On How Synodal Theologians and Religious Figures Fought Against the Two-Finger Sign of the Cross #
This article provides a brief overview of the writings of the main religious polemicists of Synodal theology regarding the form of the sign of the cross. Let us begin with the former Patriarch Nikon.
Patriarch Nikon is one of the most controversial figures in the history of the Russian Church. The wide range of opinions, facts, and assessments concerning the sixth Patriarch of Moscow reflect the many, at times peculiar, aspects of his life. However, the common conclusion of studies and judgments about Patriarch Nikon characterizes him as a man prone to impulsiveness, capriciousness, vanity, and authoritarianism, lacking the patience and composure to wait for the results of his endeavors. In his governance of the Church, he was strict and tyrannical, favoring elaborate and grandiose liturgical ceremonies. He was a proponent of the Catholic theocratic ideology asserting the superiority of the priesthood over the monarchy, which led many church historians and critics to accuse Nikon of striving for papism.
The defenders of the new Greek model of the sign of the cross needed to establish its legitimacy through religious authority and to prove its historical and theological validity. Their primary task was to discredit the sources that supported the two-finger sign of the cross, and this was precisely what Nikon undertook. The rulings of the councils of 1655 and 1658 anathematized the two-finger sign of the cross and declared heretical a work that justified it, which was attributed to Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. (This work had been included in the polemical collection The Book of Cyril, published in 1644, and was printed as a preface to the Psalter.) The 1658 council condemned the two-finger sign of the cross as the Nestorian heresy, claiming that the extended fingers represented “two Sons, two natures.” (It is well known that the theology of Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople became a significant controversy, and the question of the union of Christ’s two natures was addressed at the Third Ecumenical Council.) Citing the heresy of Nestorius, which had been condemned by the Council, Nikon wrote:
“And by this aforementioned true testimony, if anyone makes the sign of the cross with two extended fingers—the index and middle fingers—and by them seeks to represent the Divinity and Humanity of the Son of God, he is in every way acting improperly and, rather, in opposition to the truth. For he would thereby depict two Sons: one born of the Father, and another born of the Mother, and thus confess two persons, as did Nestorius.”
Furthermore, according to Nikon’s reasoning, the confession of the Holy Trinity expressed by the two-finger sign concealed an Arian heresy, since the Trinity would be depicted by three unequal fingers.
Patriarch Nikon defended the authenticity of the three-finger sign of the cross in his own writings. He composed an entire treatise on the correctness of the three-finger sign, citing the fact that this form was widely practiced in the Greek and all other Orthodox Churches. Regarding the two-finger sign of the cross historically used in the Russian Church, the reforming patriarch argued that this practice arose due to scribal errors in the repeated copying of liturgical texts, particularly the manuscript of Theodoret, which had been used to justify the two-finger sign. In essence, Nikon was formulating the ruling for the future council he would convene, and it must be acknowledged that he became deeply engrossed in literalism. He firmly believed that the image of the Holy Trinity must necessarily be represented only by the first three fingers of the hand; otherwise, one of the Hypostases would be diminished:
“For in three fingers, and not in two, is the mystery of the Holy Trinity properly confessed… for in the three aforementioned fingers, according to his [Blessed Theodoret’s] reasoning, there would be great inequality in the Holy Trinity.”
The theological explanation of the two-finger sign of the cross, compiled by the patriarch, was included in the book The Tablet, which was sent to him from Constantinople and signed by the Eastern Patriarchs. The book stated:
“We have received the tradition from the beginning of the faith, from the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, to make the sign of the honorable cross with the first three fingers of the right hand. And whoever among Orthodox Christians does not make the cross in this way, according to the tradition of the Eastern Church, which has upheld this from the beginning of the faith until today, is a heretic and an imitator of the Armenians.”
Nikon, with the support of these patriarchs, characterized the two-finger sign of the cross as a heresy practiced in the Armenian (pre-Chalcedonian) Church. It is well known that the ancient Eastern Churches that did not accept the dogmatic definition (Tomos of St. Leo the Great) of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon—despite theological debates regarding the content of the Monophysite heresy and the orthodoxy of the “pre-Chalcedonian Churches”—preserved many ancient, archaic forms of worship. The two-finger sign of the cross logically falls into this category. Naturally, however, it had nothing in common with the way the Armenian national Church expressed its religious beliefs.
