A Few Words About the Equal Honor of Rites. V.V. Buzhinsky

V. Buzhinsky — A Few Words About the “Equal Honor” of the Rites #

“Such is the grace of the Spirit — it makes those of one mind to be of equal honor.”
— St. Gregory the Theologian\

“For all Christian kingdoms shall come to an end and be gathered into one Russian kingdom for the sake of Orthodoxy.”
— Dimitry the Interpreter, Tale of the White Klobuk

In recent times, certain public figures of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC MP) seem to have agreed among themselves to proclaim in unison the “equal honor and equal salvific value” of the new and old rites. Thus, Patriarch Kirill, during a visit to an Edinoverie (Old Rite under MP) church on Bersenevka, voiced the thesis of “equal honor” in these words:

“All this must be present in the Russian Church, and not as a second-rate phenomenon, but just the same as the new rite.”
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1459681.html

This statement was echoed by Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Department for External Church Relations:

“There is no ‘second-rate’ rite; the old rite is just as legitimate as the new rite.”
http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1680850/index.html

And likewise by Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, Chairman of the Synodal Department for Church-Society Relations:

“Our Church considers the old rite to be just as salvific and Orthodox.”
http://www.pravmir.ru/onlajn-intervyu-s-protoiereem-vsevolodom-chaplinym-ya-schitayu-chto-ot-termina-intelligenciya-nado-otkazatsya/

Indeed, the thesis of the “equal honor and equal salvific value” of the rites was adopted already at the Local Council of the ROC MP in 1971. At that time, the Schism was presented as an unfortunate misunderstanding, the result of rash, hasty, and ill-considered efforts to unify Orthodoxy. Since then, 40 years have passed. In that time, the restraining Empire — the USSR (Third Rome) — collapsed into a number of independent states, among which there is not only no harmony but even, at times, armed conflict. Most alarmingly, the state-forming Russian nation has itself been fragmented into Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Great Russians. The remnant of Russia is increasingly becoming a raw-material appendage of the West — which not only dreams of, but consistently and persistently works toward, its further dissolution. The Russian East, beginning with the Urals, is being rapidly settled by legal and illegal Chinese migrant workers, under the protection of corrupt authorities.

Therefore, those who care for the Fatherland and are directly involved in religious life and have a theological education ought, presumably, to understand that the causes of this sorrowful state of affairs must be sought in the spiritual realm. It would then be logical to turn their attention to the condition of the church under their pastoral care. Firstly, because they consider themselves Orthodox. Secondly, because the number of faithful in the ROC MP far exceeds that of all other Nikonian jurisdictions.

Compared to 1971, the number of parishes has significantly increased. A portion of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) has reunited with the ROC MP. All of this, in theory, should result in a noticeable strengthening of spiritual forces toward the task of katechon (restraint), and the affairs of the Fatherland ought to be improving. Yet the opposite is happening. Why?

In our view, the reason is that in reality, there is no such thing as “equal honor and equal salvific value” between the rites. The thesis is extremely harmful, as it eliminates any possibility for the Nikonians to engage in critical self-examination. Naturally, it is convenient — no need to think, no need to worry, everything can simply be blamed on apostasy.

What goals, then, are the official representatives of the ROC pursuing by resurrecting this notorious thesis from oblivion? Perhaps it is intended as a means to enlighten the flock? Indeed, it must be said that the overwhelming majority of Nikonians — including their clergy — have only the vaguest idea about the Schism, and this idea is typically based on stereotypes more than two centuries old. Enlightenment is clearly needed — the sooner, the better. But can a false thesis truly enlighten? Or perhaps the goal is rather to keep the flock in ignorance? That is, do the ROC leaders know perfectly well that there is no “equal honor,” but are deliberately being disingenuous? Or do they sincerely believe that by reviving the thesis of “equal honor,” they are paving the way for healing the Schism? Again, how can one arrive at the truth through a false premise?

So as not to be accused of empty claims, let us offer a simple and comprehensible example — one from which any reasonable person, even without a theological education, could readily draw a definite conclusion about whether or not the new rites are of “equal honor” with the former, pre-schism rites.

