Contents

Talk:Old Believers: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:17, 4 March 2006

Completely biased and inaccurate in many parts. I'm tagging this controversial, and hoping that less prejudiced editors might make the needed adjustments to comply with NPOV policy

Hi all! I think it is essential to keep a balanced set of categories for this article. Look, currently there are several of them: Russia (Yes, it's a russian phenomenon, so let's keep it)

Eastern Orthodoxy Eastern Orthodox sects and heresies What about these two - actually they are just 2 viewpoints on the same topic. Ordinary Russian Orthodox (New Belivers) think that Old Believers are heretics. But Old Believers themselves certainly do not think so. Moreover, they are certainly not a sect, but just another confession, divided into several congregations. So I'm sure that at least one "good" religious category (without such offensive words as "heresy" etc.) should be preserved.

And the last category: Russian people of religion . Generally it looks like this category was initially supposed to be used for inidividual people, not for movements. If anybody is agree - maybe we should remove "Old Believers" from it.

Arseni 06 May 2005

Ok, that is a good picture. We all know that it is a painting, but it looks like a photograph. The prisoner's clothes are done so well. It makes me feel like I was there. It's like one of those "Best Photos of the 15th Century", or really good photos of a historical event. There weren't any photographs in the 15th century, but the quality is there.

I think that the word "sect" is not so offensive in the English language. The pejorative usage applies rather to the word "cult". But those are just my feelings.

The article does not offer any support for the alleged "westernization" or Roman Catholic influence of the Greek Church. It has to be stressed here that despite the proclamation of union between Rome and Constantinople in Florence, the union was never put into effect becuse of the reaction of the Greek clerics and laity. After the failure of the West to aid Constantinople against the invading Turks only a few years afterwards, anti-Latin sentiment was very high in the former Byzantine Empire - cf. "it is better to accept a turkish turban than a Latin tiara" (κάλλιο σαρίκι τούρκικο παρά κουκούλα λατινική), Grand Duke Loukas Notaras. But even without taking note of any of this, there was hardly any time for Latin a liturgical influence during the time of the Greek-Latin rapprochement. It is true that there were many typika printed in Venice, but this was the case with almost all Greek documents that were not possible or easy to be printed under the Ottoman rule. Whatever the case, a comparison between these and other older typika (such as the 14th century Jerusalem typikon) do not betray a Roman Catholic influence. This is a myth propagated by Moscow for centuries, which tried to supercede the primacy of Constantinople in the Orthodox world and promote itself as the Third Rome - a deeply unchristian and unorthodox view, since the primacy of Constantinople is nothing like a sacramental primacy as the primacy Roman Catholicism recognizes in Rome.

Roman Catholic influence started much earlier than the Florentine Union of 1439. There was the Union of Lyon of 1274 and the influence of the crusaders, who brougt Constantinople for some time even under Western rule. “After the conquest of areas having belonged to the former Byzantine Empire and of the Slavic Balkan states by the Turks, almost the entire population of Syria and Asia Minor and considerable parts of the orthodox population of Macedonia, Greek, Bosnia and Bulgaria converted to Islam. Catholic and protestant propaganda, from their part, starting from mid 16th century, tried to proselytize orthodox christians under the Ottoman yoke.” (S. Zenkovsky, 1970, 1995) Catholic and protestant propaganda were also very strong in Western Russia and the Ukraine. Those, who printed othodox typicons and missals in Venice and Rome were inevitably under an even more strong influence of Roman Catholic propaganda. It is ascertained that even the Greeks themselves considered Venetian typicons not orthodox and perverted. Many outstanding scientists, such as S. Zenkovksy from Harvard University, B.A. Uspensky and the famous byzantologist F.I. Uspensky (1845-1928), having done scientific research in Constantinople for years, have been comparing old Greek typicons with Venetian and Roman ones and have established that certain Roman Catholic elements have penetrated the latter ones. Thus they merely confirmed what was already known in Russia at the time of the Raskol.

