From time to time, I will have an inquiry about why the Old Believers were justified in separating from the Church.

Was it one issue, or all of them put together?

Don’t Old Believers know the teachings and warnings about schism being the gravest of sins?

Rather than rail against the presuppositions embedded in these kinds of questions, I want to explore, as an answer, the very symbol of the Schism itself, and the symbol of Old Belief – the Sign of the Cross.

There are so many issues and perspectives from which one may explain fidelity to Old Belief – but the Sign of the Cross, in its prominence, serves well as a sole focus.

The Small Catechism of 1539, summarizes how the sign is made:

…The index and middle fingers—are stretched out to signify the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both perfect God and perfect man for our salvation.

After joining the fingers, place your hand first on your forehead, confessing that Christ is the one true and eternal Head…

Then place your hand on your stomach, confessing His descent to earth and His conception without seed in the pure womb of the God-bearer…

Then place your hand on your right shoulder, confessing that He sits at the right hand of God the Father, awaiting when His enemies are made His footstool.

Finally, place your hand on your left shoulder, signifying that He will come again to judge the world, granting eternal life to those on His right and eternal punishment to those on His left.

When crossing yourself with the sign of the cross, say this prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner, finishing with Amen, and bowing down to God, asking that He deliver us from the standing on the left and grant us His blessing.¹pp. 41-42

That the sign is part of Apostolic Tradition – and not simply a pious expression, is made clear by St. Basil the Great:

Canon 91. Of the dogmas and teachings preserved by the Church, some are outlined in the Scriptures, while others are passed down to us from apostolic tradition in secrecy. Both are of equal significance for piety, and no one, even slightly familiar with ecclesiastical rules, will dispute this. Indeed, if we were to reject unwritten customs as insignificant, we would unwittingly distort the Gospel itself and render the preaching void. For example (I will first mention the most ordinary and common), who taught through Scripture that those who place their hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the sign of the cross?²https://agioskanon.starove.ru/otci/015.htm

An important point.

It is an expression of our hope in our Savior Jesus Christ. Christ. The Cross. They are so essentially connected, that it needs no explanation.

As referenced in the Small Catechism, the most significant prayer in the Apostolic faith – apart from the prayer that the Lord taught us directly in calling on our Father – is the prayer to Jesus Christ Himself – the so-called “Jesus Prayer”:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

This prayer is essentially linked to the sign of the Cross. In Old Belief, one does not make the sign without, at least mentally, having these words in their hearts, and at prayer, one cannot say this prayer aloud without making the sign.

Children are raised learning the dogmas of Christ – the truth of our salvation through Him, with the sign of the Cross.

So connected to the Cross is its sign – that Russia preserved the ancient practice of using a mat for prayer – that when a prostration is made (after making the sign of the Cross), the very fingers connected with that sign will not touch the ground. Behind this piety is the 73rd canon from the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which forbade any crosses from touching the ground.³Canon 73. Since the life-giving Cross has shown us salvation, we ought to exercise every care that due honor be rendered to that through which we were saved from the ancient fall. Therefore, offering veneration to it in thought, word, and feeling, we command that the figure of the Cross, which some have placed on the ground, be completely erased, so that the sign of our victory may not be dishonored by the trampling of those who walk upon it. Thus, from now on, we decree that those who place the figure of the Cross on the ground be excommunicated.

But, it is enough about the sign itself – and what it means, – is it ancient?

That this is so, is also so obvious it needs little help in presenting itself.

The well-loved Athonite Nikodemus the Hagiorite – the compiler of the well-known Philokalia, is also known for publishing the “Rudder” – the book of canons and rules. In the introduction, Nikodemus says:

The ancient Christians arranged their fingers differently [from modern Greeks] when making the sign of the cross, using only two fingers—the middle and index fingers—as described by St. Peter of Damascus (Philokalia, p. 642). According to him, the entire hand represents the one hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers symbolize His two natures.⁴Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Pedalion: The Canons of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 4, Yekaterinburg, 2019, pp. 188, 194

The most obvious evidence is clear to the eyes. There is another written legacy of Apostolic Christianity beyond the written word – and this is the iconography of the Church, which from the earliest example, give prominence to the two-finger sign. Among the early icons, many hand gestures were used. These are briefly discussed in my article here.

What is not encountered in any of these signs, however, is the three-finger sign.

With one exception.

The three-finger sign was used, iconographically, as the hand formation of Judas Iscariot, as he reaches for the bread at the Supper – indicating his place as the betrayer. Old Believer polemics have frequently referred to the three-fingered sign as the “pinch of Judas”.

In 1654, Patriarch Nikon condemned the sign of the cross, introducing a heresy of his own, connecting its use and symbolism with the heresy of Nestorius:

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.⁵https://rpsc.ru/publications/bogoslovie/borba_s_dvoeperstiem/

Thirteen years later – when the representatives from the other Patriarchates arrived in Moscow, and a full council was convened in 1666 and 1667, the two-finger sign of the Cross was again condemned:

And make upon yourselves the sign of the honorable and life-giving Cross with the first three fingers of the right hand… 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.⁶ibid.