In 1658, Nikon withdrew from the ecclesiastical struggle, but efforts to establish and theologically justify the three-finger sign of the cross did not end there. On the contrary, they continued along the lines of the polemics initiated by the deposed patriarch. The next blow against the two-finger sign was delivered by the Moscow Council of 1666–1667, which took place without Nikon’s participation and ultimately deposed him. This council issued the following ruling regarding the sign of the cross:
“And make upon yourselves the sign of the honorable and life-giving Cross with the first three fingers of the right hand: the finger called the thumb, and the one near it called the index, and the middle finger—bring them together in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But let the two others, called the little finger and the one next to it, remain bent and idle, according to the ancient tradition of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers.”
According to the Council’s decree, Orthodox Christians were to cross themselves with three fingers in honor of the Holy Trinity. The two fingers pressed to the palm received no theological explanation in the council’s acts. The council reiterated that the two-finger sign of the cross belonged to the practice of the heretical Armenian Church and was not permissible for Orthodox Christians in prayer:
“Moreover, do not accept the writing composed by a certain schismatic and concealed heretic of the Armenian heresy, which was ignorantly and thoughtlessly printed in the Psalter along with a commentary and in other books as well, instructing the arrangement of the fingers for making the sign of the cross according to the custom of the Armenian heretics. Let none from now on believe in this writing or adhere to it, but rather, we command that such printed and written books be removed.”
The episcopal and priestly blessing, according to the Council’s ruling, was henceforth to be given using the “name-signing” configuration of the fingers, apparently representing the initial letters (titla) of Christ’s name—IC XC.
The Council anathematized the old rite and all Christians who continued to follow it. From this point forward, the policy of the dominant Church was directed toward eradicating the previously established tradition. The Stoglav Council of 1551, which had been authoritative for the Old Believers and whose 31st chapter was dedicated to the two-finger sign of the cross, was now declared uncanonical. In his Life, Archpriest Avvakum wrote that, according to the post-reform Church, all participants in the Stoglav Council, as well as the rulings it affirmed, were dismissed as ignorant:
“And ours, like little wolves, sprang up, howled, and began to bark at their fathers, saying: ‘Our Russian saints were fools and did not understand; they were unlearned people—why should we believe them? They did not even know how to read and write!’”
The perspective of the 1666 Council was supported by Metropolitan Makary Bulgakov, though he expressed it in a more moderate tone:
“Particular councils, like particular churches, are not exempt from the possibility of error; even more so are individuals and hierarchs not exempt from it.”
Metropolitan Makary insisted that the rulings of the Stoglav Council lacked true conciliar authority and attributed its resolutions to an unknown private author. According to Church canons, such an anonymous source could not be considered an infallible voice of the Church:
“The Stoglav Council, in its present form, is the work of a private individual… These rulings, being not those of a Council but rather of an unknown private author, cannot hold any binding authority.”
However, in his later work History of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Makary, under pressure from Ivan Belyaev—who had proven the conciliar nature of the 1551 Stoglav Council’s rulings—revised his position. While he no longer denied the canonicity of Stoglav, he still regarded the two-finger sign of the cross as a more recent innovation. Makary Bulgakov argued that the three-finger sign had been in use among Russian Christians long before the reforms and that, half a century prior to the reform, patristic texts had been misinterpreted, leading to the spread of the two-finger sign:
“Observing our Church practices with curiosity, they (the Greek hierarchs—ed.) could not help but notice—and indeed, they did notice—some differences in our Church from the rites and customs of the Greek Church, as well as some novelties, or ‘innovations,’ the most prominent of which seemed to them the use of the two-finger sign of the cross. This innovation, despite the decision of the Stoglav Council, had not yet deeply permeated the people, who from ancient times had been accustomed to crossing themselves with three fingers. But precisely at the time of Patriarch Joseph, it was introduced into some of our instructional and liturgical books, became more widespread, and began to attract greater attention from our Eastern Orthodox brethren visiting from the East.”
