On Priesthood and False Priesthood
By Vladimir Shamarin.
Samara, 2006.
Commissioned by the Russian Council of the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church.
The book was prepared for publication by the Samara Old Believer Community of the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church.
For nearly three hundred years, the Ancient Orthodox Church has been forced to exist without priesthood. This occurred by God’s permission, in fulfillment of prophecies, yet ancient Orthodox Christians are constantly reproached for the incompleteness of church life, even called heretics, while writers, in collusion with publishers, distort the history of the schism (Zenkovsky’s “Russian Old Believers” and others). This compels us to turn to the question of priesthood, the gracious gifts received through lawful ordination, and also to offer a historical overview of the church structure of the first Old Believers. As an introduction to this topic, readers are offered the following article.
Priesthood as a distinct estate for performing divine services was established by God’s command during the exodus of the ancient Israelites from Egypt, from the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of the forefather Jacob. The Levites proved themselves defenders of true worship of God at a time when the other tribes of Israel participated in idol worship before the golden calf (Ex. 32). “And Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him” (Ex. 32:26). The Lord said to Moses: “I have sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast; they shall be Mine. And behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that open the womb among the children of Israel. The Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12-13).
However, the direct duties of the priesthood were laid by the Lord through Moses upon his brother Aaron and his descendants. “And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water; and put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him (a cape made of two pieces of expensive fabric with straps), and girded him with the girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith, and put the breastplate upon him, and in the breastplate he put the Urim and Thummim (special ornaments, literally ‘light’ and ‘perfection’), and put the mitre upon his head, and upon the mitre, upon the front thereof, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown, as the Lord commanded Moses” (Lev. 8:6-9).
Moses poured the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head: Aaron became the high priest with the right to pass this rank to his eldest son, and his sons became priests. Concerning the priesthood, the Lord said to Moses: “In those who approach Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified” (Lev. 10:3). God’s blessing upon “the house of Aaron” was also manifested in the miracle of Aaron’s dry rod sprouting (Num. 17:8), which was thereafter kept at the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle, and later in the Jerusalem Temple. The other Levites, when the people gathered, were washed with water, cleansed by sacrifices, and after the laying on of hands by the rest of the Israelites, were given in subordination to the priests to assist in divine services and maintain sacred objects. The duties of priests and Levites are detailed in the biblical books of Leviticus and Numbers. By the end of King David’s reign, 24,000 Levites served at the Tabernacle (1 Chr. 23:4). Unlike the other tribes of Israel, the Levites had no land and subsisted on the tithe of livestock and harvest. In turn, they also contributed a tithe for the support of the high priests (Num. 18:21-32).
The Lord severely punished priests for deviating from the rules of service. Thus, Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers and offered before the Lord “strange fire” (taken not from the altar, as the Lord commanded), for which they were consumed by fire sent from the Lord (Lev. 10:1-7). The sons of the high priest Eli, priests Hophni and Phinehas (not to be confused with another Phinehas!), taking advantage of their father’s old age and weakness, appropriated what was offered to the Lord and behaved unworthily with women. The Lord revealed to Eli that the priesthood would depart from his family, and his sons would die on the same day. Soon, during the battle with the Philistines, they were killed, and the greatest sanctuary—the Ark of the Covenant—fell into Philistine hands for seven months. Eli died from shock, and the high priesthood passed to the righteous prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 1-7).
After King Solomon, priestly service was performed in the temple he built, which was later destroyed and restored after the Babylonian captivity by Zerubbabel.
The pattern of Old Testament worship was a preparation for the coming of the Savior into the world. “The law,” in the words of the Apostle Paul, “was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24).
The various images constantly encountered in the Book of Leviticus—on one hand, of sin, and on the other, of its forgiveness by God’s mercy—helped preserve in Israel for subsequent centuries the awareness of the need for a Redeemer of the whole world. By the time of the Savior’s coming into the world, Old Testament service had so lost its spiritual foundation that both the priesthood and most Jews failed to recognize in Christ the coming Messiah.
