Why We Showed No Interest – Protopriest Andrey Marchenko
“May the Lord bring together those who are divided, so that in love for one another we may confess and glorify with one mouth and one heart the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity.”
(From the Acts of the New Ritualist Council of 1971)
A few years ago, I asked a New Ritualist bishop who participated in lifting the anathemas from the old rites: “What guided your decision to lift the anathemas?” His response was not a direct answer to the question but rather an evasion: “Yes, the anathemas have been lifted,” he said, “but the Old Believers showed no interest in this.” For this reason, and because of certain efforts by the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) aimed at rapprochement with the Old Believers, I decided to share my perspective on this matter.
Indeed, the anathemas on the ancient rites have been lifted, but is this a great act of God’s mercy, setting us all on the path to reconciliation, or yet another step toward the theological liberalization of New Ritualism? If it is the former, then it is foolish and unforgivable to ignore and neglect this immense gift from a God who loves us all—a God who said: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you” (John 14:27); “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:34–35). But if it is the latter? Let us try to understand.
The New Ritualists took centuries to reach the decision to lift the anathemas. The effect of the anathemas from the Moscow Council of 1666–67 was first limited in the “Exhortation” of 1765, then through the establishment of Edinoverie (a form of union with the Old Believers). There was also an attempt to practically abolish the anathemas at the council of 1917–18 under Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin), followed by the Synod under Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1929, which also spoke out against the anathemas. Finally, the council of 1971 definitively consigned the anathemas to oblivion.
More than thirty years have passed since this event. It is clear to everyone that any decision can only be judged by the fruits of its implementation. So, what are these fruits?
The schism has not been overcome. There are practically no trends toward reconciliation. Those sincerely interested in reconciliation are few and far between. The New Ritualists attempt theological dialogue with anyone, even African Voodoo sects,1 but not with the Old Believers. In general, there is no interest in ensuring that the seed planted in 1971 bears any fruit.
The only feeble attempt at some semblance of dialogue was the much-criticized March Memorandum of 1999. According to this memorandum, if the Old Believers abandon their critical view of Nikon’s reforms, they would, for instance, be allowed “with the approval of local church authorities, to make pilgrimages to ancient shrines (miraculous icons, relics of saints, etc.) under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, where they would be permitted to hold molebens (prayer services) according to the old rite.” Is this a profound misunderstanding of the true reasons for the division, or yet another attempt at a Edinoverie-style union?
And how are the Old Believers regarded? Is it really conceivable that Old Believers would forsake their ideals—sanctified over centuries by rivers of martyr’s blood—for the dubious “crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Matthew 15:27)?
In the past, principles were sold for thirty pieces of silver; now, relics and icons are offered in exchange, which, without spiritual principles, have no value in themselves.
The most comical aspect of all this is that, in essence, the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate impose no restrictions on those wishing to venerate shrines, such as those in Sergiev Posad or the Kyiv Caves. The religious indifference of the New Ritualists is such that they allow anyone into their churches, usually without inquiring whether they are Orthodox or heretics.
The long-standing spiritual isolation of New Ritualists and Old Believers from one another has played its fatal role: the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate largely form their opinions about Old Believers either from unreliable books, such as the works of Melnikov-Pechersky, or from rare and superficial personal contacts. This is why, even if the steps taken by MP hierarchs are sincere, they are doomed to failure when made in the spirit of seeking a ritual compromise.
Old Believers continue to be treated as ritualists, as semi-pagans. This is why attempts at rapprochement begin not with theological dialogue about the validity of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms but, for example, with the Synod’s resolution of June 4, 1999: “to organize joint evenings of ancient Russian church singing with Old Believers.” What an astonishing misunderstanding of the issue! What singing? If Old Believers are schismatics, how can one perform prayerful hymns with them? And is it even appropriate to turn liturgical hymns, from which even catechumens are excluded, into a secular concert? Truly, Russian Christianity has reached the pinnacle of spiritual decline! A complete secularization of sacred liturgical life.
And so, one begins to wonder: are all these overtures toward the Old Believers, all these council decisions and memoranda, not some kind of trap? Where is this wind blowing from? Who is behind this so-called “Old-New Ritualist” dialogue? Let us look at the facts.