Some contemporary minds see in the idea of Moscow as the Thrid Rome national pride and arrogance. Little who see in its spreading the awakening of the self-consciousness of a people at the moment when it steps into the arena of world history. At that time, the circumstances gave the Russian people the right to think that it had a special mission in history: the idea that God had predestined Russia to become the last stronghold and defender of the true Orthodox faith. Rome had deviated from the true faith; both the Byzantine emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople had accepted the primacy of the Roman Catholic pope, which made the Greeks look suspicious in the eyes of the Russians, more so, it was seen by them as a betrayal of Orthodox faith. Even a Roman Catholic service had been hold at the H. Sophia. Not long after the Florentine Union Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Turks and Russia was the only independent orthodox country left. Often it is thougt that the idea Moscow as the Third Rome is a Russian invention, but in fact it was first mentioned by the Serb Pakhomy Logophet in 1442. The Russian monk Filofei used this idea at a time when it reflected the general meaning of the era and so exactly grasped the mood of his compatriots of those days that it became part of Russian state ideology of the 16th century. Since Constantinople was officially called the “Second Rome”, but was no more, now Moscow had become the “Third Rome” and, people added, a Fourth was never going to be. Vasilij 18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any proof of this nebulous "Roman-catholic influence" in your reply. The fact remains that Eastern Orthodoxy remained very much at odds with Roman-catholicism, which is why the Florentine Union was immediately rejected. Your mention of the Islamization of Anatolia is a complete red-herring, and the non-existent "influence" of the crusaders is an outright lie. The only "influence" the Western Crusaders ever had, was to present Roman-catholicism as mortal enemy in the eyes of the Greek orthodox who found themselves under occupation. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying ; if anything, your claims are the very definition of "turning the truth on its head".

I'm revising parts of the article to reflect this truth, and slapping a --disputed-- disclaimer on it for good measure. This is not a NPOV representation of the facts.

Also, there are some bizzare mentions of two separate strands of Greek Orthodoxy : "in union" with Roman-Catholicism, and "not in union" with it. This is a bs statement if there ever was one (made to comply with "Old Believer" jingoism) as the Florentine Union was rejected from its very inception.

I posted at talk:Raskol a rename suggestion. Maybe that article should just be merged into this one with redirect? Please take a look. Thanks. --Irpen 07:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! Generally Raskol is a split, a schism. That's sligtly another subject. One thing is to write about the schism in some religion, another thing is to write about the parts on which the religion splitted. I think both articles should exist. For example the very process of Patriarch Nikon reforms is a very interested subject, and it would be much better to place it in the Raskol article rather than in this one. The reforms themselves have a little common with the Old Believers as a denomination. I'm agains the merging. Arseni 09:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To keep all discussions at one place, I responded at talk:raskol. --Irpen 05:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I called the low bows (земные поклоны) kowtows as Lingvo suggests. Now they are replaced by prostrations. The stange thing is that the article prostration leads to a medical term for exhaustion. Are you really sure the change is correct? Arseni 18:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replased prostrations with kowtows again. As I could understand, this term is used for medieval rites in Europe too, not only for Chinise people. And it looks like this term is more close to our Земной поклон. Please, argue, if I'm making a mistake. Arseni 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Kowtow" is a word of Chinese origin, and is commonly understood to describe a peculiarly Chinese custom. As imported into English, it connotes a certain obsequiousness or toadying that is perhaps unsuitable for an act of dignified worship. Unfortunately, "prostration" is incorrect too, since that means to stretch oneself out fully prone which was never an Orthodox custom. Alternatives I have heard are "great reverence" or "full reverence". This would still have to be explained to an Orthodox reader, of course. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re the quote: phylosophycal basis of Old Believers was opposite of that of Protestants.