Thus, the official Church historiography of the Synodal period adhered to the view that the spread and use of the two-finger sign of the cross in the Russian Church, as sanctioned by the Stoglav Council of 1551, was an error. Instead, it upheld the three-finger sign as the more ancient apostolic tradition.
In 1666, the council published the book The Staff of Governance (Жезл Правления), authored by the Kiev monk Simeon Polotsky, who was known for his overt sympathies toward Latin theology. He was a secret Uniate and a member of the Basilian Order. Polotsky established himself as an active polemicist against the Old Believers and Greek traditionalists. His writings were structured in the spirit of Western scholasticism and were filled with Peripatetic theological concepts. The theological approach of this learned monk, influenced by Western Catholic ecclesiastical thought, was not contemplative but rather formal-logical and rationalistic. He did not delve deeply into ideas but instead sought to systematize them, bringing order and logical precision. Notably, the opposite type of thinker—following the “Platonic” tradition—was Archpriest Avvakum, who derisively referred to Polotsky’s main work as “the God-abominable Staff” and saw in the monk Simeon a classic “Latin heretic” in the eyes of Russian Orthodox believers.
The Staff of Governance was a polemical work written in response to the writings of early Old Believers, particularly Archpriests Nikita Dobrynin and Lazar. This book became part of the council’s proceedings and was granted universal canonical authority, making it obligatory for every parish priest to follow in church practice. The signatures of all Russian and Greek hierarchs appeared under The Staff of Governance. Simeon Polotsky structured his work in the form of responses to the arguments of the oppositionist archpriests. The 21st section, “Unmasking Nikita”, was dedicated to the form of the sign of the cross. The author sought to convince those who rejected the three-finger sign that it was the ancient custom originating from the Apostles themselves:
“Indeed, the three-finger formation is an apostolic and patristic tradition. It has been preserved from the very beginning of the Church, as is evident, for the Holy Eastern Church does not tolerate innovations, but rather rejects them, just as it now rejects the two-finger formation.”
In defending the three-finger sign, Simeon Polotsky cited a selection of primary sources that were considered authoritative even among the Old Believers, particularly the writings of Metropolitan Meletius of Antioch, Peter of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Maximus the Greek, all of which discussed the sign of the cross. Indeed, history does not dispute the existence of such writings, and the divine inspiration of these works was acknowledged by the pre-schism Russian Church as instructive for the faith. However, Polotsky argued that some of these patristic writings actually supported the three-finger sign (such as those attributed to Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus) rather than the two-finger sign, as had been previously asserted. He also referred to the proceedings of the Second Ecumenical Council, where, according to his interpretation, Metropolitan Meletius demonstrated the validity of the three-finger cross.
Polotsky refuted the Old Believers’ citation of St. Maximus the Greek’s treatise on the sign of the cross by claiming that either the work was not genuinely authored by Maximus or that it had been written under pressure from certain interested parties:
“We accept Maximus the Greek as a great scholar where he agrees with the Church, but in his two-finger sign of the cross, we disregard him, for he may have yielded to the ignorant and feared slander, or perhaps he was influenced by an external force. Thus, he cannot serve as a sole witness against the most ancient custom and tradition of the whole Church.”
Polotsky justified the necessity of making the sign of the cross with three fingers as follows:
“It is fitting to depict with the first three fingers, for thus it is proven: that which is first must be depicted with what is first. But the Divine Trinity is the first of all things. Therefore, it ought to be depicted with the first three fingers… These three fingers are perfect, both in themselves and in comparison to one another, as is evident to all (my emphasis—R.A.), whereas the first finger in combination with the last or the fourth is not fitting. Thus, the Divine Trinity must be perfectly depicted with the first three fingers.”
Consequently, according to the council’s response to the followers of the two-finger sign, authored by Simeon Polotsky, only the first three fingers were necessary to depict the Trinity, as they held a superior degree of perfection over the others:
“For in these fingers, there is great inequality.”
The Kiev monk, in his interpretation of the sign of the cross, even incorporated minute anatomical details of the right hand, all in an effort to support the reformist perspective:
“Between the first, fourth, and fifth fingers, there are two intermediary fingers. But between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is no intermediary. Thus, it is not fitting to make the sign with those fingers, but rather with the ones that have no intermediary—these are the first three fingers. Therefore, the first three fingers must be used to depict the Lord.”