Let us begin with the fact that the sign of the cross is an apostolic Tradition—that is, it was handed down orally by Jesus Christ to the apostles. St. Basil the Great writes about this in particular [1, ch. 27]:

“Among the doctrines and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written instruction in the Scriptures, and others we have received from apostolic tradition, transmitted to us in mystery. But both have the same force for piety. And no one, even slightly knowledgeable in ecclesiastical regulations, will dispute the latter. For if we were to attempt to reject the unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would, imperceptibly to ourselves, mutilate the very core of the Gospel—or better to say, reduce the proclamation to an empty name. For example (let me begin with the first and most universal), who among those who have placed their hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was ever taught in writing to make the sign of the cross upon himself? Which Scripture taught us to pray facing east? Who among the saints left in writing the words of invocation at the showing forth of the Bread of Thanksgiving and the Cup of Blessing? For we do not confine ourselves to the words mentioned by the Apostle or the Gospel, but before and after them we utter others, possessing great power for the fulfillment of the mystery, having received them from unwritten teaching. By what written rules, then, do we bless the water of baptism, the oil of anointing, and even the one being baptized? Is it not by the silent and mystical tradition that we observe? What more? Is there any written word that taught the anointing itself with oil? Whence comes the threefold immersion of the one being baptized? From which Scripture is taken the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Is it not from this unpublished and secret teaching, which our Fathers preserved in reverent and discreet silence, understanding well that the dignity of the mysteries is safeguarded by silence?”

“Nor would a whole day suffice me to recount all the unwritten mysteries of the Church. I consider it apostolic rule to hold fast even to those traditions not written in the Scriptures. For it is written: ‘Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you’ (1 Cor. 11:2); and, ‘Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle’ (2 Thess. 2:15).” [1, ch. 27]

Unfortunately, St. Basil the Great does not specify how the fingers are to be arranged in making the sign of the cross. This could only be the case if the finger arrangement at that time was universally accepted and uncontroversial. But what was it—two fingers or three?

Our theologians, in polemics with the Nikonians, rightly believed that if the antiquity of the two-finger sign could be demonstrated, this would be sufficient to affirm that the sign of the cross with the two-finger configuration is part of apostolic Tradition. And such a demonstration could serve as a decisive argument for healing the Schism. It must be said that they succeeded in this task. The antiquity of the sign of the cross using two fingers was indeed demonstrated.

There are sources that trace the two-finger form back to the earliest centuries of the Christian era. A wealth of Old Believer literature addresses this topic. For example, the work [2], first published in 1913, includes fragments of Roman catacomb frescoes, bas-reliefs, sculptures, and icon illustrations from both early and later Christian centuries. There are 54 illustrations in total depicting the two-finger sign. Among them are two icons of the God-bearer with the Christ Child—the Tikhvin and Smolensk icons—and in Russia alone, there are four icons of the Mother of God that tradition holds were painted by the Apostle Luke. Additionally, 11 other icons attributed to the Apostle are found in Rome, Greece, and Poland. In Rome, there exists a bronze statue of the Apostle Peter displaying the two-finger sign, which had been repurposed from a statue of Jupiter.

Moreover, the same work [2] cites various written sources that explicitly affirm the antiquity of the two-finger form. In contrast, in the 100 years since that publication, Nikonian historians have failed to produce even a single credible piece of evidence proving the antiquity of the three-finger sign before the 11th–12th centuries.

Thus, one of the ways to determine the proper Orthodox finger formation is clear to anyone who sincerely desires to find it. All that is required is common sense and a lack of prejudice. Another approach has also been proposed—one based on the concept of the katechon (the Restrainer) [3].

In that work, the spiritual reasons for the fall of Byzantium are examined. The conclusion is drawn that Byzantium fell as a result of transitioning from the two-finger to the three-finger sign of the cross—which, in turn, eloquently confirms that the two-finger form of the sign of the cross is indeed apostolic Tradition.