I think this is too strong. Actually, protestants were also presenting themselves as "keepers" of the original teaching, rather than reformers. They claimed that the RC is corrupt and deviated from the source (Bible) and called for the return to "original" christianity. Should we modify this paragraph? --Irpen 21:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! Please, modify if you can =) But I don't think it's strong at all. The main idea: "Old Believers vs Nicon" conflict resembles initially the conflict of "Catholics vs Protestants". Nicon was a reformer, and the essence of the reform was very like that of Protestants: to return to the 'right faith' as it was before Russian influence on it. So Old Believers tried to save what they had, while Nicon wanted to return to what should be. And only later Old Believers started to resemble Puritans a lot, but only because they both were opposed to a 'wrong world around them', but not because the phylosophycal basis was the same. And what's also very importaint - Old Believers are really very agressive against any comparison of their faith with Protestantism. I'm afraid that the very topic of this comparison will stay in the article only till the first orthodox Old Beliver will come to English wikipedia, really =) So make the statement better if you can, I'll certainly look at your result. Arseni 10:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arsenij, the first orthodox Old Believer has come to English wikipedia! And, yes... I find the comparison inappropriate, although even in Russia some scholars like this issue. I've lived among protestants for quite some time abroad, and I possibly can't see any similarity. I would like this item to be changed. And not only this item... Vasili 5th Nov.2005

Few Americans have even heard of Old Believers (Canadians are a little more aware, via the Dukoboors), but this seems to be the standard term in the literature. The words 'schism' and 'heresy' are usually avoided in secular contexts (as with this article). 'Dissenter', non-conformist and the such occur in English, as terms for various denominations of protestants. I agree that "Protestant" is inappropropriate for the OBs, tho' American protestants would have no problems using the word.

At the risk of being impolite, what literature there in in English tends to emphasize the absurdity of the break, with what amounts to ultra-nationalists objecting to the correction of books against the Greek originals. Its rather like those few who insisted the King James Bible was superior to the Hebrew and Greek originals. Once they realize what a corner they have painted themselves, they become even more disputatiously extreme. You all might check out the article Restorationism for a discussion of the "great apostasy", a motif the Old Believers certainly display.

The word 'Raskol' is found only in the introductory notes to critical editions of Crime and Punishment. --FourthAve 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! The fact is that there are (even now) two different translations of the same Greek originals into Church Slavonic. OBs believe they have the better translation. Official Orthodoxy believe(d?) they have not. Nicon's translation was more literate (for Nicon it was very important that the number of words and their sequence within a prayer should be the same in Greek and Church Slavonic). Old translation was more interested in sence. But all this isn't and wasn't the main reason and the main idea of schism. Simply one day somebody comes to your house and says: 'Starting from this day you will use 3 and only 3 fingers for the sign of cross instead of 2, since your habit is a heresy. It's an order!' You ask: 'Why?', but they just say: 'I've already told you. Since it's a heresy. And if you have something to object, you'll be punished'. Do you like this picture? Arseni 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Arseni. And the problem is even more general, I think. Most people's religion is not what they consciously think is right but what they were raised to and people get extremely sensitive and resistive is someone comes to tell them that they are wrong even in things they don't understand and don't care. Same was in Ukraine, when Unia came into being, orthodox Ukrainians resisted fiercely, ran to Cossacks, or kept considering themselves Orthodox in the underground. Some did convert and in few hundred years the situation repeated in the reverse direction, when after the WW2 the uniate church was banned and sent underground. With equal fanaticism, people refused to renounce the Uniate church and it survived underground for 50 years. Now people keep fighting for the Church building in Ukraine as the times of state bans are over.

So people don't really think of whether the Pope or the Orthodox Patriarch/Metropolitan are "more canonical", so to speak, whether the Filioque clause is a heresy or not, whether the Pope is infallible and which translation from Greek is more appropriate (or even less so "correct"). They just fiercely resist when someone tells them that the their religious order would be different from now on. Even, say, if one is told that he can still use two fingers, but has to admit that the priest who married him and baptized him and his children was "inappropriate" in any way and one has to renounce those "inappropriatenesses" even if staying with the same priest, it is totally unacceptable to the people for deeply intrinsic reasons. --Irpen 21:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Schism is a rather fitting term, IMHO. But of course, if there is a Schism, both sides are schismatic viewed from the other side. This is often neglected, when one side is musch larger than the other. --Pjacobi 06:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