Christ taught in the temple many times. As a twelve-year-old boy, Jesus answered His relatives who had lost Him in Jerusalem: “I must be about My Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). He drove the merchants out of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), rebuked the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,” says the Savior, “from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias (father of John the Forerunner), whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35).
Christ’s preaching was not accepted by the Jewish people, and He foretold the imminent desolation of the Jewish sanctuary. “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38).
The remnants of Old Testament Jewish priesthood disappeared along with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.
Christian priesthood was established by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the persons of His holy apostles (meaning “messenger”): “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark reading 71). The entire 10th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew consists of Christ’s address to the apostles, sending them to preach, and foretelling the expulsion and martyric death that awaits them. The apostles themselves, and subsequently their disciples, became the founders of local churches—bishops (meaning “overseer,” “supervisor”). Thus, the first bishop of Jerusalem was James, the brother of the Lord—the son of Joseph the Betrothed; in the Roman Church, the bishop was the Apostle Linus. In individual cities and villages, for service, bishops appointed presbyters (meaning “elders,” see Titus 1:5). However, in the apostolic church, there was no strict distinction between bishops and presbyters. The apostles themselves were called presbyters (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1:1). In the Slavonic text, the Greek word “presbyter” is translated as “pop” (father). Church servants also included deacons (literally “servants”), whose initial duties involved assisting presbyters in managing the community (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-12), and later performing certain liturgical actions.
Over time, three degrees of church hierarchy were firmly established: bishops, who ordain priests and deacons and bless the performance of sacraments; priests, who directly shepherd the flock, perform certain church sacraments, and lead divine services; deacons, who do not perform sacraments but carry out various liturgical actions. Elevation to a degree of the hierarchy was accomplished through ordination (“cheirotonia”) and was a church sacrament that only a bishop had the right to perform.
Among the newly converted Christians were both Jews and pagans, but the service in the Jerusalem Temple—where the Savior and the holy apostles had been many times—was chosen as the model for worship. Christian churches were arranged to a certain extent in the likeness of the Temple; the clergy retained similarity in vestments to the Old Testament priesthood; the Psalter remained the foundation of the service; the external appearance of Christians and their everyday customs preserved a natural connection with the Old Testament.
The highest authority in the church belonged to Church Councils. At Ecumenical Councils, representatives from all local Orthodox churches gathered to affirm dogmas (foundations) of the Orthodox Faith and condemn heresies. Local councils (councils of individual churches) addressed matters of local significance. The Seven Ecumenical Councils and nine authoritative Local Councils laid the canonical foundation of the Orthodox Church in the form of church rules, including a series of rules for Christian life applicable to candidates for church degrees: husband of one wife (married to a virgin), without physical defects, not having obtained the degree through bribery, and others. A clergyman must lead a temperate, blameless life; for a whole range of offenses, he is subject to deposition from his rank.
As church organization strengthened, the number of rules related to church governance increased: the right to ordain priests was reserved for urban bishops, while rural bishops were deprived of this right (Rule 7 of the Council of Neocaesarea). A bishop’s rights were limited to his own diocese; without the consent of the metropolitan (the bishop governing a region), a bishop could not perform significant actions (Rule 19 of the Council of Antioch, and others).
Church rules were composed “as needed,” in response to specific occasions. For example, there were heretics who denied the possibility of repentance for those baptized Orthodox but who committed particularly grave sins or fell into heresy, rebaptizing such persons as if for purification; Rule 47 of the Holy Apostles prohibits second baptism. And in the Symbol of Faith are the words: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”
Unfortunately, through the action of the devil, heresies began to arise in the church, and their analysis and refutation became the primary task of the councils. One of the main issues was the attitude toward sacraments performed in a heretical environment. Is baptism performed by a heretic truly valid? Can and should one ordain a priest or bishop who received cheirotonia from heretics? Many centuries later, these questions became cornerstone issues for the Orthodox Russian Church, leading to the tragic division in Old Belief.