The councils confirmed Nikon’s understanding and “corrections”, and added to them the anathemas and eternal curses upon all who continued to use the ancient sign:

But if anyone does not obey what is commanded by us and does not submit to the holy Eastern Church and this holy council, or begins to contradict and oppose us, such an opponent, by the authority given us from the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit – if he be of the sacred order – we depose and strip of all priestly function and subject to anathema; if he be of the lay order, we excommunicate and make him a stranger to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and subject him to curse and anathema as a heretic and disobedient, and cut him off from the Orthodox fellowship and flock and from the Church of God until he come to understanding and return to the truth by repentance.

And he who does not come to understanding and does not return to the truth by repentance but remains in his obstinacy until his end, let him be excommunicated even after death, and let his portion and his soul be with Judas the betrayer, with the Jews who crucified Christ, with Arius and the other accursed heretics. Let iron, stones, and wood be destroyed and decay, but let him remain unabsolved and undecayed, like a tympanum for ever and ever. Amen.⁷https://theoldbelievers.com/old-believer-work/history-of-old-belief/#Chapter_XII_The_Councils_of_1666_and_1667

The fierce hatred and permanence of these curses, and the fact that they were adopted by representatives from the other patriarchates was a catastrophic event for the faithful.

It meant an apostasy of apocalyptic proportions that demanded extreme interpretations to understand – it is the time of the Antichrist.

That the curse was of no effect was never questioned by Old Believers. But was there any effect beyond this?

In the 12th chapter of his great apologetic work, The Enlightener, St. Joseph of Volotsk, after citing multiple fathers who say the same, says:

God’s judgment does not follow a heretical curse, but the curse of heretics returns upon them. All heretics cursing Christians curse themselves. If anyone curses Abraham, he is cursed, as per the divine voice, “I will curse him that curseth thee” (Genesis 12:3); how much more, then, shall a heretic who rejects Christ, cursing a Christian, himself be cursed? Many heretics have cursed Christians, and God’s judgment did not follow, but they themselves were cursed. ⁸p. 275

Even into the 19th century, the notion that two-finger signers would be damned was still firmly entrenched. In one of the lives of Seraphim of Sarov, by Met. Seraphim (Chichagov), we see the interaction of a woman with the elder, inquiring about the state of her ancestors:

“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 [in hell -OB]: the holy Orthodox Church does not accept this cross.”⁹https://rpsc.ru/publications/bogoslovie/borba_s_dvoeperstiem/

Like these, there are countless others by the likes of Dimitry of Rostov, Theophan “the Recluse”, John of Kronstadt, and many others, some of such foul hatred that I would feel defiled for repeating them.

The assault on the sign of the Cross was extended in the councils of 1666/1667 by even anathematizing the phrase “Son of God” in the Jesus prayer, insisting that only “our God” is a proper Orthodox statement.¹⁰https://protopop-avvakum.ru/k-ya-kozhurin-czerkovnye-sobory-1666-1667-gg-kak-vodorazdel-russkoj-istorii/

Fortunately, both this insane condemnation, and the insistence that the two fingers in the three-fingered sign are “idle”, signifying nothing, were soon abandoned and ignored…

I must consider with a heart bent upon forgiveness and understanding that the Greek usage of the two-finger sign faded, for there is no evidence that the change was done either intentionally or with malice for what came before. Couple this with the fact that the representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs who attended the councils of 1666/1667 were the most unscrupulous of characters, denounced even by their own. (A very balanced assessment of these knaves may be read in the book Russia, Ritual, and Reform, by Paul Meyendorff of the Orthodox Church in America.)

But, for those who understood the sign, knew its significance, knew the dogmatic meaning, and lived with the understanding that the sign was itself part of the living, Apostolic Tradition – an outward symbol of the very truths of our faith – it was clear that the new sign was born of the heresy of condemning that very Tradition.

Reconciling with it was out of the question. By its very condemnation of the Apostolic sign as a heresy, Nikon had separated himself from that faith that had blessed his land for centuries, and created a new one – opposed to the piety of his fathers. The acquiescence of the Greeks only made matters more severe.

Indeed – it was never a question of resisting a lawful reform – but rather a question of preserving the faith and piety of our forefathers under the persecution of those who sought to destroy it.

And destroy it they did.

Soon after the disaster of 1667, Peter “the Great”, saw in the new Russian church an object worthy of no respect, and immediately undertook to reform it. The patriarchate was abolished and replaced by what came to be the “Synod”, whose role was subjugated to the state.