Thirdly, the same conclusion can be reached by referring to the confession of the sign of the cross with the two-finger configuration as the “word of God’s patience”—one of the marks of the Philadelphian, that is, the Orthodox Church [4]. Fourthly, one may examine the depth of theological confession inherent in the different finger arrangements, both the two-finger and the three-finger forms. In doing so, we proceed from the premise that Jesus Christ could not have commanded the apostles to use different forms of the sign of the cross, because every rite, including the sign of the cross, is inseparably bound to a confession—that is, to a clearly defined spiritual meaning expressed through a given finger formation, the order of touching the forehead, the belly, the shoulders, etc. It is only natural to assume that the deeper the theological meaning embedded in a form of the sign of the cross, and the more fully it reflects the fundamental teachings of Christ, the more likely it is that such a form was indeed commanded to the apostles.

Let us use the comparison of confessions presented by F. E. Melnikov [5]:

“In the two-finger form, the index finger represents the human nature of Christ, and the finger next to it—the great middle finger—represents the divine nature of the Son of God. According to catechetical requirement, the upper joint of this finger should be inclined, signifying the belief: ‘The Lord bowed the heavens and came down to earth.’ The remaining fingers—the thumb and the two smallest—are joined together to represent the Holy Trinity.”

As we can see, the two-finger arrangement involves all five fingers—confessing both the Holy Trinity and the two natures of Christ. But in the actual act of making the sign of the cross or bestowing a blessing, only the two fingers are applied to the forehead, the belly, the right shoulder, and the left. Theologically and dogmatically, the two-finger form is a fully Orthodox confession. And most importantly—it clearly and definitively expresses, and indeed one might say demonstrates or proclaims, the central essence of Christianity: the crucifixion and death on the cross of the God-man, and the co-crucifixion of all mankind with Him. “We preach Christ crucified,” proclaims the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:23). The two-finger sign proclaims the same. It is essential and visual—both Gospel and apostolic preaching. The three-finger sign, on the other hand, contains neither this central Christian confession nor this apostolic preaching.

The Council of 1667 dogmatized the following:

“The sign of the honorable and life-giving Cross shall be made upon oneself with the first three fingers of the right hand: the so-called ‘great’ finger (thumb), and the one near it (index), and the middle finger—joined together in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The other two—the so-called ‘little’ finger and the one beside it—are to be bent and idle.”

Not a single word is said about the Son of God as the God-man, as Jesus Christ who suffered on the Cross—there is no confession of Him in the three-finger sign. This is a sign devoid of the God-man, devoid of Christ the Savior. Not even is it said that within the Holy Trinity He is confessed in two natures. How could pious people of that time renounce the two-finger sign—the true sign of Christ—and adopt the three-finger sign, which in no way confesses Christ as the God-man? By such a sign, from which Christ is absent, a cross is drawn upon a person. Thus the Holy Trinity is crucified on the cross—without Christ, without His humanity, without Man. At the very least, in this monstrous sign, what was rejected was the very essence of Christianity—its heart, its central meaning and goal. Such a three-finger sign could only be accepted by those who either did not understand the meaning of Christianity, or did so under coercion.

From the above comparison, it becomes evident—even to those without any theological education—that Jesus Christ could not have commanded the apostles to use the three-finger form. Also, from the standpoint of theological depth, the one-finger configuration—often cited by our opponents as ancient—does not stand up to scrutiny either. Indeed, could Jesus Christ have possibly commanded the apostles to use the sign of the Monophysite heresy? Clearly not. This indicates that both the one-finger and the three-finger configurations are heretical. Therefore, the conclusion is unavoidable: only the sign of the cross with the two-finger formation is apostolic Tradition.

But if this is plain to any reasonable person, then the question arises—do the leaders of the ROC serve as spiritual shepherds, or are they merely religious bureaucrats defending institutional interests? For us, the conclusion is unambiguous: we are not simply dealing with bureaucrats, but with functionaries—that is, people who blindly carry out someone else’s will. And it matters little what motivates them or what goals they pursue in the process.

It is possible that for the Nikonians, the healing of the Schism is seen as a routine, procedural, and rather tedious undertaking. Something to be done “for the record.” For that, a commission may be formed to “overcome the Schism,” composed of similarly-minded functionaries. One may stoop to partially acknowledging guilt by saying something like “both sides were at fault”—that is, shifting blame from the guilty to the innocent. One may (as before) resort to falsehood, claiming that persecution came only from secular authorities (as in Metropolitan Hilarion’s interview for the program Church and the World on June 26, 2011: http://hilarion.ru/2011/06/26/3703), even though the Nikonian church council of 1666–1667 itself decreed the use of “bodily torments” against those who resisted the innovations. The recommendations included: “To some, tongues were cut out; to others, hands were chopped off; to others still—ears and noses were severed; they were shamed in the marketplace and then exiled for life.”