Rule 68 of the Holy Apostles states: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives from anyone a second ordination: let him be deposed from the sacred rank, both he and the one who ordained him: unless it is reliably known that he has ordination from heretics. For those baptized or ordained by such cannot be either faithful or servants of the church.” From the commentary of Balsamon: “…It is decreed to ordain without hesitation, and what they had is considered as not having been.” This is a natural and sound church conclusion. And Apostolic Rule 46 states: “A bishop or presbyter or deacon who does not anathematize or mock heretical baptism… let such be deposed from his rank.”
We find the same opinion on the significance of heretical sacraments in St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Basil the Great. But later, we see that by the authority of Ecumenical Councils, in relation to certain minor heresies and schisms, the reception of clergy into the bosom of the Church was softened. Guided by the goal of attracting heretics into the Church, taking into account the insignificance of heretical errors and the absence of a conciliar decision on the dogmatic issue that caused the heresy, councils of bishops made decisions to receive some heretics without baptism or ordination.
In the mid-3rd century, the Novatian schism arose. The occasion was the attitude toward Christians and clergy who had fallen away from the church during persecutions or committed grave sins, and then wished to return to the church. Novatus (in Carthage) and Novatian (in Rome) refused to receive into the church those who had denied Christ during the persecution of Emperor Decius, as well as those married twice. For this unreasonable strictness, they were called “the pure.” They had their own hierarchy. The First Ecumenical Council (325) in its 8th rule resolved to receive them without baptism, leaving bishops in their sees if there was no Orthodox bishop in that city. If an Orthodox bishop was already present in that city, the Novatian was to be left as a presbyter. Commentary by Zonaras: “Since they erred not by deviating from the faith, but by hatred of brethren and not allowing repentance for the fallen and those turning back, it was decreed that they remain in their degrees if there is no bishop in the Catholic Church of that city.” In the Acts of the Council, it is said that Novatians were received through “laying on of hands.”
It is considered that this meant chrismation, but some researchers believe that another rite was intended here.
St. Cyprian of Carthage remarks regarding Novatian that he “observes the same law that the Catholic Church observes, baptizes with the same symbol as we do, knows the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same Holy Spirit, since, apparently, he does not differ from us even in the question of baptism” (Works, Part 1, p. 366). St. Basil the Great in his 1st rule explains: “As for the Novatians, called ‘the pure,’ and ‘those standing by the water,’ and ‘the abstainers’ (varieties of heretics), their baptism, though not acceptable (i.e., not received), since the Holy Spirit abandons them, yet for the sake of economy let it be acceptable.”
In the three-commentary Nomocanon (pp. 302-304), St. Basil writes that they rebaptize Novatians and other schismatics: “Although among you this custom of rebaptism is not accepted, as likewise among the Romans, for some reason of economy; yet let our reasoning (i.e., justification of actions) have force, since their heresy is akin to that of the Marcionites… therefore we do not receive them into the Church unless they are baptized with our baptism, lest they say that we baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit when, like Marcion, they represent God as the creator of evil (permitting apostasy but forbidding repentance). And so, if this is agreeable, then a greater number of bishops should assemble and thus establish a rule, so that both the one acting is safe, and the one answering inquiries about such matters has a reliable basis for response.”
The Donatist schism caused much disagreement; they did not accept sacraments from hierarchs who had stained themselves with unseemly acts (prior to their conciliar condemnation), and since the Orthodox Church was still in communion with these hierarchs, the Donatists formed an independent society with their own hierarchy. Having spread in Africa at the end of the 3rd century, the Donatists existed for more than one and a half centuries. Different attitudes toward this and other schisms were evident in Africa and in the Roman Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage did not recognize the validity of any sacraments outside the Orthodox Church; St. Stephen of Rome recognized the baptism of schismatics but not their ordination. Blessed Augustine believed it possible to accept even the ordination of Donatists, but this opinion is hard to trust, since, according to historians, the writings of Bl. Augustine were distorted by heretics, and considering that he was bishop of Hippo in Italy, where at a council in 393 it was decreed to receive Donatist hierarchs only as laymen. More likely, Bl. Augustine spoke of the non-repeatability of cheirotonia upon falling into heresy and subsequent conversion.