Subjugation itself became a theme of primary importance. Patriarch Ioachim of Moscow famously said after the schism:

I know neither the old faith nor the new, but whatever the authorities command, I am ready to do and obey them in all things.¹¹https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/bogoslovie/skrizhal-akty-soborov-1654-1655-1656-godov/9

In modern Orthodox culture – this new emphasis on obedience led to a fundamental change, starting in Optina, to the ancient monastic relationship of the monk and his disciple, expanding it to the unconnected laity.

Today it is not hard to find people who believe they need “blessings” not only for the most mundane of activities, but even for those things they are already required to do as Christians!

The emphasis on Freedom, in some ways a reaction, is one of the greatest Old Believer legacies! But today, one can see among certain Old Believer groups that a jealousy of this kind of spiritual power is being felt.

After the Councils, persecutions, imprisonments, tortures, executions, tongue and finger removals, forced-feeding of their sacraments, and more were imposed upon the faithful of the old ways. Obedience would be enforced with devilish cruelty.

The use of prayer rugs ceased almost immediately. With the connection to the Cross gone, what did it matter? In place of the rug, the practice arose of intentionally touching the very fingers used to make the sign of the Cross to the ground!

It remains to this day an ironic fact that this act of enhanced piety has embedded within it the mockery of the older piety and veneration of the Cross itself.

A constant reminder of a fall.

Instead of its natural connection to the Jesus Prayer, the sign of the Cross lost its Christological mate. Then began the practice wherein the only statements requiring the sign of the Cross was a trinitarian invocation. This also remains true today.

While I do not know of anyone who believes that the Holy Trinity died upon the Cross – to link so inseparably the two looks like a sad statement of theological sloppiness and carelessness. The Cross is a Christological symbol – not a Trinitarian one.

The apparent indifference to the sign’s meaning is also seen today in its use among clergy and hierarchs of the reformed Church – priests and bishops whose hands seem to get unbelievably heavy in making the sign so that their fingers never make it to their left shoulder. Indeed many do not even try, making quick gestures before their chest. As if the sign has gone beyond insignificance to actual annoyance.

Even in using the sign as a blessing – one sees the degradation of piety.

Lost are the actual words of blessing, (the very point). Lost is the act of tracing the sign upon the person asking for the blessing, often replaced by a quick swatting motion. Lost even is the very desire by the faithful for the actual blessing (prayer), who never receive it. But retained is the kissing of the hand! It has become a dead shell – a rite whose purpose and end is the rite itself.

While these offenses remain, there are some, yes, who strive for care. May God preserve them! But these are the exception, from my observations.

Further, it must be stated that today, the roots of the Orthodox reformation are almost completely unknown. Even among many priests of the Russian tradition are those who admittedly know nothing about the Schism, but could speak at length upon the most obscure theological disruptions in the first millennium whose relevance has been lost for over a thousand years, like the filioque.

I can say confidently, that many of the faithful today in the Nikonian church are a testament to the power and universal love and providence of God, who calls and blesses all who seek Him, wherever they are.

Those that burn with love for Christ, and seek to obey His commandments, are like our brothers, wherever they are!

We enjoy a perspective today that those in the past did not have – an appreciation of local differences that arose not out of denial or rejection, but naturally over time.

Indeed, the Western liturgical tradition had established itself as a completely unique system long before any schisms occurred and allow those of us from the Eastern tradition to look at their worship with a kind of admiration that our forefathers did not have the perspective (or the sources) to be able to do.

But, sad is the knowledge that one tradition was born, not out of an organic local difference, from the sincere love of Christ, but rather a spiteful, mean-spirited, and destructive rejection of a local faith – the Muscovite one.

I cannot look upon this benevolently, but must keep separated from it.

For this reason, while I cannot judge those who choose it, I personally cannot accept the path of the Edinoverie, those who are “permitted” to continue with the old ways under the new bosses.

While it was a welcome sign, and certainly positive, the lifting of the curses by Moscow in the 1970s was neither here nor there, for by the original act, Nikon and the councils bombed their bridge to the past and built a new path forward – one that in Russia led to an immediate overhaul of Muscovite piety, the Westernization of its hierarchy, its architecture, and its iconography.

The holy martyr Avvakum commented with his typical folksy bluntness on the new style of iconography, which was introduced with striking speed. He connected it with a coinciding loss of asceticism in the piety of the priesthood.

Speaking to an apparently bloated Nikonian priest (obesity is still a problem today that plagues the hierarchs and priests, of Old Believers in some cases also, – a problem that could not exist if the established rules of eating and fasting were observed), Avvakum said:

Look at that face, that belly, you cursed Nikonian—you’re so fat! How do you expect to fit through the heavenly gate?

Narrow is the way and strait, full of sorrow, that leads to life. The Kingdom of Heaven is for those who strive, not for the fat-bellied.