It is noteworthy that the report to the 1971 council on the necessity of lifting the anathemas from the old rites was delivered by a controversial figure, Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). Protopriest Lev Lebedev of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) provides a striking testimony about this man: “I recall an article by a Ukrainian Catholic priest titled ‘On the Question of Catholicism in Russia,’ published in the second issue of the samizdat journal Bulletin of the Christian Community by V. Ogorodnikov in 1987. The author was once a cell-attendant of the aforementioned Metropolitan Nikodim and had many candid conversations with him. He writes that ‘Metropolitan Nikodim was always a sincere Catholic and a secret Catholic bishop.’ It’s no surprise, then, that he died not just anywhere, but in the arms of the Pope himself.” Rotov initiated the “dialogue” with the Old Believers, and it is continued in the same outwardly pious spirit by the author of the infamous memorandum—Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev). Regarding Metropolitan Kirill and the situation in the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), Protopriest Lev Lebedev further testifies: “I remember how Archbishop Kirill of Smolensk (also once a cell-attendant of Nikodim) tried to convince me that there is essentially no difference between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, just as other clergy close to Metropolitan Nikodim tried to convince me of the same. It became clear that within the episcopate and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, there is an active and cohesive group of secret Catholics.”
Thus, both the past and present leaders of the “Old-New Ritualist” dialogue are characterized as secret Catholics. This raises the question: could it be that Catholics, who instigated the schism in the Russian Church in the 17th century through the machinations of the schemer and papist Paisios Ligarides, are behind this apparent warming toward the Old Believers? After all, the lifting of the anathemas in 1971 did not occur without their involvement: the council was attended by the Pope’s personal legate, Bishop John, Cardinal Willebrands, a key figure in the dialogue between the MP and Rome. Moreover, leaders of various heretical and sectarian communities were present. The current orchestrator of the “Old-New Ritualist” dialogue, Metropolitan Kirill Gundyaev, besides his sympathies toward Catholics, is also a Doctor of Theology honoris causa of the Reformed Church of Hungary. This title was conferred upon him by heretics in 1987. Furthermore, Metropolitan Kirill’s theological views were equated with those of the Anglican leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie.2
However, it is not only the ideologues of the “Old-New Ritualist” dialogue who have been identified as secret Catholics; their very model of uniting with the Old Believers is a direct replica of the Brest Union. At that time, Catholics allowed the Little Russians to preserve their worship provided they accepted Catholic doctrine. The essence of Edinoverie is the same: Catholics of the Eastern rite then, and Nikonians of the old rite now.
Despite being “forest people,” the Old Believers are well aware of the theological views of the MP. Where Rome is involved, nothing good can be expected. And is it logical to anticipate any positive outcome when the parties do not trust each other?
For the modern New Ritualist hierarchy, there is no difference with whom to conduct “fraternal” dialogue or form a union. Evidence of this includes the Chambésy Union with the Monophysites in 1990, the Balamand Union with the Catholics in 1993, and now the memorandum with the Old Believers.
The most appalling thing is that some Old Believers fell for this counterfeit reconciliation. Who could have imagined that those who most vehemently attack our Church, slanderously calling it the “fifth column of the Nikonians,” would be the ones to endorse this absurd memorandum? The first to fall for it were the Latvian priestless Old Believers, who signed the memorandum and even entered into Eucharistic communion with the New Ritualists. However, this absurdity was seen by the majority as betrayal, and the memorandum was ultimately rejected. The second group swayed by the MP’s promises of property and singing was the Belokrinitsa Old Believers. At the council of their metropolis on February 18, 1999, they approved the idea, making only minor amendments to the memorandum. Indeed, what won’t one do for “lush pastures”? Fortunately, their laity proved more steadfast than their shepherds and rejected the memorandum.
In general, only those Old Believers who perceive the old rites sensually or aesthetically, seeing in them merely external beauty, will fall for this trap.
The schism did not begin with the cursing of the old rites but with the introduction of new ones, contrary to sacred tradition and the anathema of the Stoglav Council. Therefore, the mere lifting of the anathemas does not resolve the problem.
Do not think, dear brothers, that I or any other who considers themselves a Christian take joy in the schism. Perhaps the hierarchs of the MP were guided by sincere intentions when they attempted some form of dialogue. We do not know the true reasons behind these steps, but what is certain is that they were poorly thought out.