A major motif that separates certain protestants from Catholics and some other protestants is apostolic succession, i.e., the laying on of hands from Jesus to apostle, and from the apostles on to priests and bishops down thru time. The Catholic and Orthodox are very much into this; Anglicans and certain Lutheran groups are similarly into it, but importantly, not all of them are, and the absolutely necessity for it its generally denied. Old Believers are very much into apostolic succession. In this sense, they really are not protestant, but "Restorationist Orthodox", i.e., they want to return to an earlier purer form of the Church before the "great apostasy". It has been a long time since I read any literature on the OBs, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anything really good in any western theological library. The OBs are not really on the map. --FourthAve 21:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon was an absolutist, who essentially was both Tsar and Patriarch, and did as much damage as he attempted to do good.

• Dear FourthAve, again, OBs didn't 'want to return to an earlier form of the Church'. They were just trying to save wat they had! That's a difference. There's a standard comparison between the OBs and Old Catholics, but that comparison isn't correct. Old Catholics are restorationists. OBs - from the beginning - were not. They were and they are (some of them) extremely conservative, but not 'restorative'. Imagine that the Reformation took place in Europe as a whole, including France, Italy, Spain etc. And that Catholics had to hide from Protestants, like they did in Holland, for example. Then imagine that they have been banned for centures, and that they developed into a closed religious group. That will resemble OBs. But they certainly wouldn't be called 'Restorationists' =) Arseni 15:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that the post-Nikonian Russian church banned the use of cast or carved icons in relief. When did this happen, and when was it reversed? It must have been reversed at some point because they're certainly not banned now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right, currently they are de facto accepted. But they really were banned, as they were strongly associated with Old Believers movement. The most strong ban for carved icons was during Peter the Great reign. There were problems even with worshiping the most famous and respected carved icon - Nicola Mozhajsky, which was certainly all-orthodox, but not exclusevely Old Believer's. The modern situation is also rather indicative: the official orthodoxy accepted carved icons, pretending that they are part of it's heritage, not the heritage of any other 'alternative church', like Old Believers churches, for example. Arseni 17:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icons in relief extisted long before the schism of 1666-67, I have hold several icons in relief in my very own hands, icons (especially Crosses) dating back from the 11th century, made from bronze. The industry of making relief icons, however, started developping in Old believers circles after the schism. Metal icons in relief are small and were easy to carry with you while fleeing from presecutors and, of course, the saints on these icons all blessed with two fingers. In this respect, there’s nothing new in the Old believers making and venerating icons in relief, since they’ve existed in Russia from the 10th century. Vasili. 5 Nov. 2005

Dear Mikkalai! For all old beliveres (about 10 millions worldwide) their faith isn't a heresy, but an Orthodoxy. They use this term and they believe that they are Eastern Orthodox. Sometimes they also believe that other Eastern Orthodox are not really Orthodox, but just heretics. But that's another story.

Moreover, in 1971 anathema on old rites was removed by Russian Orthodox Church, so currently Old Believers are not heretics even from the 'Official' point of view (at least Popovtsy), but are just a couple of churches that have incorrect organizational structure. From the ROC point of view they should become a part of ROC, but that's very different from Heresy.

What about bezpopovtsy - the situation is even more interesting. From the canonical point of view (for ROC) they should be treated as heretics, but practically the relations between the Pomory and ROC is sometimes even better than with ROC and RORC for example.

The term 'sect' isn't also really appropriate for a traditional church. You wouldn't call Old Style Catholics a sect, would you?

I don't object from the category 'sects and heresies' since a lot of people still treat Old Believers as a heresy, and for them it would be much easier to find information about OBs through this sections. But I strongly insist that this apparent bias should be compensated by some another category that would treat OBs as a 'rather canonical' faith. That would be fair.

What do you think?

Update: Thank you, Mikkalai, for your comment. It's a good idea, since your deletion was the second story with these two cats. The first was quite the same, I just went into polemics not in this talk page, but on the talk page of that particular user. And I didn't know how to make comments. It's really a good idea! Arseni 18:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]