Look at the holy icons and see how the saints who pleased God are depicted by skilled iconographers: their faces, hands, feet, and all their features are thin and emaciated from fasting, labor, and all kinds of afflictions. But you have changed their likeness, painting them as you are yourselves: fat-bellied, fat-faced, with legs and arms like chair legs. And for every saint—God save you—you’ve smoothed out their wrinkles, the poor things. They didn’t think to do that in their lifetime, as you’ve made them!

Clever ones! You’re cunning with the devil!

There’s nothing to discuss. A good person has nothing to hear from you: all you talk about is how to sell, how to buy, how to eat, how to drink, how to fornicate with women, how to grab children in the altar by their backsides. And I’m ashamed to mention the other things you do: I know all your evil cunning, you dogs, you harlots, you metropolitans, archbishops, Nikonians, you thieves, betrayers, new Russo-Germans!¹²ibid.

But all of this led – almost without anyone noticing, to a loss of respect from the top to the bottom of Russian society for its Church.

Gone were the days of Holy Russia. Forever.

The scar of this loss, more than anything else, made it possible for the horrors of the atheistic communist reign of terror in the 20th century, as Solzhenitsyn frequently pointed out.

But this wound was not only self-inflicted – it was intentional.

What Nikon and even more so, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, managed to achieve with their reforms, was to grasp the piety of their fathers, boulders before their paths to consolidated power over the Church, and to steal it away.

Pinch of Judas indeed.

It must be stated that much of what is said above, though it can be seen in its effects today, is impossible to lay at the feet of those in the reformed, modern Orthodox Church.

They know nothing about it! They bear none of the guilt.

Beyond this, it is not my place to judge anyone who is trying to follow Christ. It is more than enough to judge myself, and my own lacking, my own impiety, and my own ignorance.

In the vast majority of its prayers, liturgics, and doctrines, the Old Believers and the Nikonians are very close. But, among so many issues – the departure from the Old Faith involved a conscious denial of it.

Today, I have only focused on one element – the sign of the Cross, because it is the most prominent. While there are elements here that are polemical, I say them with humility and admitting I am no Christian example. I speak hypocritically.

And this is why I need the old faith.

The ire of Old Believer polemics, it is true, is focused almost entirely against that religion that is closest to it.

Quite distinct from the polemics in modern Orthodoxy, one must search for anti-Catholic polemics among Old Believers (though they certainly do exist – they are almost always confined to the issue of “pouring baptism”). This must be excused, for the Catholics did not curse our faith as a heresy – they did not damn us to hell for preserving it. They never said, through their proclamations and violence against our piety, “we hate your ways and have no part in them”.

This itself is the great heresy of the Nikonian origins!

Can anyone seriously say that the condemnation of the pious act of icon veneration (iconoclasm) was in any way worse or different in kind than the condemnation of the true sign of the cross? Iconoclasts at least had one of the Ten Commandments to cite in their defense, despite being wrong. All defenses of the three-finger sign, being of Apostolic origin, have long since been laughed off. You will not find a historian of the subject in the last 150 years who supports the assertions of Nikon and his councils.

While the Western Christians of Catholicism seem bound in the very essence of their faith to the seat of papal authority – for the old faith, it is not so.

You can destroy our churches, our altars. You can our destroy monasteries, our books. You can even destroy our priesthood, our hierarchies.

But to confess the true faith, and to follow the commandments of God, through the ways and traditions of our forefathers, is the responsibility of every individual.

My faith cannot fall with the betrayal of any or all of the bishops. Neither will the correct faith of a hierarchy save me if I am devoid of faith.

We will only answer for ourselves on doomsday.

Old Belief is a path of conscious preservation of a lived faith, passed on from the Byzantine fathers of old and preserved through Muscovite piety. By its continuity and antiquity, its validity and needful value is confirmed.

Old Belief is the faith of Holy Russia, not the faith of “enlightened” Russia.

It is not the Old Believers who broke away.

They remained…

This is why I cannot be anything but an Old Believer.

By Mikhail Olegovich Shakhov.

Already in the first decades after the Schism, the state authorities and the official Church acted together as persecutors of the zealots of the ancient piety. Old Belief then faced the necessity of defining its attitude toward the state and toward society. It had to formulate its social position.

The “Pomorian Answers” made their own laconic but very weighty contribution to this task. The principles outlined in the “Pomorian Answers” remain relevant even in our own day.

If we turn to the history of European sectarian and heretical movements, we can easily discover something. Many of them possessed a clearly expressed, theoretically and doctrinally substantiated anti-state, democratic-socialist orientation. In some sects, this reached the point of complete anarchism and the denial of any statehood whatsoever. A striking example is the Anabaptists in 16th-century Germany.

Relying on their own interpretation of Holy Scripture, the heretics preached material equality. The Anabaptists even preached intellectual equality—by destroying libraries. They rejected judicial proceedings, oaths, military service, and the estate structure of society.

