of theological and historical objectivity"

Orthodox Christians of the present time sometimes wonder how the parishioners of the Old Believer Church differ from them. To learn to distinguish them, you need to know not so many features.

What is an Old Believer Church

The Old Believer Church is the total number of different religious organizations and movements of theology that arose as a result of separation from the Orthodox Church. This split occurred during the reign of Patriarch Nikon, who in 1650-1660 carried out a number of liturgical reforms, with which some high-ranking ministers did not agree.

The Orthodox Church is considered to be a union of believers according to the religion of the eastern branch of Christianity, who accept the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and obey its traditions.

How the history of the Orthodox Church began

The very name of the Church – Orthodox – has a deep meaning. It expresses such a concept as “right faith”, the basis of which was two pillars: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

There are several more options for deciphering this word, such as “correct glorification”, “right word” and others.

In addition to this name, there is another, Greek one. Orthodoxy. When translated, the word sounds like unanimity. That is, a collection of people who think and act the same.

The fathers of Orthodoxy are Basil the Great, who left the mortal world around 379, Gregory the Theologian, who died in 390, and John Chrysostom, who died in 407. The dates of activity of these mentors in the faith practically coincide with the time when the teaching of Christ the Savior began to spread. This happened after the adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine the Great.

The beginning of the Russian Orthodox Church occurred in 988, when the Grand Duke of Kyiv Vladimir decided to baptize Rus'. This only represents the official transition of the country to the Faith of Christ. In fact, Christians already lived throughout the country, although it is unknown in what conditions they lived.

During the baptism of Rus', the first dioceses were formed. This lasted for several years. So they formed in:

• 988 Kiev diocese, which became the main one over all the others;
• 990 Rostov diocese;
• 992 Novgorod diocese.

Riots began to occur in the country. The princes quarreled and, gradually changing the map of the world, created their own dioceses so as not to depend on their neighbors.

By the beginning of Nikon's reform, there were 13 dioceses in Rus'. In those days, the Orthodox Church of Rus' was completely dependent on Constantinople. The most important officials conferred there, and new metropolitans were sent from there, who, being Greeks for the most part, did not really care about the development of the faith in the Russian lands.

Wars were fought. Rus', and then the Muscovite Kingdom, of course, tried to subjugate both its eastern pagan neighbors and its western Catholic neighbors. New dioceses appeared, which disappeared in the cloud of a new military confrontation.

Changes were taking place in the Russian Orthodox Church that were not immediately apparent to everyone. And the first is the formation of the Patriarchy. The patriarch heading this organization had enormous weight in the country. In 1652, Nikon ascended the patriarchal throne.

He decided to carry out a reform to strengthen Russian Orthodoxy and raise the prestige of the faith. This included:

• correction of text in liturgical books;
• painting icons similar to Byzantine ones;
• instead of Isus, the spelling Jesus appeared;
• introduced the three-finger sign instead of using the two-finger sign of the cross;
• bows to the ground were replaced by bows;
• the movement during the service became salty;
• Not only the eight-pointed cross, but also the six-pointed one began to be used;
• a sermon was introduced, which the priest conducts at the end of each service.

Comparison of two directions

It would seem that both Orthodox and Old Believers are Christians of the same branch. And yet, there is a difference between them, which often causes parishioners and priests negative emotions. A number of differences between these beliefs make the Orthodox Church as far from the Old Believers as from the Catholics.

Please note, if you happen to see an Old Believer service, that their churches do not use lamb or bread for the Liturgy. Orthodox priests use it in the process of proskomedia. The custom is quite new, since it arose in the 19th century, and accordingly cannot be used by Old Believers.

Those who follow the old tradition begin the service and end it with prostrations. In addition, throughout the service they bow to the ground. In Orthodoxy, initial bows, like final bows, are not used. Prostrations to the ground during the service were replaced by bows from the waist.

Fingers

The first thing that distinguishes an Orthodox Christian from an Old Believers is the sign of the cross. An Old Believer, when performing it, folds his fingers (fingers) so that he makes this sign with only two fingers. For Orthodox Christian it is unacceptable. This symbol for him contains the overshadowing and appeal to all three hypostases of God: the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this regard, the Orthodox sign of the cross is made with three fingers.

Image of Jesus

Changes also apply to the image of the Savior. In books and in images of Christ, instead of Jesus (as among the Old Believers), they began to use another, more modern form who looks like Jesus. At the same time, the designs that are depicted on the cross at the top also changed. On the icons of the Old Believers, this inscription looks like the TsR SLVA (which should mean the King of Glory) and IS XS (Jesus Christ). Orthodox icons on the eight-pointed cross have the inscription INCI (which stands for Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews) and IIS XC (Jesus Christ).