Notes: All of this was done with a complete misunderstanding of the internal state of Old Belief. If the cause of the schism were merely rituals, singing, or finger gestures, the issue would have long been resolved through Edinoverie. But we know that Edinoverie was sustained primarily by state support, not by the recognition of the people. Artificially assembled from fainthearted Old Believers driven into it by force or blackmail, supplied with Old Believer property treacherously seized, it collapsed as soon as that support was withdrawn. Now, no more than a couple dozen Edinoverie parishes participate in this ritual union.
So, what do we expect? What do we want? How do we envision the path to overcoming this exhausting schism?
In the acts of their 1971 council, the New Ritualists wrote that they reject derogatory expressions related to the old rites. Glory to God! But it is not enough to sheepishly shuffle one’s feet, mumbling, “We sinned, but tsarism is to blame.” Without concealment, they must openly recount how their ancestors mocked the eight-pointed cross, burned and chopped it down, how they ridiculed the name of Christ—Isus, how they blasphemously, like pagan tormentors, forcibly poured their communion into the mouths of Old Believers. How they seized our churches, how they burned our elders, women, and children. How they committed countless other evils.
These should not be superficial statements but a public, resounding condemnation of specific deeds and names. For it was not merely secular authorities that persecuted and tormented Old Believers; priests and bishops with hardened hearts orchestrated and carried out this genocide. They destroyed Christians for preserving Orthodoxy. What the Old Believers preserved, for which they were killed for over three hundred years, was recognized in 1971 by the descendants of their persecutors as salvific. It was not just the Romanovs who raised the sword; figures like Patriarch Nikon, Metropolitan Dmitry of Rostov, Bishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod, Bishop Isidor Kolokolov, and many other champions of innovations played a role in inciting it.
When a person repents of a sin, they do not merely say, “I have sinned,” but expose the specific nature of their sin. The same must be done here. Recall the words of John the Forerunner addressed to the hypocritical spiritual leaders of Judea: “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:7–8). God forbid we hear such words ourselves.
It is necessary to ask God’s forgiveness for all this, to renounce these grievous sins, and then to convene a general council to discuss all specific canonical, ritual, and administrative issues.
Believe me, brothers, there is much to discuss, but without acknowledging the harm and invalidity of Nikon’s reforms, as well as an honest account of all the tyranny and genocide against Old Belief, there will, alas, be no peace.
Moreover, a serious discussion is needed on whether peace is possible while simultaneously using pre- and post-reform rites. How, and in what way, can they coexist—if at all? There is no need to panic and claim that “Old Believers want to impose their rites on three-finger signers.” No. But if the canonicity of the Stoglav Council was recognized in 1971, and the Stoglav anathematized any finger gesture other than the two-finger sign, then a joint, reconciliatory council is necessary to discuss the appropriateness and possibility of revisiting this decision.
Years pass, but the New Ritualists stubbornly refuse to acknowledge their ancestors’ guilt in the schism. They persistently refuse to convey to their flock the meaninglessness and harm of Nikon’s reforms.
In all these years, the New Ritualists have not published a single modest pamphlet to explain to their poorly educated flock the significance, or even the fact, of the 1971 council’s decisions.
Open any of their catechisms, and in the section on the sign of the cross, you will find information only about the three-finger gesture, with not a word about the two-finger sign. What about the decision on the equal dignity of the rites?
Moreover, the fanaticism and phobia toward ancient Orthodoxy among New Ritualist neophytes and clergy are so great that they often consider even their own Edinoverie Old Believers to be heretics. And the latter repay them in kind, re-baptizing those baptized by pouring in neighboring New Ritualist parishes, forgetting that a good half of the MP’s episcopate was baptized by pouring.
In all these years, there has not been a single call to convene an all-Russian council with equal participation of Old Believers and New Ritualists to identify and discuss all perplexing issues, disagreements, and grievances. There is no sincere desire to truly grasp the significance and fateful importance of the 1971 decisions.
There is much to ponder. Nikon’s reforms and the anathemas on the ancient rites were justified by the claim that those rites contained heresy. This is why hundreds of New Ritualist missionaries and “fighters” against the schism fearlessly spewed terrible blasphemies against the ancient Russian church order and way of life. The 1971 council declared all this madness to be “as if it never happened.” Consequently, it was acknowledged that Nikon’s reforms were meaningless and unnecessary, for if the old rites were salvific, why correct them?
