Justification of the Old Believer Church #

St. Arseny Uralsky

Introduction #

The Holy Church of Christ has many commandments for raising us from death to life, and all of them are obligatory for our fulfillment. Each one is but a step in that ascent which leads mortals to eternal life. And this life-giving ladder presents itself to every believer in as many steps as there are commandments of Christ that he can possibly fulfill. One will not attain perfection in the promise of life if he rejects even one of the possible commandments of Christ, as it is said: “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).

Moreover, the fullest possible fulfillment of Christ’s commandments grants its gracious promise of perfection only to those who fulfill them with true faith in Christ. For in unbelief, or through any hypocrisy, even the fulfillment of Christ’s commandments does not bestow upon us the grace of God. As the great father says, those who do not receive grace in the fulfillment of Christ’s commandments suffer this due to unbelief and negligence: but those who again acquire it, do so through faith and diligence (Gregory of Sinai, Chapters on the End, ch. 4, in the Philokalia, part 1). With such teachings about grace and faith, the Holy Church of Christ navigates the salty sea of this life.

At present, a great storm of opposing winds has risen against this faith of the Holy Church, for there have appeared people who subject the existence of the Christ-transmitted priesthood only to the uninterrupted continuation of orthodoxy in bishops. They say that if orthodoxy in the entire episcopate somehow weakened or became obscured, it would be tantamount to the cessation and complete destruction of all the Christ-transmitted priesthood. All the “priestless” and the followers of the Greek-Russian Church reason in this way, with the only difference being that the former admit the possibility of this happening, and pointing to the reform of the Moscow Patriarch Nikon, by which all bishops indeed had obscured their orthodoxy, they proclaim from that time the cessation and final destruction of the Christ-transmitted priesthood. The latter, agreeing with the former in the assumption that the priesthood could cease and be destroyed due to the fall of orthodoxy in all bishops, but looking at the unrepentant promises of God, do not allow this assumption to actually occur. They say that although bishops can stumble and fall in orthodoxy in parts, there must always be a portion of pious bishops among them. And to this latter portion, they ascribe the divine property of infallibility, and if the latter bishops, gathered together, called even the most obvious iniquity the truth, they would be ready to sanctify it with the most sacred church dogma and unconditionally submit to it. Therefore, they call those who did not follow the bishops who deviated into corruption due to the reform of Patriarch Nikon, schismatics and disobedient to the Church, likening them to pagans and tax collectors.

So, the priestless and the advocates of the Greek-Russian Church, though they engage in a considerable struggle among themselves over the admission and non-admission of fallibility regarding orthodoxy to all bishops, resembling sea waves chasing each other, but when they meet those who, according to the teaching of the Holy Church, believe that the grace of priesthood, although ceasing its salvific action in impious bishops, does not get destroyed so much that it could not again act with its saving power in them when they turn to orthodoxy, as testified by Venerable Ephraim the Syrian, saying: Grace does not have many such heirs with whom it can rejoice together: if they live disorderly, it endures; if they act impiously, it turns away, but it does not close its bosom, so that they do not die (part 2, p. 647): then they from both sides cry out unceasingly that priesthood cannot exist if none of the bishops remain pious. This common voice, emanating from opposite sides, aims to completely undermine the conviction of the sons of the Holy Ancient Orthodox Church and lead them into some kind of heresy. Hence, it appears that they, like opposing waves, colliding in one high splash, want to overthrow and drown our ship—the Holy Church, consisting under the guidance of sacred rules and the governance of the Old Believer hierarchy.

Therefore, we, her humblest children, unable to indifferently watch the ferocity of this storm, resolve to enter into the examination of all questions raised to disturb us by the unbelief and cunning of our opponents, and we pray to the Lord God that He, even amidst the ferocity of the aforementioned storm, will preserve our mental ship—the Holy Ancient Orthodox Church—unsinkable.

And you, our beloved brothers in God, we ask to take up such a good zeal, so that the beginning laid for the justification of our mother—the Holy Old Ritualist Church of Christ—may be brought to proper perfection. For we must know that the Lord has shown us the way of life through prophets and apostles, but each of them, as the great elder explains in foresight, spoke partially, and God did not speak exclusively through one of them, but what was left unsaid by one was stated by another according to the will of God. Thus God also acted with the saints who came after them: what some spoke uncertainly, those who followed them interpreted, so that God would always be glorified through His saints. For He is the God of the first and the last (Guidance to the Spiritual Life by Venerable Barsanuphius and John, response 611). And if the saints could not explain everything in complete perfection, then even more so we, sinners, cannot think of our own perfection in any way, but we only wish that we all offer to each other our feasible labor as a sacrifice and with our common unanimity fulfill each other’s shortcomings, and thus we can more accurately explain to ourselves the truth of God and sooner achieve its complete perfection in the blessed future life we await.