Nevertheless, at the Council of Carthage in 411, it was decreed to accept even the ordination of Donatists, with the note: “This is done not in violation of the council that took place on this matter in lands beyond the sea, but so that it may be preserved for the benefit of those wishing to come to the Catholic Church in this way, lest any obstacle be placed to their unity” (three-commentary Nomocanon). The preeminent Orthodox Church, in the person of a multitude of bishops, had the authority to attract in this manner an already weakened society of schismatics with the aim of completely extinguishing the Donatist schism!
The Arian heresy, which denied the Divinity of Christ and, after its condemnation, continued to diminish God the Son as a Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, proved a serious trial for the Orthodox Church. The Arians convened assemblies where they set forth their definitions of faith. Some bishops, not discerning the subtlety of the dogma, placed their signatures under such definitions. Then, when Orthodox teaching was affirmed, some—in particular, Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari—considered it impossible to receive these bishops in their rank, but the Church did not accept this opinion.
The First Ecumenical Council affirmed the Symbol of Faith but did not establish a rite for receiving Arians; only a few supported Arius, they soon sent letters of repentance and were received, but after the Council, Arianism flared up anew in a more refined form. At the Second Ecumenical Council (381), Orthodox teaching on the Son of God was confirmed, an exposition on the confession of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church was added, and in its 7th rule, the Holy Council decreed that heretics—Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians—be received through chrismation.
The Arian heresy (against the Divinity of Christ) was great, but it was an “internal pain” of the Church. The best church minds, illumined by the Holy Spirit, expounded Orthodox teaching on the Son of God. Hidden forms of Arianism persisted for a long time; the people lived intermingled; episcopal sees sometimes passed from Arians to Orthodox. Almost all hierarchs of the Eastern Church were infected with the heresy. At the same time, worship remained the same. In these conditions, any other rite for receiving Arians was impossible. According to Zonaras’ commentary on this rule: “These heretics are not rebaptized because, regarding holy baptism, they differ from us in nothing, but are baptized in the same way as the Orthodox.” St. Epiphanius of Cyprus testifies that “people even to this day live intermingled (Arians with Orthodox), and many of them are Orthodox.” The Greek Nomocanon Pidallion: “Moreover, careful examination shows that the heretics leniently received by the Second Council were for the most part those who fell into heresy already having been baptized; consequently, leniency was shown to them; but the truth of Sacred Scripture and sound reason say that all heretics without dispute must be baptized.” St. Athanasius of Alexandria also did not accept Arian baptism.
Without examining in detail the rules for receiving heretics condemned by the Third and subsequent Ecumenical Councils, it should be noted that the approach to this question was the same as to Arianism, since the main heresies that necessitated these councils also arose within Orthodoxy on ever more subtle dogmatic questions not fully comprehended at the time. Nestorianism arose (distorted teaching on the Incarnation of the Son of God), Monophysitism (denial of the human nature in Christ as God-Man, leading to denial of the authenticity of the Savior’s sufferings on the Cross), Monothelitism (denial of the manifestation in Christ not only of divine but also human will, which is refuted by the Gospel narrative). These heresies were condemned, Orthodox teaching on the questions that arose was expounded, unrepentant heresiarchs were excommunicated from the Church, and after excommunication, sacraments from them were not accepted.
The iconoclastic false teaching, largely imposed by imperial authority, was from the very beginning perceived by the Orthodox as heresy even before its conciliar condemnation at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
The question of iconoclastic ordination arose acutely when it became clear that, due to 80 years of iconoclastic heresy dominance, many de facto Orthodox hierarchs had been ordained by iconoclasts or had entered into church communion with them, for which, according to the rules, they were subject to deposition. It was decided to receive them in their existing degrees, for otherwise, according to St. Theodore the Studite, who lived in that period, “all would become subject to deposition one from another.”
At the same time, the council decreed: “If anyone dares to accept cheirotonia from excommunicated heretics according to the proclamation of the conciliar definition and the unanimous opinion of the churches regarding Orthodoxy; then he is subject to deposition.”