One may proclaim the thesis of the “equal honor of rites,” thereby insinuating the worthlessness of the Old Believers, their backward ignorance, the absurdity of their 350-year endurance in what the Nikonians consider utterly insignificant in matters of faith. And in so doing, one spits upon the soul. Yes, even such is possible in our age of tolerance. But for us, there is nothing new in this. Let us recall some key milestones in the “enlightenment” of official Nikonianism.

The road to the thesis of “equal honor” was a long one—more than 300 years—paved with bloody persecutions, deceit, falsifications, and treachery. And yet, standing firm in the truth was not in vain. A vast body of Old Believer polemical and theological literature was produced. One may reasonably suppose that it was precisely because of this that non–Old Believer scholars such as N.F. Kapterev, E.E. Golubinsky, A.V. Kartashev, and others emerged—scholars who in several fundamental points took positions contrary to the stereotypes entrenched in the Nikonian milieu (though regrettably, their work overall gave rise to a new Nikonian myth, from which the thesis of “equal honor” later developed [3]).

Nevertheless, despite the collapse of some old stereotypes, official Nikonianism continued to label us as schismatics and heretics. The eight-pointed cross was rehabilitated—but nothing changed. Old Believers were still called schismatics and heretics. In 1915, the ROC returned to the pre-reform rite of Baptism, finally realizing that one must invoke the Holy Spirit—and not the evil spirit—during Baptism, as Saint Avvakum and his companions had warned them centuries earlier. But by then, it was too late. Russia had to endure the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War. Frenzied mobs of unbaptized people, armed and led by the children of the chief revolutionary, overthrew the Tsar and unleashed a bloody slaughter—father against son, son against father, brother against brother. God-hating powers seized control. Only by 1929, when thousands of Nikonian priests had been eliminated, did people begin to reflect, and they arrived at… the thesis of “equal honor.”

Nikonian “theology” could produce nothing greater. And even after this, Old Believers were still called schismatics and heretics. Moreover—as always—all blame was shifted onto the Old Believers, with the claim that they had caused the revolution and overthrown the Tsar. That slander is still circulated today. Now, after the 1971 Local Council of the ROC MP, such labels are perhaps no longer used in official circles (?), but neither are we called Orthodox. Nor are we called Church. So we are still, once again, schismatics—sectarians? But if we are called “equal in honor,” then surely we are not heretics? But how can non-heretics be schismatics? We do not understand this—but the Nikonian functionaries, apparently, understand it perfectly.

Even if the Nikonians were to universally adopt the proper Baptism by triple immersion, as St. Basil the Great commands and as has always been practiced among us, they still would not acknowledge us as Orthodox. We suppose that eventually they may return to the Orthodox Creed. But anyone who thinks this will bring a breakthrough is naïve. They will still not recognize us as Orthodox.

But do we need their recognition? The Church of Christ is self-sufficient. Why would we need recognition from heretics? And in any case, such recognition will not be given. They have no vision. For three and a half centuries we have offered them the wings of the great eagle, and they still prefer to slither like serpents. That is why already at the Council of 1667 they rejected the idea of the Third Rome, of the messianic role of the Russian people.

The Tale of the White Klobuk was condemned by that council as “false and unjust,” said to have been written by Dimitry the Interpreter “from the wind of his own head.” Of course, one might feel pain “for the State,” but what can be done? In this case, it seems we must place our hope in the Lord God and strive to fulfill His will to the best of our ability.

There will be no healing of the Schism. This is easily proven if we compare the pace of Nikonian “enlightenment” with the pace of degeneration. For instance, if it took the Nikonians 300 years to arrive at the thesis of “equal honor,” how long—and how many upheavals—will it take them to understand that there is no “equal honor” at all? We suppose: not less than another 300 years. And after that, perhaps another 300 years more will be needed for the Nikonians to realize that if their rites are not equal in honor to the Orthodox ones, then they themselves are not Orthodox—that is, they are heretics. 300 + 300 = 600—this is approximately how long remains before their final awakening and return from the Schism. Such is the depressing trajectory of “enlightenment.”