-Original Publishers.

On the Orthodox Faith #

What benefit does a person gain from faith in Christ? #

Through true faith in Christ, we are freed from death and hope to receive eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, as He said: He who believes in Me (the Son of God) has eternal life; and he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36). And again: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16).

Will all who believe in the Gospel be saved? #

All who faithfully believe in the entire Gospel and arrange their lives according to its saving commandments will be saved; but those who do not wholly believe in the Gospel will not be saved, according to the following saying of Christ: Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments (that is, the Gospel’s) and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19). By the word “least,” Chrysostom commands us to understand nothing else but hell or torment (Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 16).

How can one recognize the right faith in Christ when every Christian claims it for themselves, and yet there are many irreconcilable divisions among Christians today? #

The right faith in Christ is testified by the Divine Scriptures, and whoever among Christians does not have the testimony of the Holy Scriptures for their faith is not truly faithful. “Many believed,” it is written in the Gospel, “but not as the Scripture said, but as they followed their own will; all these are heretics” (Gospel of John, chapter 27). And Saint John Chrysostom says: “Just as in royal coinage, if even a small part of the image is cut off, the whole coin is rendered useless; likewise, if even a small part of the sound faith is corrupted, everything is lost, leading to the worst outcome from the beginning” (Homilies on the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. 1, verse 7).

The right or sound faith is considered to be that which has received testimony from many saints who have pleased God, and such a faith is recognized by the confession laid out by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, which is professed as follows:

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and all that is visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten of the Father, begotten before all ages. Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, but not created, one in essence with the Father, who wrought all things. For us men and for our salvation, came He down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of the Virgin Mary became man. Who was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, and arose on the third day, after the scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom has no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the true and life-giving Lord, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets. And in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism unto remission of sins. I await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.”

This confession of faith and all subsequent ecumenical and local Holy Councils have affirmed its unchangeable truth. Regarding this confession, it is written in the Book of Kiril: “Those who add anything to it, or take away from it, or otherwise alter it, even if he is the most authoritative teacher, are not to be listened to, but avoided, as the divine apostles teach us, saying: `But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed’” (Gal. 1:8). “For the law of the Lord is perfect, needing no amendment. The words of the Lord are pure words; there is nothing twisted or perverse in them, but all are straightforward to those who understand the truth and find sound understanding” (Philokalia, part 2, p. 647). In the service of the holy fathers: “It is not fitting to add or omit anything from the sacred tradition of our Orthodox faith… and those who alter it will be subject to the penalty of anathema” (Hymn on the 9th Ode of the Canon).

Is the testimony of the Moscow Council of 1667 correct in asserting that in the Creed, the confession of the Person of God the Holy Spirit, written in Greek at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, was without the addition of “true”? #

This testimony has no grounds to be considered correct for the following reasons:

a) The Old Believers, reading the Creed from ancient printed books, confess: “And in the Holy Spirit, the true Lord and Giver of life,” etc. The contemporary Greek-Russian Church has many teachers who know the Greek language, and it knows the testimony of the Moscow Council of 1667, as well as its strict judgment of anathema with attachment to Arius and other accursed heretics if anyone dared to disobey its orders and prohibitions. This prohibition includes the addition of “true” to the Person of the Holy Spirit in the Creed. Despite this, it does not recognize the Old Believers as belonging to any accursed heretics; rather, it acknowledges them as co-religionists, even though they maintain the addition of “true” in the confession of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the contemporary Greek-Russian Church, although not verbally acknowledging it, clearly shows by its actions the incorrectness of denying the word “true” from the Person of God the Holy Spirit.

b) Canon 130, or 145 of the Carthage Council states: If an accusation is found to be unreliable in one instance, it is deemed unreliable in all instances. But the Council of 1667 accused the ancient Russian Orthodox Church of supposedly maintaining heretical traditions concerning the sign of the cross and blessings. This accusation is now, unreliable for all, and therefore, another accusation against the ancient Orthodox Church, such as the alleged confession of the Holy Spirit contrary to the Second Ecumenical Council with the addition of “true,” should also not be heeded.

c) The Russian land initially accepted and maintained the fully Orthodox Christian faith until the times of Patriarch Nikon. This is testified not only by many wise men knowing the Greek language but also by God Himself through many holy Russian miracle workers. However, the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed was always with the addition of “true.” Therefore, there is no doubt that this expression was also present in Greek books.