After the anathemas of the Council of 1667, and under the influence of the ever-growing scale and cruelty of the repressions, the Old Believer thinkers were forced to abandon the hope of the tsar’s return to the true faith. The deviation of the highest civil and ecclesiastical authorities from the ancient piety—together with the cruel persecutions—confirmed them in one conviction. The last stronghold of Orthodoxy, the Third Rome, had fallen.

The governmental repressions acquired a special significance in the religious consciousness of the zealots of antiquity. They became a vivid confirmation of this thesis. They also became a stumbling block for their civic conscience.

Indeed, if the civil authority lost its right to former respect and lost all authority, then obedience to such authority was no longer entirely natural. Moreover, if the tsar was a servant or instrument of the Antichrist, then obedience to him would be a sin—a service to the Antichrist himself. Struggle and resistance to such a tsar would seem to be a God-pleasing deed.

However, the spiritual leaders of the Old Believers did not draw such a radical conclusion. They did not elevate the struggle against the state to the level of a religious doctrine. The defense of Old Belief against governmental persecutions was of a passive character. Even the most radically inclined Old Believers preferred not armed struggle, but flight to remote regions.

P.I. Melnikov wrote: “Can one fail to recognize the true dignity in the long-suffering patience of the Russian people, which is evident in our schismatics? Had this been in the West, long ago rivers of blood would have flowed—as they flowed during the Reformation or the Thirty Years’ War, the religious wars in England.”

Thus, in contrast to heresies that possessed a definite doctrine, concept, and theological justification for the transformation or abolition of the state, the Old Believer doctrine remained alien to the problems of the political restructuring of the state and society. It did not act as a carrier of the idea of the violent establishment of religious ideals of social justice.

It is indicative that Old Believer literature—whose total volume is enormous—completely ignores issues of state and social structure. All questions arising from the position of Old Belief within a state that is heterodox to it concerned the Old Believers only in one aspect: Is it possible under these conditions to preserve the “ancient piety”?

In all Old Believer writings there is one tendency, one coloring—religious. Not a single word against the life of the state. Not a single hint at the injustice of the social order. Not a single complaint about economic conditions. There are speeches about worldly well-being and mentions of public calamities—but exclusively in connection with religious causes.

Drawing on the theory drawn from Old Testament history—that the transgressions and impiety of the tsar bring down God’s punishment upon the entire people—Old Believer writers pointed to the cause of the sufferings being experienced and those that might yet come. They pointed not in the centralization of state power, not in the trampling of zemstvo rights, not in economic exploitation—but exclusively in the betrayal of the ancient piety.

I.F. Nilsky asserts that Old Believer writings accurately reflect the real interests and views of the Old Believers. The assumption that they did not speak fully openly out of fear of governmental persecution is completely unfounded. Therefore, the absence of social protest in Old Believer literature adequately expresses the absence among the Old Believers of interest in secular social problems.

As is well known, the “Pomorian Answers” were written precisely as answers to the questions of the Synodal missionary hieromonk Neofit. He sought to provoke the Old Believers into statements that could be qualified as an insult to the monarch and the official Church.

Neofit asked: “Does our pious sovereign the Emperor Peter the Great and Autocrat of All Russia, and the Most Holy Governing Synod, and all Orthodox Christians (i.e., the reformed Orthodox) truly and with firm hope have the hope of obtaining salvation, or do you reckon them as Orthodox or count them among some kind of heretics, those who have fallen away from the Eastern Church?” (question 52). And: “For what guilt do people now in the (new-rite) church not attain salvation, but perish?” (question 78).

In the “Pomorian Answers,” on the questions of whether Emperor Peter I, the Synod, and the followers of the new-rite church are Orthodox, it is repeatedly emphasized that the Old Believers do not consider themselves entitled to pass judgment on the piety of the sovereign and the authorities. Only the Lord Himself can judge who abides in the true faith and who will save his soul.

Doubting the Nikonian innovations, the Old Believers said: “We do not examine his Imperial Majesty’s Orthodoxy, but we willingly desire every good for his God-loving Majesty and we pray to the Lord God for it. (…) We do not despise the Most Holy Governing Synod, but we honor it reverently, and we do not revile the episcopal dignity with dishonorable words” (answer 52). And: “To judge others whether they are being saved or not, and for what guilt—this we do not dare, nor do we strive to write articles on this, for we utterly refuse to judge others” (answer 78).

Of course, one must take into account the forced evasiveness of the Old Believers answering the questions of the missionary who sought to convict them of disloyalty to the authorities. But the position taken by the Old Believers is principled. We do not judge other people—the authorities and clergy who have chosen their own path in religious life. We only strive ourselves to follow the patristic tradition and ask that we not be hindered in this.

Characterizing the social position that Old Belief consistently adhered to, two fundamental points must be highlighted:

— Do not judge the salvific quality, truth, or falsity of another faith. Do not judge the righteousness and piety of people of another faith. But preserve one’s own fidelity to Ancient Orthodoxy. Stand for one’s right to preserve the ancient piety.