In Polotsky’s theological reasoning, one can sense his adherence to minute details of the “letter” of the law, his reliance on dry rationalism and formulaic arguments to prove the correctness of his views. His intellectual formation, shaped within an educational institution steeped in Latin scholasticism, reflected the Western Catholic method—focusing on meticulous analysis, systematic argumentation, and rigid structuring rather than broad generalizations and holistic thought.
Following the line set by the former Patriarch Nikon, Polotsky saw in the two-finger sign an Armenian heresy, arguing that it “distorts the equality of the Divine Persons through the inequality of the fingers.” Unlike the general acts of the 1666–1667 Council, which referred to the two fingers pressed to the palm as “idle,” Simeon Polotsky interpreted them as signifying the divine-human nature of Christ:
“Likewise, the two last bent fingers represent the ultimate mystery—the bending of the heavens and the humble incarnation of the Word of God.”
Thus, Simeon Polotsky’s book The Staff of Governance became one of the first conciliar responses from the reformed Church, in which the theological and historical justification for the three-finger sign of the cross was formally established as an apostolic tradition. The Staff of Governance laid the foundation for the entire body of theological argumentation that was subsequently used by defenders of the three-finger sign among the representatives of the dominant Church, continuing well into the early twentieth century. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, systematic works by historians and theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church began to emerge, aimed at refuting the religious doctrines of the Old Believers.
The most well-known work on Old Believer polemics that defended the official Church’s perspective on the old rite was Investigation of the Schismatic Bryn Faith, That Their Faith Is Wrong, Their Doctrine Harmful to the Soul, and Their Works Displeasing to God, authored by the prominent anti-Old Believer polemicist, Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov (Tuptalo). He was a well-known and distinguished hierarch of the Russian Synodal Church, educated at the Kiev-Mogila Academy. A prolific ecclesiastical writer, he was the author of a twelve-volume collection, The Lives of the Saints (Четьи-Минеи), which was more fantastical and literary than genuinely hagiographic, as it was compiled using Western Christian sources.
In addition to The Lives of the Saints and Investigation of the Bryn Faith, Metropolitan Dimitry wrote numerous sermons and treatises, including A Short Catechism, A Monastic Chronicle, A Chronicle of Tsars and Patriarchs, A Catalog of Russian Metropolitans, and other works.
Throughout Investigation, the old rite was declared heretical and not conducive to salvation. Old Belief itself was portrayed as a manifestation of a negative spiritual phenomenon, akin to a sectarian movement filled with wild fanaticism, pagan superstitions, pride, and religious ignorance. Dimitry’s arguments were rife with explicit invective and slander against Old Believers and everything associated with them, including the two-finger sign of the cross. The book underwent several reprintings and was widely used by Synodal missionaries and seminary students as a primary textbook for combating the “schism.”
In 1752, Archbishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod published the book The Spiritual Sling (Пращица духовная). This work provided the most comprehensive and systematic exposition of the views of the reformed Church regarding adherents of the old rite. Archbishop Pitirim referred to the last two patriarchs before the schism as “disciples of the devil” and even declared Patriarch Germogen, the ideological leader of the people’s militia, a heretic.
Among the anti-Old Believer polemical literature that gained widespread circulation in the Russian Orthodox Church during this period was The Spiritual Counsel (Увет духовный), published in 1692, Responses by Metropolitan Ignatius of Siberia, and the work of A.I. Zhuravlev, A Complete Historical Account of the Ancient Strigolniki and the New Schismatics, Known as Old Believers (St. Petersburg: Academy of Sciences Press, 1795).
In all of these works—especially in Investigation, The Tablet (Скрижаль), The Spiritual Counsel, and Responses—the two-finger sign of the cross was interpreted according to the decrees of the 1666–1667 Council and the theological tradition of Simeon Polotsky. Following the example of Patriarch Nikon, the Eastern patriarchs, and the author of The Staff of Governance, the two-finger sign was labeled an Armenian heresy (“Armenian stench”), Arianism, Nestorianism, Macedonianism, as well as a fig sign, Latinism, schismatic superstition, the gates of hell, wickedness, soul-destroying wisdom, chiromancy, filth, and other such derogatory terms.