Now let us assess the trajectory of degeneration. It is clear to all that the pace of oncoming anarchy and chaos far outstrips the pace of Nikonian “enlightenment.” This means that the Schism will never be healed. Q.E.D.

Let us turn our attention to the words “bent and idle” in the confession of the three-finger sign (see above). In [6], in the article “The Great Absurdity,” the suggestion is made that at the Council of 1666–1667, these very words were in fact a prophecy describing the future nation. From this it follows that submission to foreign customs, the notorious Russian avos’ (“perhaps”) and laziness are not truly Russian traits, but “acquired blessings”—the result of a national genetic mutation brought about by the act of making the sign of the cross with a heretical finger configuration for over 300 years—that is, across 15–17 generations. The same thing happened in Byzantium over roughly the same span of time, with the only difference being that by then the Church of Christ had already taken refuge in Russia. In Byzantium, there was no one left to fulfill the task of katechon—restraint—and this led to the tragic result: the fall of the Second Rome [3].

A qualitatively different situation arose in Russia. Let us recall that as a result of Nikon’s reforms, a new heretical church was created, which—due to the distortion of Divine Worship—was no longer able to fulfill the task of katechon, the restraint of evil [3]. But by the providence of God, the Church of Christ remained in Russia. It is She who continued to carry out this task. Our assumptions are confirmed by St. Ephraim the Syrian in his Commentary on the Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians. He writes [7] that the apostate (Antichrist) will not come until “men have been perfected through the preaching of the apostles and the teaching of the priests.” Undoubtedly, by the “preaching of the apostles” and the “teaching of the priests,” the saint meant true Divine Worship. Evidently, unity with God is imprinted genetically. And so this unity, repeated across generations, led to the state that “men have been perfected.”

The opposite result is just as clear—cessation of participation in the true, restraining Divine Worship, or participation in services corrupted by heresies, leads to degeneration across generations. This is precisely what we now observe. Let us again consider the wording used in the definition of the three-finger sign. Note that the aforementioned confession of the three-finger form does not belong to F.E. Melnikov but to the Council of 1666–1667. The words “bent and idle” are not an unfortunate slip, as one might think at first. This formulation itself indicates that the Holy Spirit was not present at that fateful council. And how could He be present where His truth was denied? For this is exactly what occurred when the Nicene Creed was distorted [8]. Therefore, the Council of 1666–1667 must not be considered a Council of the Church, but rather a gathering of heretics, governed by an entirely different spirit.

It must be noted that by the adopted wording of the confession of the three-finger sign, the “reformers” inadvertently shed light on the spiritual cause of Byzantium’s downfall. Thus, they condemned themselves already 350 years ago—“bent and idle!” Even then they confessed that there is no such thing as “equal honor and equal salvation” in the rites. Therefore, there is no Orthodoxy in the Nikonian church. Naturally, the anathemas imposed upon the old rites are invalid. They never were valid in the first place, since they were adopted at a gathering—not a true Church Council. There was no need even to repeal them. For the Nikonians, the anathemas of the Stoglav Council remain in force to this day. And so this entire affair with “equal honor” looks absurd, illiterate, criminal, and dangerous.

St. Gregory the Theologian said: “Such is the grace of the Spirit—it makes those of one mind to be of equal honor.” The comparison between the two-finger and three-finger forms of the sign of the cross convinces us that there can be no “one mind” with the Nikonians on the matter of finger formation. Therefore, there can be no “equal honor.” There is no “equal honor” in the Nikonian version of the Creed either—the removal of the adjective “true” as a descriptor of the Holy Spirit led not only to the failure to confess the truth of the Holy Spirit (and thus to a blasphemy against Him), but also to the denial of the dogma of unity, indivisibility, and consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity [8].

There is no “equal honor” in any innovation adopted at the gathering of 1666–1667. What’s more, the adoption of the heretical finger formation led to a change in the genetic code of the nation. From generation to generation among the Nikonians, traits began to appear that were previously alien to the Russian people: laziness, negligence, indifference, apathy—hallmarks of lukewarmness.