— The second principle, formulated by the remarkable Old Believer thinker of the 20th century A.V. Antonov: “Old Belief is resistance to evil by non-violence.” In response to evil, to injustice, to discrimination, we do not rebel. We do not resort to violence. But we resist evil by doing good within the framework of law-abidingness. We build churches, engage in charity, preserve spiritual heritage. In a word, we build our own rather than destroy what is alien—even if it is unrighteous.

In the fair opinion of P.I. Melnikov—who specially studied the question of the socio-political moods of the Old Believers—even the most radically inclined Old Believer bezpopovtsy (priestless), who refused to pray for the tsar, in principle recognized the necessity of tsarist authority. They were alien to anti-monarchical and democratic aspirations.

Old Believer writers always proudly mentioned the origin from noble boyar and princely families of the boyarynya Morozova, Princess Urusova, the brothers Denisov (princes Myshetsky). On the contrary, the attempts of A.I. Herzen and V.N. Kelsiev to spread revolutionary-democratic propaganda among the Old Believers met with complete failure.

The Old Believer metropolitan Kirill, in his epistle to the Russian priestly Old Believers, warned them against all enemies and traitors to the tsar—“especially against the malicious atheists nesting in London and from there disturbing the European powers with their writings. Flee therefore from those accursed ones… for they are forerunners of the Antichrist, striving through anarchy to prepare the way for the son of perdition.”

The priestless (bezpopovtsy) soglasie (agreements)—which in the imagination of adherents of theories about a “peasant anti-church movement” appeared to represent an even more favorable environment for revolutionary work—in fact shunned contacts with “unfaithful” revolutionary propagandists no less than with Nikonian heretics. We have not succeeded in finding any information about the success of Narodnik propaganda attempts among the bezpopovtsy.

The Old Believers of the Preobrazhensky Almshouse presented to Emperor Alexander II, on April 17, 1863, in the Winter Palace, a most loyal address. It stated: “Great Sovereign! Many voices are raised to your throne: permit us also to speak our truth: Traitors and agitators sought to slander us before the whole world and to equate us with themselves. They lied about us. We preserve our rite, but we are your faithful subjects. We have always obeyed the powers that be. But to you, Tsar-Liberator, we are devoted with our hearts. In the novelties of your reign we hear our ancient ways. Upon you, Sovereign, rests the spirit of our virtuous Tsars. Not only in body, but in soul we are Russian people. Russia is our native mother; we are always ready to suffer and die for her. Our ancestors were Russian people, they labored on the Russian Land, and died for it. Shall we disgrace the memory of our fathers and grandfathers and of all Russian Christians from whom we received our blood? Enemies, plotting against your dominion, kindle rebellion in Poland and threaten us with war. Great Sovereign! The right hand of God exalted the dominion of your ancestors: it will grant the Tsar-Liberator victory over the ancient enemies and oppressors of the Russian Land, who tore the Russian people from their roots and violated their faith. Your throne and the Russian Land are not alien goods to us, but our own by blood. We shall not be slow to appear in their defense and will give for them all our possessions and our lives. May your dominion not diminish, but be magnified; may our ancestors not be put to shame in us; may our Russian antiquity rejoice in you. All our hopes are in you, and our devotion to your throne is unshakable. Reign long, Great Sovereign, to the glory of Russia and to the consolation of your faithful subjects!”

Alexander II replied to this address with the following words: “I am glad to hear from you and thank you for your sympathy with the common cause. They wanted to blacken you before me, but I did not believe it, and I am convinced that you are as faithful subjects as all the rest. You are my children, and I am your father, and I pray to God for you, just as I do for all who, like you, are close to my heart.”

Three hundred years after the writing of the “Pomorian Answers”, much in Russia has radically changed. The persecutions of Old Belief carried out by the state and the official Church have receded into the past. In our day Old Belief steadfastly preserves the Ancient Orthodox faith—without departing from the negative attitude toward the Nikonian reform that was laid down by the first defenders of Ancient Orthodoxy.

But in the modern world, when the preservation of traditional spiritual and moral values has acquired paramount importance for the preservation of Russia, the social position of Old Belief—its dialogue with Russian society and the state—must develop on the principles laid down in the “Pomorian Answers”: not to become a judge of people of another faith, but to preserve one’s own faith, showing respect and tolerance, finding the possibility of peaceful coexistence and service to the common good.

source

From a hectograph of the Old Believers of the priestless zakonobrachnoye (lawful-marriage) soglasie [or agreement/faction] of the early 20th century.

The Beginning of the Church, Its Appearance and Composition as It Existed at the Time of Its Initial Establishment, and Its Past, Present, and Future Existence

The holy earthly Church Militant received its beginning from its Creator, the Lord God, in the persons of the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve.