The icons themselves may also look different. Old Believers continue to create them in the style that was formed in Ancient Rus' and Byzantium. The images of the Orthodox Church are slightly different, having adopted the trends of Western icon painters.

Another feature of icon painting is the casting of images. In Orthodoxy this is strictly prohibited. Old Believers often use this method of processing materials to create icons.

Articles of faith

The “Symbol of Faith” is one of the main Orthodox prayers. By reading it daily, Christians open their souls and thoughts about their Faith in order to be closer to Him. As it turned out, this prayer among Orthodox Christians is somewhat different from the version that is familiar to Old Believers.

The Orthodox “I Believe” sounds much more melodic, its words do not interfere with each other, and do not stumble. The contrast of concepts occurs without unnecessary connections. In the Old Believer form, these ligaments are present. It is impossible not to notice them. The concept of “born, uncreated,” as used in Orthodox prayer, among the Old Believers sounds like “born, not created.”

In addition, Old Believers do not accept the Orthodox assertion about the need to confess to the Holy Spirit, since it is the true essence. The Orthodox version indicates only “true God from true God,” which speaks only of the Father and the Son.

The topic of interfaith relations in the Russian Federation has always been relevant. The country is huge in area and is replete with a diversity of religious associations, denominations and churches. One of the most pressing, complex and contradictory problems of external church dialogue was the relationship between the Old Believers (Old Orthodoxy) and the Moscow Patriarchate - the official Orthodox Church. Old Believers, by definition, are “ the general name for the Russian Orthodox clergy and laity who refused to accept the reform undertaken in the 17th century by Patriarch Nikon and who sought to preserve the church institutions and traditions of the ancient Russian Orthodox Church» .

Starting from the middle of the 17th century, when the Old Believers as a religious movement began to show signs of a special confessional and cultural space, which had significant differences from the reformed church, the mutual dialogue of the two spiritual cultures with their different worldviews, traditions and norms was ambiguous.

Until the beginning of the 20th century, the Old Believers experienced severe police and administrative-legal pressure from the government church and state security forces.

The physical extermination of the Old Believers continued until the first third of the 19th century. Along with methods of forceful influence on the Old Belief, the tsarist government over the course of two and a half centuries issued a whole series of laws and orders that significantly limited the rights and freedoms of citizens of the Russian Empire who considered themselves to be of the Old Orthodox religion. As for the opinion of the officially Orthodox Church itself, which on the issue of dialogue with the Old Belief was completely identical to the state one, the governing Synod fully followed the resolutions of the Moscow Council of 1666, calling the Old Believers fallen away from the unity of the church, and accepted the Old Orthodox into its church only by performing rites. Initially, this was baptism, but later the Synodal decree of May 25, 1888 prescribed the reception of Old Believers through confirmation. Thus, Old Believer Church in the eyes of the synodal regime she looked “inferior.” In addition, from the side of the Synod itself there was always every possible encouragement of the anti-Old Believer policy of the secular authorities. (The church practice of the Old Believers regarding the reception of priests and laity from the New Believers is also not uniform and has changed over time).

Decree of 1905 “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance” legally equalized legal status Old Believers and the dominant church, however, the synodal leadership expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of this decree and continued to hinder the development of normal good neighborly relations with the Old Believers.

The situation of believers after the 1917 revolution

After the well-known events of 1917, when the autocracy was overthrown in Russia as a result of an armed coup, and ultimately the Bolsheviks came to power, the views of the ruling church regarding the Old Believers underwent canonically radical changes, dictated, in many respects and certainly, by external socio-political circumstances. At this point it is necessary to dwell in more detail. The new government began to pursue a completely different policy regarding religion. Regardless of confessional differences, any religion, religious organizations and, in general, any manifestation of cult were outlawed and subject to complete destruction.

The official “creed,” or rather ideology, was declared and permitted by Marxism, the philosophical basis of which is dialectical materialism with its complete and fundamental rejection of the Spirit as the highest objective reality, as the basis and origin of all things, including the world and man. In 1909, V. Lenin wrote: “ Religion is the opium of the people,” this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire worldview of Marxism on the question of religion. Marxism always views all modern religions and churches, all and any religious organizations as organs of bourgeois reaction, serving to protect the exploitation and stupefying of the working class.". Thus, various religious organizations began to build their interfaith policies in new living conditions that severely limited freedom of religion. It is natural that the Bolshevik government did not see any difference between the Old Believers and the Synodal Church. As a result, both religious movements were placed on the same level in their social status.