In this article, we have limited ourselves to a review of anti-Old Believer polemical literature that deals with the historical and theological justification of the three-finger sign of the cross from the perspective of the doctrinal teachings of the dominant Church, focusing on works published between the late 17th and early 19th centuries. We do not find it necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of these works, primarily because the theological arguments in favor of the three-finger sign, starting with Simeon Polotsky, remain virtually identical and lack diversity. For a long time, the decrees of the 1666–1667 Council held enormous significance for any scholar or polemicist within the Synodal Church, serving as the principal and highest doctrinal authority used to refute Old Believer teachings.
For instance, Dimitry of Rostov (Tuptalo) did not consider it necessary to examine the issue of the sign of the cross in detail, believing it sufficient to rely on the writings of Simeon Polotsky:
“But I will not extend my discourse on the arrangement of the fingers, for enough has already been written on this in the book The Staff of Governance, in the book called The Spiritual Counsel, and in the corrected Psalters; let him who wishes to read them.”
Particularly noteworthy is Metropolitan Dimitry’s crude and offensive remark regarding the two-finger sign, which insults the religious sentiments of Orthodox Christians who adhere to it. He writes:
“It would be fitting for the schismatics to inscribe upon their Armenian formation the name of the demon: upon one finger, ‘De,’ and upon the other, ‘mon,’ and thus upon their two fingers the demon would sit.”
There can be no doubt that such a statement, coming from an intelligent and educated man of his time, does not withstand even the most elementary criticism. Similar expressions regarding the two-finger sign appear in the writings of later Synodal theologians. For instance, Archbishop Theophylact Lopatinsky called the two-finger sign “a sign bearing deadly poison,” Metropolitan Ignatius (of Tobolsk) referred to it as “a foul-smelling doctrine,” and Nikifor of Astrakhan labeled it “Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, a godless division, Armenianism, the Armenian heresy, the Armenian fig sign, Arius’s abyss, the gates of hell, a magical sign, demon-sitting, and a devilish tradition.”
Furthermore, Synodal apologists largely repeated the arguments already presented in the decrees of the 1666–1667 Council and in The Staff of Governance. The theological and historical justification for the three-finger sign, as outlined in these conciliar documents, has been sufficiently examined in our study.
Overall, the Synodal polemical literature of the 18th to early 20th centuries is considered of little value for studying the history and culture of Old Belief, as these works criticized the Old Orthodox spiritual movement in ways that are unacceptable and unscientific.
One of the first scholars to openly speak about the extreme confessional subjectivity of early religious analyses of Old Belief was N.I. Popov. In 1866, he wrote:
“Much has been written in our literature about the Old Believers, and it would seem there is no need to repeat what has already been said. However, all that has been written about the schism fails to present clear and precise data upon which the reader could form a definite understanding of the beliefs, teachings, and rituals of each movement within the schism.”
At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Old Believer Archbishop Andrei (Ukhtomsky) of Ufa, who had converted to Old Belief from the Russian Orthodox Church, remarked:
“All of our official polemics against the Old Believers have always been nothing but pure slander against Old Belief.”
The lack of theological and historical objectivity in the writings of early anti-Old Believer polemicists is also noted by the modern researcher of Old Belief and Russian sectarianism, A.V. Apanasenok. In his 2008 monograph The Old Faith in Central Chernozemye: XVII – Early XX Century, the author argues that the works of Synodal theologians are unsuitable for a comprehensive assessment of the schism:
“For a scholarly understanding of Old Belief, the numerous works of historians-theologians from the 17th to the first half of the 19th centuries are, of course, of little use. Some of them contain interesting historical facts, but the majority should rather be regarded as monuments of religious polemics.”
The attempt to establish the triumph of the three-finger sign in the Russian Church was supported by documents such as The Acts Against the Heretic Martin the Armenian and The Theognost Trebnik. The existence of these documents and the events associated with them in the history of Russian Orthodoxy were meant to demonstrate the legitimacy of the three-finger sign. However, an examination of these sources and the issue of their origins is best conducted in the context of Old Believer arguments in favor of the two-finger sign, which will be discussed in the following chapter.