The same thing happened in Byzantium, and over roughly the same time span. So what “one mind” can we speak of? There can be no unity of mind between us, gentlemen functionaries. To become one-minded with you would mean renouncing the ranks of saints and righteous ones from the foundation of the world (which is precisely what you did at the gathering of 1666–1667—and that was effective!). It would mean rejecting the idea of the Third Rome, and of the great and glorious works involved in fulfilling the mission of restraint. We repeat: this task you, gentlemen functionaries and those with you, were and are incapable of fulfilling [3].

Here it is fitting to summarize briefly. By the providence of God, more than a thousand years ago, we received Orthodoxy from the Greeks. Orthodoxy was embraced by the people, as evidenced by the Kiev Caves Lavra, in which rest the relics of more than 120 Old Believer saints. Also testified by the multitude of other saints who shone forth in the land of Rus. One of the first tasks facing the Russian Orthodox Church in its mission of restraint was the overcoming of paganism and the Tatar yoke. This mission was fulfilled. A great restraining Empire—Russia, the Third Rome—was created. Many peoples found salvation by joining Russia. The Time of Troubles at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries was overcome, and the Poles were expelled. The Ottoman Empire was defeated, and the Balkan peoples were liberated—including Greece, which had been under Turkish rule for more than 300 years in total.

The words of Dimitry the Interpreter, author of The Tale of the White Klobuk, sound truly prophetic:

“For all Christian kingdoms shall come to an end and be gathered into one kingdom—Russia—for the sake of Orthodoxy.”

Here, the phrase “for the sake of Orthodoxy” does not mean that these lands—the Balkans, Greece, and others—would seek to recover the Orthodoxy they had lost, but rather that it would be precisely thanks to Russia’s fulfillment of her restraining mission that the Christian nations would be defended or would gain independence.

And this came to pass after the victory over Napoleonic France in the Patriotic War of 1812. Russia remained for a long time the support of European monarchies, for which she was given, by the democrats, the honorable and authoritative title: “the gendarme of Europe.” True, human memory is short—and historical memory even shorter—so it was often necessary to defend ourselves from former allies. The phrase “shall be gathered into one Russian kingdom” can now be interpreted to mean: either they shall remain independent while Russia endures, or they shall enter into union or membership with Russia. All of this has come to pass. Georgia, Moldova, and Armenia were part of Russia. Later, in the Warsaw Pact, Hungary, Romania, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria participated.

After the 1917 Revolution, one set of caesars-persecutors was replaced by another. But the Church of Christ remained and continued to carry out the task of restraint. The former allies of Russia in the Entente—who, true to their nature (a nature not of God, but of the devil)—descended upon Civil War–torn Russia to seize choice portions for themselves, were defeated. So too were Kaiser’s Germany and Japan. One of the clearest chapters in the fulfillment of the task of restraint is that the children of the chief revolutionary, seeking to seize power again, fell into the very pit they had dug. After the end of the Civil War, devastation was swiftly overcome, and powerful industry was built. New weaponry was developed—superior to global standards—which was mass-produced during the Great Patriotic War in factories evacuated from the European part of the USSR. Japan (at Khasan and Khalkhin Gol) and Finland were defeated. Nazi Germany—supported by all of Europe—along with its allies Romania, Italy, and again Japan, was defeated. Once again, Russia (the USSR) liberated the Christian peoples of Europe, just as the author of The Tale of the White Klobuk had foreseen.

After the war, a powerful industrial base and advanced science were created in a short period. It was one of our countrymen who first flew into space. It was precisely thanks to the USSR that the global colonial system was dismantled, and the peoples of Africa, Latin America, the Indian subcontinent, and China were liberated. A nuclear shield was built in record time, and so forth. Need we be reminded that from the time of the Schism onward, the task of restraint was fulfilled by the Church which, for nearly 200 years, existed without a hierarchy and under constant persecution? [3]

“For the elder Rome fell away from the faith of Christ through pride and self-will; in this new Rome, which is in Constantinople, the Christian faith shall likewise perish under the violence of the Ishmaelites; but in the Third Rome, which is in the Russian land, the grace of the Holy Spirit hath shone forth.”
(Dimitry the Interpreter, The Tale of the White Klobuk)

Paradoxically, that which Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich strove for out of vainglory was in fact accomplished—but by means the “reformers” had rejected:

“The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes” (Psalm 117[118]:22–23).