Before the revolution, the government-state Russian Orthodox Church formed a single organism with the authorities, helping the state in creating official ideological support. Any parish priest was a conductor of the will of state power. Now the dominant church has lost this privilege, and the “symphony of powers,” secular and spiritual, turned out to be unnecessary and even became superfluous in the construction of a new communist society.

No less deplorable was the state of the Old Believers, which, first of all, lost its material support - industrial potential. The Old Believers have done a lot for Russia in terms of the development of heavy industry. After all, it is known that before the revolution, the Old Believers owned about two-thirds of the production capacity of the Russian Empire. The Soviet government “thanked” the Old Believers for this by the fact that in the process of nationalization of property, in addition to the confiscation of plants and factories, those social strata (merchants, industrialists, Cossacks, strong peasantry) that were the sources and creators of traditional Old Believers culture were destroyed. Moreover, persecution by the tsarist authorities and the official church was still alive in the memory of the Old Orthodox Christians until all this was stopped by the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II dated April 17, 1907. Having not fully recovered from recent persecutions, the Old Believers were again forced to save themselves in the Siberian taiga, the seaside and abroad.

So, in the second decade of the last century, two churches at war with each other were among those subject to destruction. From a social point of view, from now on interfaith dialogue became possible only on equal terms and without outside interference.

StepsSynodal Churchfor rapprochement with the Old Believers

It should be noted that the loyal attitude towards the church life of the Old Orthodox Christians on the part of the New Believers Church began to manifest itself even before the revolution. In particular, the VI department of the pre-conciliar presence issued a resolution to petition the future Local Council of 1917 for the complete abolition of anathemas on pre-reform church ranks and Orthodox Christians who adhere to them. At the Local Council of 1917, active preparation of materials was also carried out to cancel the oaths of the Council of 1666, but in the spring of 1921 the actions of the Council were stopped due to the ongoing policy of destroying the church in the country. The premises in which the Council met were confiscated. Thus, the de-anathematization of the Old Believers did not occur.

The next step to bring the Synodal Church closer to the Old Believers was the recognition April 23, 1929 the Patriarchal Holy Synod of liturgical books of the pre-Nikon press were “Orthodox and saving”, and the oaths of the Council of 1666-1667 themselves. were canceled as non-existent. The “Acts” of the Synod stated: “ We reject negative expressions that in one way or another relate to the old rituals, and especially to double-fingering, wherever they are found and by whomever they are uttered, as if they were not sane» .

Consequently, the establishment of a peaceful and good-neighborly dialogue between the Patriarchal Church and the Old Believers began long before the famous Local Council of 1971.

A modern impartial researcher should have no doubt about the need to cancel the oaths of the Old Believers, and moreover, about the invalidity of the oaths themselves. Today there are enough published studies that assert the absolute meaninglessness of the reforms and the anti-canonical measures for their implementation. And the break in prayerful communication between a third of Russian Orthodox Christians and the church party carrying out the notorious reforms did not contain anything anti-Orthodox.

On the eve of the adoption of the conciliar resolution on the abolition of oaths to the “old rite,” at a meeting of the Council, a report was heard from Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod, a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church who did not hide his sympathies for the ecumenical movement, one of the most active initiators of recognition of the Old Believers by the church holding the cathedral Orthodox. In the report presented to the Council, Metropolitan Nikodim gives a balanced assessment of the events of the mid-17th century, with references to the works of famous scientists N.F. Kapterev and E. Golubinsky, who for the first time in official pre-revolutionary church-historical science proved the antiquity of the Old Believer church, concludes about the historical correctness of the Old Believers and the absolute meaninglessness of any kind of oppression of the Old Rite. Metropolitan Nikodim stated the fact that “ big Moscow WITH The council of 1667 anathematized the Old Believers, based on their incorrect positions on the old church rituals", and all the oaths imposed by the Moscow councils of 1654-1667 are " unfounded» .

On the third day, after reading Met. Nicodemus’ famous report, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church made the following decisions regarding the Old Believers and the church forms of worship acceptable to them:

1. To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the recognition of old Russian rites as salutary, like new rites, and equal to them.
2.​ To approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the rejection and imputation, as if not former, of derogatory expressions relating to old rituals, and especially to double-fingered, wherever they were found and by whom they were uttered .
3.​ Approve the resolution of the Patriarchal Holy Synod of April 23 (10), 1929 on the abolition of the Moscow oaths WITH Council of 1656 and Moscow WITH the Council of 1667, the oaths they imposed on the old Russian rites and on the Orthodox Christians who adhere to them, and consider these oaths as not having happened.

The Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church receives with love all who sacredly preserve the ancient Russian rites, both members of our Holy Church and those who call themselves Old Believers, but who sacredly profess the saving Orthodox faith.

Thus, for the ROC MP, Old Orthodox Christians-Old Believers are members of a single Christian Orthodox local church - the Russian. Old Believers are now allowed to participate in the prayer and liturgical life of the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate without any difficulty. Theoretically, an Old Believer, upon moving into the fold of the dominant church, becomes its member without first performing any ceremony.

In addition to the Local Council of 1971, the Russian Orthodox Church MP at the subsequent Local Council of 1988 confirmed the resolutions of the previous council and called the Old Believers " half-faith and half-brothers and sisters". The 2004 Council of Bishops also focused on the problem of relations with the Old Believers and demonstrated its complete openness and readiness for canonical union.

Is there unity among adherents of the dominant religion?

It should be noted that the religious movement of the New Belief, like the Old Belief, does not have a single church organization and canonical structure. In addition to the largest dominant ROC MP, “post-Nikon” Orthodoxy in the world is represented by a large number of churches, associations and denominations, which appeared for the most part in the 20th century, the differences between which remain predominantly political. These include a number of foreign churches that did not accept church unity with the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008, several churches in Ukraine and the entire post-Soviet space, and a number of catacomb hierarchies. All of the above religious associations, whose prayer practice is built, by definition, in accordance with the “new rites”, do not recognize and anathematize each other, do not impose any canonical requirements on the Old Believers during their transition to the “new rite” regarding the need to perform rites.

There was no similar response from the Old Believers to the actions of the council in 1971, and to this day the attitude towards the conciliatory gesture on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church MP remains neutral. A careful study of the history of Old Believer thought reveals the indisputable fact of the confidence of Old Orthodox Christians in their historical and theological correctness. According to modern Old Belief, its founders did not blaspheme the Orthodox Church at all by not accepting the embarrassing decisions of the Moscow Council of 1666 (a similar idea is stated by the council we are studying). Consequently, the Old Believers remained in the bosom of Orthodoxy, and that part of the clergy and laity that did not reject the innovations found itself outside the church fence. That is, the entire totality of New Believer churches is a heretical organization of the same nature. It is obvious, from the point of view of the Old Believers, that all anathemas once imposed on pre-schism forms of worship are considered illegal and mystical invalid. The above postulate is an integral part of the Old Believer church identity. Thus, the abolition of oaths and anathemas against Old Orthodox Christians, or their canonical legitimacy, is considered for the Old Believers only as internal problems of the New Believer Church, in no way blocking the path to Salvation of Orthodox Christians who pray with two fingers.

What science says about church reform

Church historical science has long proven the senselessness and unnecessaryness of carrying out church reform, as well as its negative impact on the subsequent life of the Russian Church, which was partly recognized in the acts of the 1971 council. The Russian Church did not feel any need to correct its worship.

The recognition by the 1971 council of the meaninglessness of anathemas on old rituals, their incorrectness and non-canonical nature, by some modern figures of the Old Believers led to the conclusion that there is a historical and canonical contradiction in church politics ROC MP in relation to ancient Orthodoxy. In particular, the Old Orthodox Bishop of Kursk Apolinarius (Dubinin), known for his religious tolerance and, at the same time, the firmness of his anti-New Ritual position, cites one of the church rules, which contains a very interesting point. The bishop writes:

« We open “The Helmsman,” a set of church laws that have not yet been repealed. And there it is written directly that a bishop or presbyter who has taken an oath incorrectly turns this oath on himself. It turns out that the Moscow Patriarchate today is under an oath, and it has anathematized itself in the course of these foreign innovations of Patriarch Nikon and is walking under the curse that it imposed on itself» .

The response of the Russian Old Believers to a truly broad and promising step forward on the part of the Russian Orthodox Church MP can also be expressed in the words of the Old Believer Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' (Chetvergov):

The recognition at the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970 of the equivalence of new and old rituals is dogmatically meaningless. A similar scheme was proposed by Catholics several centuries ago. During the creation of the union, they proposed recognizing all types of rituals as equally honorable, and primarily the Eastern and Western rituals. In Orthodox dogma there is no division between the external side of the sacred rite (“rite”) and the internal, and therefore, when the external side is changed, the internal, spiritual hypostasis of the sacred rite or sacrament is undoubtedly distorted or completely lost.