In the acts of the Seventh Council, as an example, the opinion of contemporary historians is cited that St. Meletius of Antioch (who ordained St. John Chrysostom) was ordained by Arians, but evidence from other sources (Cheti-Minei, June 22; church history of Bl. Theodoret; letters of St. Basil the Great, and others) refutes this.
St. Theodore the Studite, referring to St. Basil the Great, explained the order for receiving those who had communion with heretics: “As the divine Basil said: he says that sometimes those who had communion with the disobedient, if they repent, are received in the same rank, but not by us (i.e., priests), even if they repent, but by those of equal rank, according to the expression of the divine Dionysius.” “If one of the patriarchs deviates, he must receive correction from his equals” (i.e., received by decision of patriarchs).
According to the Nomocanon, all heresies are divided into three ranks— the first (heretics) are received through baptism, the second (schismatics) are chrismated, the third (those under the church) merely renounce heresies. However, the assignment of a specific heresy to a particular rank was determined by the circumstances, depth, age of the heresy, and correspondence of external confession (rites) to Orthodoxy.
Other church rules set forth in the Nomocanon treat the reception of heretics more strictly. Thus, Rule 7 of the Council of Laodicea receives Photinians through chrismation, but in the commentary on this rule and in the rules of Timothy the Presbyter, these heretics are to be baptized. The Photinians (like the Paulicians received through baptism), according to historians, preserved the correct form of baptism in three immersions. Rule 47 of Basil the Great assigns a series of heretics to the first rank, who in other rules are assigned to the second.
There is no contradiction here. On one hand, “What was determined by economy for some useful purpose should not be brought forward as an example and retained for the future as a rule” (Balsamon’s commentary on the epistle of the Third Ecumenical Council); on the other hand—”those who have departed from the Church no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit in them. For it ceased when the succession was interrupted. The first who departed had spiritual bestowal from the fathers, but those who separated, being laypeople, had neither the authority to baptize nor to lay on hands. Consequently, they could not impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, from which they themselves had fallen” (Nikon of the Black Mountain, word 63, Rule 1 of Basil the Great according to the three-commentary Nomocanon).
Chapter 37 of the Nomocanon answers the question of receiving ordination from condemned heretics: after baptism or chrismation, ranked heretics are ordained to the rank in which they were. The same is written in Book 4 of Sevast Armenopoulos: “For diligent people are cheirotonized to that which they first had among themselves: whether presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons, or psalm-readers.”
Gregory Symbolak, Metropolitan of Kiev, who lived in the 16th century, in a discourse on the mystery of priesthood, explaining the rules of the First Ecumenical Council on Novatians, writes on the order of restoring heretical cheirotonia: “If some of them are bishops, or presbyters and deacons, if they have a blameless life, from the bishop of the Catholic Church to which they have joined, let them be ordained, first passing through all degrees… and in each degree let them remain for no small time… otherwise it is not permitted… And presbyters without the bishop’s will have no authority to anoint with Holy Chrism bishops or presbyters or others of the clergy coming from heretics. For they have no authority to appoint such by degrees, that is, to cheirotonize them to the rank in which they were.”
Thus, an impartial examination of the Ancient Church Rules allows the following conclusions:
- According to the opinion of the majority of holy fathers, hereditary heretics upon reception must be baptized.
- By decisions of Ecumenical Councils, some heretics were received through chrismation for the sake of church peace. At the same time, the form of baptism was not decisive for assigning a heresy to the first or second rank. There were differences in the rites for receiving heretics, depending on local circumstances.
- Unrepentant hierarchical persons after the condemnation of a heresy were received as laymen. As an exception, by the authority of Councils, only the schismatics Novatians and Donatists were received in their existing rank. The reception of bishops in their existing rank was carried out by those of equal rank (i.e., by a council of bishops).