Seeing the outwardly decorous faces of the MP hierarchs, one sincerely wants to believe their assurances of fraternal love. However, the canonical chaos, simony, and profiteering that have engulfed New Ritualism compel us to restrain our feelings and trust our eyes more than our ears.
A universal blindness prevents the New Ritualists from hearing the voice of even their own accusers. Long before the revolution, the eminent New Ritualist theologian Bishop Theophan (Govorov), the recluse of Vysha Hermitage, foretold of these times and the current New Ritualists: “The Gospel will be known to all, but one part will remain in disbelief, while another—the majority—will fall into heresy, not following God-given teaching but constructing their own faith through their inventions, albeit based on the words of Scripture. There will be countless such self-invented faiths… There are already many of them now, and there will be even more. Each kingdom will have its own confession, then each region, then each city, and in the end, perhaps each individual will have their own confession. Where people build their own faith instead of accepting God-given teaching, it cannot be otherwise. And all such people will claim the name of Christian. There will also be a portion holding the true faith as it was handed down by the holy Apostles. But even among these, no small number will be orthodox in name only, lacking in their hearts the disposition required by faith, having loved this present age. Although the name of Christian will be heard everywhere, and churches and church rites will be seen everywhere, all this will be mere appearance, while inwardly there will be true apostasy.”
Indeed, the New Ritualists have filled their churches with the crudest fetishism, peddling all sorts of amulets left and right and hanging “church” awards on all manner of criminals.
The vast majority of canons are violated, the very idea of the Church is trampled, and the New Ritualists have divided their Christian community into a caste of priests and a flock that they deem unnecessary to teach, guide, or nurture—but which they can fleece, milk, and deceive.
Is this a lie? No! To our great sorrow, it is the bitter truth. Visit nearly any New Ritualist church, and you will see for yourself how much attention and interest they show you—and, most importantly, in what form.
All criminals, drunkards, drug addicts, oligarchs, and other filth consider themselves members of the Orthodox Church. And the priests approve of them, admitting them to the churches, extorting their stolen money, and indiscriminately communing and admitting them to all other sacraments.
Will you say that not all act this way? Yes, but sincere priests are so few that all of Russia knows them by name. Of them, it can be said that it is easier to lead a righteous man out of Sodom than to tolerate the lawlessness of the majority for his sake.
Yet, despite this evident decline, the New Ritualists continue to “float in the clouds,” naively considering themselves orthodox and untainted by any heresies or vices.
Why boast of the number of saints when the Judgment has not yet come, and it is unknown what God will say about all these canonizations? As we mentioned earlier, most of these spiritual authorities of New Ritualism angrily condemn it.
Why boast of the multitude of members? The Bolshevik persecutions showed how many true Christians there actually were in Russia, and even now, the churches are essentially empty. Mass baptisms of unbelieving, uninstructed people have not increased the number of members but only blurred the boundaries.
Why boast of the favor of the authorities when Scripture says, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Proverbs 21:1)?
Why boast of learning and puff up under the weight of self-invented awards when “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty” (1 Corinthians 1:27)?
It is painful to the point of tears that, forgetting their purpose, Christians fiercely tear at each other’s throats, proving their primacy, but the Gospel says that people will be judged by their fruits, not their roots.
Let us stop! Let us cleanse the churches of random people, let us observe the canons, let us serve one another in love, fulfilling the Divine Gospel. For where there is no Gospel life, no amount of ornate decoration or golden domes will help. Before God, all this is mere stagecraft, a vile spectacle, and pastors who do not care for their flock are wolves: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote” (Isaiah 29:13); “For from the least of them to the greatest, every one is greedy for gain; from prophet to priest, every one deals falsely. They have healed the wound of My people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 6:13–15); “Of what use to Me is frankincense that comes from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to Me” (Jeremiah 6:20).
Let us fear the wrath of the Lord, abandon harmful disputes, and together, with united efforts, begin to gather what our fathers scattered. Let us cease tormenting the already bloodied Bride of Christ—the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!
Priest Andrey Marchenko (RDC)