The subsequent criticism of the two-finger sign of the cross and the assertion of the historical and theological legitimacy of the three-finger sign by Synodal missionaries and scholars lacked sophistication. Synodal decrees merely reaffirmed the ecclesiastical reforms carried out in the mid-17th century. A striking example of this is the decree of May 15, 1722, which addressed the issue of the two-finger sign in the following manner:
“Those who obey the Holy Church and accept all its sacraments, but make the sign of the cross with two fingers instead of the three-finger formation—whether out of contrary thinking, ignorance, or stubbornness—shall be recorded among the schismatics, without exception.”
By the 19th and 20th centuries, the official doctrine of the reformed Church regarding the sign of the cross acknowledged that different forms of hand positioning—one-finger, two-finger, and three-finger—had been used at different times in Christian history. In the historical works of Metropolitan Makary Bulgakov and Archbishop Filaret Gumilevsky, a theory was presented that the form of the sign of the cross had gradually changed over time—first with one finger, then with two, and finally with three. There were even attempts to prove that the practice of using one finger had been common in the early Christian Church, allegedly used by St. John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem. However, Metropolitan Makary Bulgakov, Archbishop Filaret of Riga, and Archbishop Pavel of Chisinau all maintained that St. Cyril taught the three-finger sign.
An interesting aspect of the official Orthodox Church’s struggle against Old Belief and, in particular, the two-finger sign of the cross was its so-called “hagiographical” method. According to the leadership of the reformed Church in the 17th–19th centuries, the two-finger sign was considered incapable of bringing salvation. This idea needed to be instilled in the religious consciousness of every believer. Arguments based on historical or theological analysis were less persuasive for the religious mindset. Therefore, to justify the divine origin of the three-finger sign and establish it as a sacred and God-pleasing tradition, the post-reform Russian Church employed methods of a strictly spiritual-religious nature.
One of the most effective approaches was the creation of a hagiographical tradition in which the three-finger sign became a symbol and marker of Orthodox holiness. In Russia, the ascetic life of a canonized saint was regarded as an example for the faithful to follow in their pursuit of salvation. The first step in this strategy was to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the two-finger sign by challenging its connection to saintly life. The very idea that an ascetic could use the two-finger sign as part of their visible process of spiritual perfection was questioned.
As a result, references to the two-finger sign found in the lives of saints venerated by the Russian Church became a pretext for the de-canonization of several figures who had once been widely revered. Among those affected were St. Euthymius of Arkhangelsk, St. George of Shenkursk, Blessed Simon of Yuriev, St. Euphrosynus of Pskov, and Holy Right-Believing Princess Anna of Kashin. Additionally, liturgical services for St. Niphont, Archbishop of Novgorod, and the Martyrs Anthony, John, and Eustathius of Vilnius were discontinued. There was even an attempt to de-canonize Maximus the Greek, though this was later reversed in Church practice. Several Russian saints were removed from the Menaion altogether. Many figures were simply erased from The Eye of the Church. For example, the Polyeleos service to the Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb (May 2) was omitted, and various services in honor of icons of the Theotokos connected to Russian Christian history were either downgraded or removed.
In place of these suppressed Russian saints, Greek and Latin saints were given greater prominence. Those Russian saints who remained saw their liturgical ranks reduced—services that had been at the level of an All-Night Vigil were lowered to Polyeleos, and Polyeleos services were further demoted to Solemn Doxology or even Six-Stichera rank. These changes affected the services of saints such as St. Sergius, Abbot of Radonezh, St. Sabbatius of Solovki, Sts. Gurias and Barsanuphius, Sts. Peter, Alexis, and Jonah (Metropolitans of Moscow), St. Barlaam of Khutyn, St. Sabbas of Storozhev, St. Demetrius of Priluki, St. Theodosius of the Caves, Holy Right-Believing Prince Demetrius of Uglich, and Holy Right-Believing Prince Michael of Tver.
The issue of the de-canonization of Russian saints has been examined in detail by the ecclesiastical historian B. Kutuzov, a liturgical scholar from the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery in Moscow. He noted that, over the past century, there has been a trend in the Russian Orthodox Church toward restoring the pre-reform liturgical ranks of services dedicated to Russian saints. However, as Kutuzov remarked, “this has not yet been fully accomplished.” Since 2000, the calendar of the Moscow Patriarchate has printed the names of Russian saints first, followed by Greek and Latin saints.