The confession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed appears without the addition of “true” before Patriarch Nikon, as detailed in the second part and second section, in excerpts from ancient manuscripts by Ozerksy. But Paul of Prussia, the abbot of the Nikola Monastery of the Old Believers at the Transfiguration Cemetery in Moscow, in a conversation with Old Believers about the anathemas of the Council of 1667, recognizes the word “true” in the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed as an addition, and with such an addition, subjects the Creed to the anathemas of the previous Ecumenical Councils, concluding that no council has the right to abolish these anathemas (Collection of his works, part 1, 1879 edition, p. 453). How should this be understood? #

Ozerksy’s excerpts point to two ancient handwritten Kormchayas and the words of John of Damascus in the “Lives of the Saints” by Metropolitan Macarius, and Maxim the Greek in his ancient handwritten book. However, these places are not a direct confession of the Creed but merely an explanation of the person of the Holy Spirit against the incorrect understanding of His procession, as ascribed by the Latins. In discussions, often only one aspect is taken without its definitions, or not all definitions are cited, as seen in the book of Cyril, where on leaf 131 it is written: “We believe in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son.” But in another place in the same book of Cyril, the full Creed of the Orthodox faith is transcribed, and here the confession to the Holy Spirit reads: “And in the Holy Spirit, the true Lord and Giver of life,” etc. (Letter of Patriarch Photius, l. 506). However, Ozerksy does not mention this, showing that he collected and cited all his evidence with bias rather than full disclosure.

Moreover, he pointed to the Statute of Divine Services, kept in the Patriarchal sacristy in Moscow under number 268, Zosimus the Monk, the Stoglav, and the Horologion printed in the year 7074 (1566) under Tsar Ioann Vasilievich, where it is confessed: “and in the Holy Spirit, true and life-giving.” He also mentioned the discussion of the Stoglav Council that some say: “and in the true Holy Spirit,” as if it were indifferent whether one says “Lord” or “true.” But in other copies of the Stoglav, in chapter 9, it is written: “Some ignorant say: ‘and in the true Holy Spirit.’ It is not fitting; thus it should be said: `and in the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving Lord.” (Kozhanchikov edition, p. 68, Kazan edition, p. 94). But Ozerksy also remained silent about this diversity in the Stoglav, further testifying to his bias. However, the later editions of the Stoglav have more meaning than the earlier ones and align with the universal confession of the Creed held by our ancient Russian Church.