The history of the Church in Rus’ knew no significant heretical movements until the 17th century. The heresies of the Strigolniki (14th century) and the Judaizers (15th century) were sufficiently few in number and short-lived that the question of the rite for their reception did not even arise. Russia increasingly became the Third Rome, the bulwark of piety. The Stoglav Council (1551) enshrined Russian Orthodoxy as a model for the Universal Church. It elicited respect and laudatory reviews from hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches. In 1589, the patriarchate was established in Russia, and the Russian Orthodox Church gained independence.
At this time, in the Eastern Church, Armenians were received through baptism (conciliar epistle of Bl. Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, 1591, and others), despite the fact that they baptize with three immersions and initially, after their separation, were received through chrismation. The practice of baptizing Catholics was affirmed, even though in the early period after the separation (1054) they were received through chrismation (Testimonies of Baronius, L., 1219; Serbian Trebnik, 1520).
At the same time, the pernicious influence of Latinism penetrated Greece. The conquest of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), the “crusade” into Byzantium by Catholic knights in 1204, the Unions of Lyon (1274) and Florence (1439) began to shake Greek Orthodoxy. In Venice, Nicholas Malaxas, protopope of Niviliysky, engaged in publishing liturgical books, into which he inserted his own compositions. These books, distributed in Greece, “by the action of the devil” in a relatively short time established there the three-fingered sign of the cross, the triple Alleluia, and other distortions. Elder Arseny Sukhanov, who traveled in the East in 1649, reports on the pouring baptism practiced there. Suspicion began to arise on Rus’ toward the Greek priesthood.
The Brest Union (unification with the Catholics) of 1596 became a “dress rehearsal” for the schism. How, then, was an Orthodox person to relate to Uniate clergymen? The venerable elder, hieromonk Zachariah Kopystensky, in his book “On True Unity,” directly calls for accepting no sacraments from Uniates, in necessity to marry without crowning, and if possible to commune oneself.
In the Conciliar Exposition of Patriarch Philaret, we read: “Let all people of the entire Russian land know that, just as all heretics of various heretical faiths do not have the right Holy Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit. And therefore, all those coming to Orthodoxy from various heretical faiths of the Christian law must be fully baptized with holy baptism, according to the tradition and observance of the holy ecumenical patriarchs.” In accordance with this, in the Great Trebnik, folio 874, it is set forth that one baptized by a Uniate—a former Orthodox priest who commemorates the Roman Pope in the litanies—should be rebaptized (which the Pomortsy also follow).
And then came the time of the beginning of the well-known Nikonian reforms. All the hierarchs, with the exception of Bishop Paul of Kolomna, who was exiled and died a martyr’s death, did not oppose the innovations. Proceeding from the practice of the Russian Church in relation to Uniatism and the “Exposition” of Patriarch Philaret, it was logical that after the council of 1666, which imposed anathemas on the old rites and thereby determined the separation of Ancient Orthodoxy from Nikonianism, after the flood of polemical literature containing heresy, and the subsequent acceptance of baptism from Catholics—newly baptized from Nikonians—the followers of Old Belief began to receive through baptism. As historians testify, this is how all the first Old Believers acted, despite certain differences of opinion on other issues. The Old Believers acted according to the decision of the Kurzhitsky Council of 1656, and this common practice proves the historical fact of that council.
At that time, Old Belief was still united. There remained quite a few priests of pre-Nikonian ordination who, having withdrawn from the new-rite church, performed the necessary sacraments in ancient Orthodox communities; however, liturgies were served very rarely, since churches with consecrated antiminses ended up with the Nikonians. Until the beginning of the 18th century, in the Pomorian regions, the hieromonk Paphnutius and the hierodeacon Ignatius performed sacraments (“History of the Vyg Desert”). In Courland (Lithuania), until 1704, the hieropriest Terentiy led the community; then his son Athanasius came to leadership, already as a layman (“Degutsky Chronicle”).
Soon the question arose of the further existence of the church in view of the priesthood’s fall into heresy. The first Old Believers comprehended what was happening in the Russian Church as an ineffable providence of God and as prophecies for the last times. Neither Bishop Paul of Kolomna nor the bishops inclined toward the old ways—Alexander of Vyatka, Sava and Makary of Novgorod—dared to continue an independent Old Believer hierarchy, although canonically they had the right to do so in those circumstances (which, 150 years later, the Beglopopovtsy dared to do).