Concerning this, the great teacher, the blessed Methodius, Bishop of Patara, says: “that the Church originated from Adam.” Thus, in the Scriptures, the very society and assembly of the faithful is often called the Church, in which those who are most perfect according to the degree of their progress constitute, as it were, one person and the body of the Church.

This Church is composed of sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins without number, as stated in the Song of Songs of Solomon, chapter 6, verse 8–9: “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only one of her mother, the favorite of the one who bore her. The daughters saw her and called her blessed; the queens and the concubines also, and they praised her.”

On this, the blessed Methodius, a teacher of the 3rd century, interprets as follows: “The sixty queens are those who, from the first-created [Adam] down to Noah, successively pleased God, because they had no need of prescriptions and laws for salvation, since the creation of the world in six days was still recent for them. They remembered how God created the world in six days, what happened in Paradise, how man, having received the commandment not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, fell, being seduced by the author of evil. Therefore, symbolically, these souls who, shortly after the creation of the world, successively cherished love for God and were, if one may so express it, almost offspring of the first age and close to the six-day creation—since they lived immediately after the six days of creation—are called sixty queens. For they enjoyed great honor, conversing with angels and often beholding God in waking vision, not in dreams. Consider what boldness Seth had before God, Abel, Enoch, Enos, Methuselah, Noah—the first lovers of righteousness and the first among the firstborn written in the heavens [Heb. 12:23], who inherited the kingdom as a kind of firstfruits of plants for salvation, as an early fruit offered to God.

The eighty concubines are those who lived after the Flood, namely, the succession of prophets. Their knowledge of God was more remote, and they needed another teaching that would serve them as a remedy. Therefore, the succession of prophets from the time of Abraham—on account of the significance of circumcision, in which the number eight is contained, and from which the Law also depends—is called eighty concubines, inasmuch as, before the betrothal of the Church to the Word, they were the first to receive the divine seeds and foretold the spiritual circumcision on the eighth day. Therefore, God entrusted to His Son to inspire the prophets with His future coming into life in the flesh, at which time the joy of the spiritual eighth day would be proclaimed.

The virgins are the ancient righteous ones, whose number is innumerable—the multitude of those who lived righteously under the guidance of the higher ones and who, in youthful zeal, diligently struggled against sin. But neither the queens, nor the concubines, nor the virgins are compared to the Church. For she, created and chosen above all of them, consisting and united from all the apostles, is the Bride surpassing all in the beauty of flourishing youth and virginity. Therefore, she is blessed and praised by the others, since she abundantly saw and heard what those desired to see even for a short time but did not see, and to hear but did not hear. “Blessed,” said the Lord to His disciples, “are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear; for truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it” [Matt. 13:16–17]. Therefore, the prophets bless the Church and marvel at her, because what they themselves were not vouchsafed to hear and see, she was deemed worthy of and became a partaker thereof. For there are sixty queens and eighty concubines and virgins without number; but she alone is “my dove, my perfect one” [From the complete collection of the works of St. Methodius, Bishop and Martyr, a Father of the Church of the 3rd century. Translated from Greek. Printed in St. Petersburg, 1877, pages 27–29, 28–60–61, 64].

Secondly, in the Apocalypse, chapter 12, the same Church is described, which the Lord God showed to His beloved disciple John the Theologian as follows: “Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days” [Rev. 12:1–6].

On this chapter, Andrew of Caesarea interprets that the woman is the Church, citing the words of the same blessed Methodius, who, in a discourse from the person of the virgin Procla, says: The woman giving birth in the presence of the hostile dragon is the Church. The woman appearing in heaven is our mother the Church, whose children will all come together to her after the resurrection, gathering to her from everywhere, according to the words of the prophet Isaiah [60:1–7]: “Arise, shine, O Jerusalem; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and His glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. Lift up your eyes all around and see; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be carried on the arms.”

Interpretation: The Church, having attained the never-setting light and clothed in the radiance of the Word as in a garment, will rejoice. For with what other more precious or worthy adornment should a queen be adorned, who is clothed in light as in a garment, in order to become the Bride of the Lord, for which she was called by the Father? Come then, elevating your mind, behold this great woman, like bridal virgins, shining with pure and immaculate, whole and unfading beauty, in no way inferior to the radiance of light, clothed in light itself instead of garments, adorned on her head with shining stars instead of precious stones. For what is clothing to us is light to her; what is gold or a shining stone to us is stars to her—not such as are found in their visible places, but better and more brilliant, so that those here may be considered no more than their images and likenesses [Works of Methodius, page 69].