But what about the remaining books mentioned by Ozerksy? They are all from the pens and editions of Little Russian printing houses, and the Little Russians derived their learning not from the Greeks but from the erring West. The learned Latins published Greek books in their printing houses not in full accuracy, and by giving them to their students, they ensnared many in the traps of their errors. Here is proof of this: Gedeon Balaban, translating from Greek, published in 1606 in Striatyn his Trebnik, in which, in the rite of baptism, it is said: “And if the baptized is an infant, he is placed in the baptismal font up to the neck, holding with the left hand, and with the right taking warm water, pouring it over his head, to prevent the infant from drowning, and says the preordained words: in the name of the Father, etc. But if the baptized is of age, he is immersed in three immersions, as we have said before.” This provision regarding sprinkling in baptism for sick infants was allowed in service books published in Moscow under Patriarch Job in 7110 (1602) and between the patriarchates in 7124 (1616). Patriarch Philaret of Moscow, as well as subsequent pious patriarchs, in their service books and Trebniks, abolished the allowance of sprinkling in baptism even for sick infants, which Bishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod calls a custom not of the Eastern Church but of the Western Church (Praeshchitsa, response 14). But if, according to Pitirim, the custom of sprinkling in baptism for sick infants is not of the Eastern Church but of the Western Church, then, even more, sprinkling all infants in baptism will be a tare of the Western Church that has grown in the Little Russian Church, still subject to the Greek patriarchs. And since Greek books published in Western printing houses were indeed distorted, as Pitirim says in response 185 of the Praeshchitsa, that Greek church books printed in Latin printing houses are not carefully supervised in correction: therefore, such books are compared with ancient manuscripts in patriarchates, dioceses, and monasteries, and any errors found are corrected with great care. And other Greeks who buy such books for their homes correct them as much as they understand if any errors are found in them, either through negligence or cunning. Greek books printed by the Latins were also scrutinized during the time of Patriarch Philaret when a conversation took place between Lavrenty Zizania, the author of the Large Catechism, and the censors of Patriarch Philaret in Moscow. Lavrenty said to them: “You do not have Greek rules.” The censors replied: “We have all the rules of the old Greek translations; but we do not accept the new translations of Greek language and all kinds of books because the Greeks now live in great distress among the unbelievers, and they cannot print books at will, and therefore introduce other beliefs into the translations of the Greek language as they wish, and we do not need such new translations of the Greek language.” Lavrenty replied, “We also do not accept the new translations of Greek language books; they are distorted by the lands.” Therefore, it is very simple to assume that in the Creed only in printed Greek books by the Latins, the word “true” in the confession of the Holy Spirit was omitted, and the Little Russians accepted this with the same blind trust as Gedeon Balaban accepted their innovation of sprinkling baptism for infants. Thus, all references by Ozerksy to Little Russian books for removing the word “true” from the Creed in the confession of the Holy Spirit do not present a firm foundation. For us, it should be firmer that in Great Russia, the universal confession of the Creed was maintained with the confession of the Holy Spirit as the true Lord. If we were to enumerate all Great Russian books with such a confession of the Creed, this enumeration would undoubtedly exceed Ozerksy’s not only by tens but even by hundreds of times. Here, since the adoption of the Christian faith, there were up to thirty metropolitans alone from the Greeks, and several archbishops on other bishoprics, therefore, it is unimaginable that they could maintain a Creed here inconsistent with that affirmed at the Ecumenical Councils, and even more so, God Himself would not have confirmed the incorrect faith of the ancient Great Russian Church by glorifying many miracle workers in it, whose bodies remain incorrupt to this day. Moreover, if we pay attention to the very Creed in which we confess: “true God of true God.” Here the Person of God the Father and the Person of God the Son are each distinctly defined by the word “true,” and by the equality of honor of the Holy Trinity, the third Person, the Holy Spirit, is fitting and just to be defined by the word “true.” For our understanding of the truth of the Holy Spirit, when leaving the word “true” in His definition, completely disappears, whereas among the Greeks, it may partially be retained in the articles, placed according to the nature of their language with names expressing their very essence, which in our language cannot always be precisely expressed without adding a defining adjective or pronoun. Therefore, even if the word “true” is not encountered anywhere among the Greeks in the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed, we, lacking specific articles in our language for a more firm expression of the essence of the subject, should not disdain the ancient translators who defined the confession of the Holy Spirit with the word “true,” and even more so, as Christ Himself defines Him, saying: “The Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). And if Paul of Prussia directs the anathema of the Ecumenical Councils to the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed as true, he thereby condemns, firstly, the entire ancient Russian Holy Church, and secondly, the entire contemporary Greek-Russian Church, which, contrary to Paul’s assertion that no council can absolve the anathema for the addition of the word “true” in the Creed, has absolved the Old Believers to confess the Holy Spirit in the Creed as true, and recognizes them as not accursed but co-religionists. Finally, he himself falls under this self-imposed anathema; for he, serving in the Old Believer Church, always reads the confession of the Holy Spirit in the Creed with the defining word “true.” Thus, he said what he does not believe himself, which is clearly false: but whoever says what he does not believe himself is undoubtedly a false teacher, and therefore should be guarded against, according to the commandment of Christ the Lord (Matt. 7:15).

Should anyone be forced into orthodoxy? #

Compulsion is a violation of a person’s will. If God desired this, He would not allow anyone to fall into any sin against His holy will. However, although He wishes for all to be saved, He does not compel anyone to this end. While He was on earth, He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom without compulsion, and He sent His apostles into the world with this saving message, as sheep among wolves. And just as sheep cannot compel wolves, it is evident that the faithful should not force anyone into their orthodoxy.

Patriarch Meletius of Alexandria, in his ninth epistle, indicated how the heretics variously deceive and compel others to their false beliefs, and finally said: “In the one true faith delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, and firmly and unwaveringly held by the orthodox, no one should ever say or indicate that anyone should be compelled to the true faith or tortured, but the faithful, being themselves tortured by the wicked through the devil’s instigation, suffered with gratitude, entrusting everything to the righteous Judge, as it is written: ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord’ (Romans 12:19). For this reason, the divine apostle, when he came to the knowledge and understanding of the true faith, no longer wished to torture but desired rather to be tortured… For `all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution’ (2 Timothy 3:12)” (Book of Kyrill, leaf 500).

The chronicler Baronius, in the year 324, recounts that the great Emperor Constantine believed in Christ, summoned the senators and many people to an assembly, and addressed them with a wise and very useful speech, exhorting them to know the true God and not to serve false gods who could help no one… The whole crowd cried out and repeated for two hours: “Let everyone perish who denies Christ; there is one Christian God.” When they fell silent, Constantine said: “Know that no one can be a Christian by compulsion, but one should approach this holy law by free will and preparation, so that no one fears that he will fall out of our favor if he is not a Christian; however, he who willingly accepts the Christian law will receive my favor.”

In the Lives of the Saints, on February 4, in the life of Venerable Isidore of Pelusium, it is written: “It is not fitting to attract those who do not consent to piety by force, and it is not appropriate.”

In the explanatory Gospel for Pentecost Sunday on leaf 153: “Christ attracts no one by force or coercion, but calls those who have much and fervent zeal, and desires to refresh them; but He does not compel the unwilling nor force them.”

source