The Old Believers recalled the words of Scripture about priesthood:
“Ye are the salt of the earth… but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Matt. 5:13).
“And the churches of God shall weep with great weeping, for neither oblation nor incense is offered, nor service pleasing to God. For the holy churches shall be as vegetable storehouses, and the precious Body and Blood of Christ shall not appear in those days” (Word of St. Hippolytus on Meatfare Sunday).
“Before the coming of Christ, Antichrist will cause the true sacrifice to be abolished everywhere and will set the abomination of desolation in the holy place” (Book of Kirill, Explanatory Apostle).
“Then all the churches of Christ shall weep with great weeping, for there shall be no holy service at the altars, nor oblation” (Ephrem the Syrian, Word 105).
They recalled the words of the Moscow saint Philip (16th century), who, addressing the people, said: “It grieves me to part with you, and I sorrow that a time is coming when the Church will be widowed, for the pastors shall be as hirelings” (Life of St. Metropolitan Philip, ed. 1860).
Foreseeing the scarcity of priesthood, the pre-Nikonian priests nevertheless did not consider it possible to prevent this by any artificial means—for example, by attracting on a material basis a hierarch of pre-Nikonian ordination or by accepting a priest ordained according to Nikonian books, which later became the Beglopopovtsy practice.
This view was held not only by the aforementioned hieropriests from those places where laymen later acted, but also by other priests in those places where the so-called “Beglopopovstvo” later appeared.
For the consecration of churches, antiminses are necessary, into which a particle of the relics of saints must be placed, which were difficult to obtain. To this time belongs the dark story of well-preserved human bodies discovered in a cave in the North Caucasus, which the clergy of the newly formed hierarchy, without any basis, presented as the incorrupt relics of early Christian Persian martyrs Dada, Gaveddai, Kazdoi, and Gargal. The bodies were transported to Moscow, broken into pieces, and placed in the newly consecrated antiminses. And even now, apparently, liturgies are served on them. The Belokrinitsa readers fiercely convinced the new-rite believers and the scholarly world of the authenticity of the relics (materials of Subbotin; Brilliantov M.I. Information on the Holy Relics of the Persian Martyrs. M., 1911).
In 1863, a serious division occurred among the Popovtsy in connection with the attitude toward the “Encyclical Epistle” of I.G. Ksenos, in which the validity of the sacraments and rites of the Greco-Russian Church was affirmed, and the reasons for the separation of Old Belief lost their canonicity. There appeared “Okruzhniki” and “Protivookruzhniki”; the division lasted about 30 years.
A significant part of the Beglopopovtsy justifiably doubted the canonicity of the reception of Metropolitan Ambrose and, until the present century, maintained the practice of Beglopopovstvo. In the 1920s, during the period of spiritual turmoil in the patriarchal church, two new-rite bishops, joining the Beglopopovtsy, established yet another hierarchy—the Novozybkovskaya (from 1923). Both the Belokrinitskaya and Novozybkovskaya hierarchies exist independently to this day.
Over centuries of spiritual nourishment by new-rite hierarchs, a number of innovations appeared in Beglopopovtsy worship and life: choirs began to be led by regents with a baton (instead of golovshchiki), the “classical” manner of singing, similar to the new-rite one, became the model; the ancient Orthodox rule of non-communion in food (and now in some places even in prayer) with those of other faiths was forgotten; persons of reprehensible appearance—shavers of beards—were almost everywhere admitted to communion. The episcopal service, restored only on the basis of manuscripts, apparently lost some details of the pre-Nikonian era.
Concluding this part of the narrative, one wishes to quote words from “The Shield of Faith,” a well-known collection of answers by a Pomorian reader to questions from a Beglopopovets: “Your people do not seek that from which your priesthood would receive the power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification through a bishop, but only seek that it bear at least the name of priesthood, and the people in their blindness will grant it dignity.”