At the Moscow Council of 1649, the Russian Church canonized Holy Right-Believing Princess Anna of Kashin (†1368, feast day February 10 O.S.). In May 1649, her incorrupt relics were discovered. However, after the schism, the Old Believers began pointing to her right hand, which was formed into the two-finger sign of the cross. This became a compelling argument in favor of the two-finger tradition.
In 1677, under the direction of Patriarch Joachim, a de-canonization commission was dispatched to Kashin. As a result of its work, the Moscow Councils of 1677–1678 decreed the removal of Princess Anna from the ranks of the saints. Her Life was declared false, her icons and liturgical services were ordered confiscated, and her relics were hidden in an unknown location. Despite public dissatisfaction, the Church of St. Anna of Kashin was reconsecrated as the Church of All Saints.
It was not until 1909 that the Synodal Church reinstated the sanctity of Princess Anna, once again recognizing her as a saint.
Along with the de-canonization or liturgical demotion of Russian ascetics glorified before the 17th century, the canonization of new saints began. The most well-known among them, in one way or another, touched upon the issue of the sign of the cross. In 1752, Metropolitan Dimitry of Rostov was canonized by the Holy Synod. This hierarch was known as the founder of a new hagiographical tradition, having compiled a multi-volume Lives of the Saints, primarily using Catholic sources and systematizing them in newly published Menaia. He was also a prominent anti-Old Believer polemicist, whose work Investigation became the official foundational text of the reformed Church for studying and condemning the schism. In his polemical work, Metropolitan Dimitry called the two-finger sign of the cross an “Armenian heresy” and a heretical custom brought to Russia by the Armenian monk Martin.
After Dimitry’s canonization, an akathist was composed in his honor, in which the fourth kondak states:
“The storm of heresies, reborn from the abyss through Arius in Greece, and in later years revived by the intrigues of Martin the Armenian through the leaders of the Bryn sketes in our homeland, was ready to destroy the peace of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. But you, a good shepherd who laid down your life for the sheep, drove away those soul-destroying wolves, calmed the storm of vain wisdom, and taught the faithful to call upon the triune God: Alleluia.”
Thus, the struggle against the “schism” and the eradication of the two-finger sign of the cross was attributed to Dimitry of Rostov as one of his highest virtues, making his efforts worthy of ecclesiastical glorification and considered a mark of his sanctity.
Over two centuries, from the reign of Peter I to Alexander III (1689–1894), the Synod canonized only five individuals: four bishops and one monk. This phenomenon was described by the Russian philosopher G. Fedotov as the “petrification of Russian life,” observing that “its living sanctity had left it.”
In 1903, the Russian Orthodox Church canonized the ascetic and spiritual guide of the Sarov men’s and Diveyevo women’s monasteries, Hieromonk Seraphim (Prokhor Mashnin). Several episodes in the Life of Seraphim of Sarov address his stance on the defense of the three-finger sign and opposition to Old Belief.
One account describes how a paralyzed woman was brought to Seraphim. The Life recounts:
“The sick woman… confessed before the elder as before God… that she was born in the Orthodox Church but had married a schismatic, deeply entrenched in his false doctrine; due to the long influence of her husband and his family, she had turned away from Orthodoxy, for which God suddenly punished her… The grace-filled elder asked the sick woman whether she now believed in our holy Orthodox Church, and upon her affirmative answer, he commanded her to cross herself with the three-finger formation.”
In another passage, Seraphim tells an Old Believer that salvation is impossible within his church.
F.E. Melnikov, in his study of the Life of Seraphim of Sarov, edited by Archimandrite (later Metropolitan) Seraphim Chichagov, found the following passage:
“Did any of your departed relatives pray with the two-finger cross?” the elder asked one of his spiritual daughters. The woman replied, “To my sorrow, all of them did.” “Though they may have been virtuous people,” said Fr. Seraphim, “they are bound: the holy Orthodox Church does not accept this cross.”