“Rite” means a lot to an Old Believer

Modern theology has almost forgotten the peculiarity of the original Orthodox teaching about the inseparability of the mystical and external aspects of church life. The doctrine of “rite” appeared relatively late, in medieval times in the Western Church, under the influence of the scholastic worldview, which directs the mind not to generalizations, in contrast to the cosmological (Neoplatonic) principle of knowledge of being, but aimed at analyzing and systematizing the surrounding reality, dividing it into private elements. The Old Believers remained unaffected by the epistemological principles of scholasticism and remained faithful to the patristic understanding of churchliness through contemplation of the integrity of ecclesiological existence.

Thus, the policy of external church relations of the Russian Orthodox Church MP did not bring any positive results in the matter of unification with the Old Believers and restoration of the unity of the Russian Church. The mutual misunderstanding of the two so far irreconcilable sides is due, first of all, to the existing ideological gap that has managed to divide Christians over 350 years of schism.

The Old Believers have a different understanding of history, different views on the part of church life usually called “rite.” The ontology of the Old Believers has completely different ideological qualities. The worldview of the New Believers is alien to her. The change in the “rite” for the Old Believer does not indicate a change in the position of the fingers of the right hand, but an internal ideological revolution, the beginning of a different way of thinking - a process that cannot be explained by the methods of rational reasoning. An Old Believer and a New Believer think differently. Consequently, at this historical stage, the “union of churches” can occur according to the following two schemes:

1.​ Search for some “common”, compromise points of contact, the presence of which would satisfy both parties and encourage communication. This system, in the form of the establishment of common faith in 1800 or the “removal of anathemas” in 1971, was proposed by the dominant Orthodox Church and is based on the principle of mutual concessions with minimal losses for each side.
1.​ The basis of the connection is a change of thinking, a change of mind, the Greek “metanoia”, which is translated into Church Slavonic as “repentance”. This is the only way the Old Believers see an end to church discord. Repentance for the mistakes of the past, unrepentant historical sins and a return to the first principles of patristic church thinking and consciousness.

Summarizing the above, it is necessary, unfortunately, to admit that the actions of the Council of 1971 turned out to be ineffective and unable to solve the problem of church unity. Instead of real fruitful results, the actions of the famous Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church MP in 1971 continue to live today only on the pages of works on church history and canon law, as monuments of church jurisprudence and historical documents.

Text: Roman Atorin, Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Russian State Agrarian University-Moscow Agricultural Academy named after. K.A. Timiryazeva

Source: rpsc.ru

Literature and sources:

.​ “Jesus,” what’s in Your name? or Under what religious roof does Russia live? Reflections of the Old Orthodox monks on the symbol of God and Man, on persecution and curses, on repentance and love. — Access mode: http: www. subscribe.ru
.​ Andrian, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus': milestones of the archpastoral path. M.: “Media 77”; "Panagia", 2006.
Apanasenok A.V. Old Believers of the Kursk region in the 17th - early 20th centuries. (Text): monograph/ A.V. Apanasenok. Kursk State Technological University. Kursk, 2005.
.​ Acts of the archpastors of the Orthodox Holy Church in the USSR, headed by the Moscow Patriarchate, dated April 10 (23), 1929. Moscow.
.​ Acts of the Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the abolition of oaths on old rituals and on those who adhere to them // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1971 No. 6.
.​ Magazine "Motherland", 1990. No. 9.
.​ Journals and minutes of meetings of the highest established Pre-Conciliar Presence. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1906.
Lenin V.I. On the attitude of the workers' party to religion // Selected works: in 10 volumes. T. 5. Part 1. 1907-1910. M.: Politizdat, 1985.
Mashkovtseva V.V. Confessional policy of the state in relation to the Old Believers in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries (based on materials from the Vyatka province) [Text]/ V.V. Mashkovtseva. - Kirov: VyatGU Publishing House, 2006.
.​ Nicodemus. Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod. Report at the local Council on May 31, 1971 // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1971 No. 7.
.​ Appeal of the Consecrated Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to all Orthodox Christians who adhere to the old rites and do not have communion with the Moscow Patriarchate // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1988. No. 8.
.​ Tsypin V. Archpriest. The joining of non-Orthodox // Orthodox conversation. 1995. 5-6.
.​ Tsypin V. Russian Orthodox Church in the modern period. 1917-1999// Orthodox Encyclopedia. Russian Orthodox Church. M.: Orthodox Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2000.
Shakhov M.O. On the problem of the content of the concept “Old Believers” // Old Orthodox Bulletin. 1999. No. 2.

Return