Our Pomorian ancestors, guided by the unanimous negative opinion of the sufferers for piety and the last pre-Nikonian priests regarding new-rite cheirotonia, did not consider it possible to accept Greco-Russian priests in their existing rank.
Andrei Dionis’evich rightly believed that all rites, including sacraments, performed according to books corrupted by Nikon, lack gracious power and, accordingly, cannot be recognized as valid. The ancient “minor” heretics, whose baptism was accepted, performed all rites identically to the Orthodox.
In those times, due to the great distances and difficulties of travel, there was still hope that pious priesthood was preserved somewhere. Feeling the church’s need for a bishop, the Pomortsy undertook attempts to search for one. At the beginning of the 18th century, the Vyg resident Mikhail Ivanovich Vyshatin was sent to Greece and Palestine. He testified that in the Eastern Churches it was impossible to find a truly Orthodox bishop.
The searches ceased, and the Pomorian Church, faithful to the Spirit of Ancient Orthodoxy, continued its existence without visible priesthood, building church life according to the rules of necessity, sorrowing but not seizing what was not granted. The Typikon even in pre-Nikonian times provided for the possibility of conducting services in necessity without a priest, services without liturgy, and according to this Typikon the Pomortsy perform services to this day.
Prophetic indications and instructions of the Church Fathers show the true path of salvation in the absence of an Orthodox pastor:
“Through them (through pastors), with the approach of Antichrist, the faith of the warring people is disarmed when the power and fear of Christ are destroyed. Let the laity take care according to their own discretion” (St. Cyprian, part 1, p. 264).
“You have, says he, beloved brethren, no vain thing in reverence and faith, for there in this time you cannot offer sacrifices and oblations through God’s priests: offer as sacrifice a contrite spirit; a broken and contrite heart God will not despise. This sacrifice you continually offer to God, day and night, and you yourselves are a living and holy sacrifice, as the apostle says, in your bodies” (Hieromartyr Cyprian addresses the imprisoned—according to Baronius, folio 165).
“In times of persecution, with the scarcity of teachers, the Lord Himself will nourish by the Holy Spirit those who believe in Him” (St. Athanasius of Alexandria, part 4, p. 146).
“Beware lest you be deceived by them, for the pastors have departed or gone astray, as if it were impossible for us to preserve ourselves without them; but it is not so, it is not; for it is possible even without them, since God has expelled them from the Church and dishonored them, because they unworthily hold those thrones and bear that name” (Book of Kirill, folio 501, epistle of St. Meletius).
“And if your whole life, due to some necessity or calamity, remains without communion, not finding a conciliar church… Do not, therefore, O children, touch such prayer-leaders (heretics) for the sake of communion” (words of St. John the Merciful, Cheti-Minei, November 11).
Two sacraments—baptism and repentance—are the pledge of our salvation, and in necessity a layman can perform them, for which numerous examples are found in church history. As for the third most important sacrament—visible communion—when the Holy Gifts were exhausted, the Pomortsy began to live in hope of salvation from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Great High Priest, who can invisibly commune those who sincerely desire it, looking at the same time to examples from the Ancient Church, when martyrs and ascetics who never once partook of the visible Body and Blood of Christ not only received no condemnation but were glorified in holiness.
“And you can not only eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of the Lord by secret communion, but in another way” (Blagovestnoe Evangelie, folio 106).
To every Old Believer at confession it is reminded: “Do you have a burning desire for communion of the most pure Body and Blood of Christ; do you strive to prepare yourself for it in due time; do you grieve in soul before God for not receiving it?”
Our priestless service is not an invention of serving without priests, but a true and salvific service in conditions of the absence of Orthodox priesthood. The pledge of our salvation lies in preserving the Ancient Orthodox Faith—the Faith of pre-Nikonian Rus’ of the 17th century, the Faith of the sufferers for piety, the Faith of the Solovki monks, the Faith of the Pomorian fathers—the wisest and most discerning children of Ancient Orthodoxy, who hoped in the ineffable Providence of God, and not in human contrivance.