From an analysis of the Life of Seraphim of Sarov, one may conclude that this saint, canonized by the dominant Church, saw adherence to the two-finger sign as evidence of spiritual blindness, a lack of faith, and the absence of a living Orthodox religious sense.
To conclude this overview of the hagiographical method used by the Holy Synod to eradicate the two-finger sign, we may turn to the statements of two Russian theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, both later canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church: Archpriest John Sergiev, better known as John of Kronstadt (canonized in 1990), and Bishop Theophan the Recluse.
It cannot be stated that opposition to Old Belief was among the primary reasons for their canonization. Both figures were glorified in the late 20th century when the official doctrinal stance of the Russian Orthodox Church had taken on a more conciliatory and reconciliatory tone. However, in interconfessional disputes, followers of the reformed Church frequently cited the statements of John of Kronstadt and Theophan the Recluse as evidence of trust in the spiritual experience of these revered saints.
John of Kronstadt remarked:
“One cannot but pity those true Russian Orthodox people who, due to their extreme ignorance, cross themselves with two fingers. Concerning them, the Lord said: ‘That servant who knew his master’s will and did not do according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes.’”
Bishop Theophan devoted several sermons to the issue of the schism, in one of which, aligning with the key arguments in defense of the new rite, he asserted that the two-finger sign was introduced into Russia shortly after its baptism by the heretic Martin the Armenian, whom he likened to “modern schismatics.”
Historians and theologians who upheld the three-finger sign of the cross also claimed that it had allegedly been used by well-known saints such as Alexander of Svir, who lived in the 15th century, and St. Alexander Oshevensky.
Thus, the hagiographical tradition, shaped by the spirit and doctrine of the Synodal period of the Russian Orthodox Church from the 17th to the late 19th centuries, was aimed at establishing the three-finger sign as the true and God-pleasing custom, whose power had been revealed in divine revelations to the saints. This justification of the three-finger sign through a religious-existential approach was meant to instill in believers the idea that all Christians who made the sign of the cross with two fingers were outside the Church’s boundaries, separated from apostolic faith and Sacred Tradition.
The anti-Old Believer polemics condemning the two-finger sign of the cross, carried out by theologians and missionaries of the dominant Russian Orthodox Church, form a long and multifaceted history. The introduction of the three-finger sign into the prayer life of the Russian Church was initiated by Patriarch Nikon, who convened a series of councils, including those attended by two Eastern patriarchs. These councils ruled to continue the reforms initiated by the patriarch and the tsar. Additionally, Nikon actively engaged in literary work to justify the three-finger sign. His writings remain available to modern readers.
The 1666–1667 Council ultimately established the newly introduced liturgical practices within the Church, formalizing the customs practiced among Orthodox Greeks, and under threat of excommunication, forbade Russian Christians from returning to their previous ritual traditions. As part of the council’s acts, the book The Staff of Governance by the Kiev monk Simeon Polotsky was published. In this work, the author attempted to historically refute the two-finger sign and to provide theological justification for the newly introduced form of making the sign of the cross.
Subsequent Synodal theologians, such as Metropolitan Dimitry (Tuptalo), Archbishop Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod, Metropolitan Ignatius of Siberia, and Archpriest A. Zhuravlev, among others, largely repeated the arguments of the 1666–1667 Council, frequently citing Polotsky’s work. The writings of these authors often employed inappropriate polemical methods, which included crude and offensive remarks about the old rite and its adherents. Metropolitan Makary Bulgakov expressed his views on the two-finger sign and its followers in a softer tone, considering the practice a later development compared to the three-finger sign.
The hagiographical argumentation of the official Church in favor of the three-finger sign sought to convince Old Believers that this form of the sign of the cross was sanctified and confirmed by the glorification of ascetics who practiced it. Moreover, the full force of the state was on the side of the official Church, as disobedience to the Church was equated with political dissent and nonconformity. The most visible manifestation of this was the condemnation of the two-finger sign. These were, in general, the methods and arguments used by the dominant Russian Orthodox Church in its efforts to eradicate the practice of making the sign of the cross with two fingers.
All this “ecclesiastical disgrace” came to an end when pre-revolutionary historical scholarship finally had its say, proving the historical legitimacy of the two-finger sign. However, that is another story altogether.