And you, gentlemen functionaries, would have us reject all these glorious fruits, and trade them for the “equal honor” you propose? But then how shall those who seek the truth, who seek the Philadelphian Church, recognize us? To renounce these fruits is equivalent to selling one’s birthright.

Go speak of “equal honor” to your fellow edinovertsy (Old Rite members within the MP). They are uncritical enough to swallow any of your “revelations.” As we have seen, there is clear and deliberate disregard among ROC functionaries for self-evident and relatively simple truths—convincing evidence that either overcoming the Schism in the spirit of truth is not part of their agenda, or that, for some reason, they are incapable of doing so. Indeed, one may speak of “equal honor”—but only of Nikonian “equal honor,” that is, the “equal honor” of Nikonian functionaries.

As F.E. Melnikov writes [5]:

“One of the most prominent supporters of the new faith and the new books, the Chudov Monastery archimandrite Ioakim (later Patriarch of Moscow), openly declared: ‘I know neither the old faith nor the new one, but whatever the authorities command, that I am ready to do and to obey them in all things.’”

And there you have it—your “equal honor.” Nikonian “equal honor,” just like Nikonianism itself, is a product (and at the same time a hostage) of ignorance and lukewarmness—laziness, indifference, carelessness, apathy. So no matter how much we cast pearls before swine, until the “authorities” give the command, not one Nikonian functionary (despite their own declared “equal honor”) will cross himself with two fingers. Not even if thunder roars from heaven. Especially since they are in a stalemate: who can command them, if they are the authorities? That’s on the one hand. On the other, if there is someone above them, is it in that superior’s interest—or even within their capability—to comprehend the root cause and acknowledge the lack of “equal honor” and “equal salvation” in the Nikonian rites?

Thus, any contact with Nikonian officials is not only useless, but harmful—given the scandal it inevitably produces.

The question of the return of the Nikonian Church from the Schism can only be considered when the dominant church transitions to the true Divine Worship—a prospect that, in our view, is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. So then for whom is the thesis of “equal honor and equal salvation” being proclaimed? If it’s for internal Nikonian consumption, why broadcast it to the whole country? Whisper it in each other’s ears. Or perhaps they simply don’t see us? They’ve carried out their scheduled “healing” event and forgotten it until the next one. But it seems that’s not the case. The evil one cannot fail to notice those who hinder him.

Regrettably, some do get caught in his nets—even among us, there are those who heed him. Some of them are even clergy. Some, having heeded him, leave for the ROC. Yet in their place come those who are seeking, who are thinking. Thus the wheat is separated from the chaff. And so it will continue, until the Church departs into the wilderness.

How many will remain who can endure? Perhaps only a few. But they will remain—for the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of Christ. Will we or our children be among them? That depends once again on us. And on us alone.

Sources Cited:

  1. St. Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. To Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. http://krotov.info/library/03_v/vasiy_vel/duh03.html#27

  2. Bystrov, S.I. The Two-Finger Sign in Monuments of Christian Art and Writings. http://samstar-biblio.ucoz.ru/load/28-1-0-563

  3. Buzhinsky, V.V. Mythology of Greco-Nikonianism in the Light of the Concept of the Restrainer as the Believing People. http://www.staroobrad.ru/modules.php?name=News2&file=article&sid=597

  4. Buzhinsky, V.V. A Time to Gather Stones. http://samstar-biblio.ucoz.ru/publ/82-1-0-1519

  5. Melnikov, F.E. A Brief History of the Old-Orthodox (Old Believer) Church. Barnaul: BGPU Press, 1999. 557 pp.

  6. Buzhinsky, V.V. The Log House Has Not Burned—It Still Burns. http://samstar-biblio.ucoz.ru/load/28-1-0-704

  7. St. Ephraim the Syrian. Commentary on the Epistles of the Divine Paul: Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. http://rusbible.ru/books/2fes.es.html

  8. Buzhinsky, V.V. On the Confession of the Dogma of the Trinity and the Creed. http://www.staroobrad.ru/modules.php?name=News2&file=article&sid=478

–Viktor Buzhinsky

source