The Work of the Church: The Birth of Children in Baptism

Thus, at our faith and conversion, the Church stands before us as in the image of the moon, enduring the pangs of birth and regenerating the soulish into the spiritual until the fullness of the nations is reached; therefore, she is our mother. For just as a woman, having received the formless seed of her husband, in due time gives birth to a complete human being, so also the Church, continually conceiving those who flee to Christ and forming them according to the image and likeness of Christ, in due time makes them citizens of that blessed life. Therefore, she must necessarily be present at baptism as one giving birth to those purified by it. Hence, her action at baptism is also called the moon, because those being regenerated, being renewed, shine with a new brilliance, which is the new light; therefore, they are called the newly-illumined [From the same book, page 70].

In essence, all spiritual aspirations of humanity boil down to two main paths: the path of magic and the path of worshiping God.

The second one—worship of God—has an internal distinction: there is genuine worship, based on truth and revelation, and there is false worship, when people, considering themselves servants of the Most High, are in reality following human delusions.

The first path, despite all its variety, is built on one conviction: that through certain means, a person is capable of influencing higher powers and subjecting them to his will.

The mindset of people adhering to a magical worldview is revealed to us through the testimony of Holy Scripture.

The Philistines captured the Ark of God (1 Samuel 5) and God began to punish them (1 Samuel 6) with tumors on their bodies and mice devastating their land. The Philistine lords turned to their priests with the question: “What shall we do with the ark of the Lord?” (1 Samuel 6:2). Let us read this passage in full, 1 Samuel 6:2–4:

2 And the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, saying, “What shall we do with the ark of the Lord? Tell us how we should send it back to its place.” 3 So they said, “If you send away the ark of the God of Israel, do not send it empty; but by all means return it to Him with a guilt offering. Then you will be healed, and it will be known to you why His hand is not removed from you.” 4 Then they said, “What is the guilt offering which we shall return to Him?” They answered, “Five golden tumors and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines. For the same plague was on all of you and on your lords.”

Why does the guilt offering take the form of tumors and mice? Because the idea of magism is that to influence a certain force, one must reproduce its image. The plague from God came in the form of tumors and mice, so they needed to depict this force by bringing a sacrifice to the God of Israel in order to influence His decision, 1 Samuel 6:5:

“Make images of your tumors and images of your mice that ravage the land, and give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will lighten His hand from you, from your gods, and from your land.”

Another example of magical thinking can be found in the Book of the Prophet Daniel.

King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in which he saw a statue. God revealed this dream to Daniel, Daniel 2:31–35:

31 “You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. 32 This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”

And its meaning, Daniel 2:36–45:

36 “This is the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; 38 and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all—you are this head of gold. 39 But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. 40 And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. 41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold—the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”

So, all these parts of the body represent kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold. But the time will come when his kingdom will be replaced by another—one of silver.

Nebuchadnezzar then makes a statue like the one he saw in the dream, but entirely of gold. Magical thinking is primitive: one must make what was seen in the vision, take all the designations from the interpretation of the vision, and perform a ritual to change the plans of the “higher powers.” And since the Babylonian Empire is the golden head, now the statue must be entirely golden so that the empire will be eternal, Daniel 3:1:

Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its width six cubits. He set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.

To bring the action to completion and give it power, the culmination of the ritual was universal worship of the statue by all peoples, Daniel 3:4–5:

4 Then a herald cried aloud: “To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5 that at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up.”

Thus, worshiping what has been made in miniature should influence the original. According to the magical worldview, now “gold” will not be replaced by “silver.”

Even in our time, a similar method is widely known—the voodoo doll. An image of the person one wishes to influence is made, and whatever is done to this image will happen to the person to whom it is “tied.”

Such thinking is not foreign to modern Christians either. To influence some decision of God, one must perform certain actions before His image. One needs to place more candles before an icon—and preferably ones rolled by the petitioner himself—then there will be more grace, and thus the request will be more effective. And it does not matter at all how you live, how you confess God. What matters is knowing the special ritual and performing it correctly: the right candle is needed, a memorized (but not understood) prayer is needed; in some communities, one must stand exactly opposite the icon, and only then…

All of this is closely intertwined with the theme of the “cult of ceremonialism.”

Sometimes Christians come with some personal problem and a request to “do something spiritual for us,” expecting that now thunder will roar, the heavens will open, and they will begin to levitate from an overflow of grace. But the true God is different from the magical conception. Consider 2 Kings 5:9–15:

9 Then Naaman went with his horses and chariot, and he stood at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.” 11 But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, “Indeed, I said to myself, ‘He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.’ 12 Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 And his servants came near and spoke to him, and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” 14 So he went down and dipped seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. 15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his aides, and came and stood before him; and he said, “Indeed, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, except in Israel; now therefore, please take a gift from your servant.”

The Syrian king Naaman was sick with leprosy, but having learned that there was a certain man of God, Elisha, he went to him.

Upon arrival, Elisha did not even come out to Naaman himself but sent a message through a servant that he should wash in the Jordan seven times. Naaman became angry at such advice, because there should have been some ritual, yet everything turned out so simple…

As was said earlier, for magical thinking, how you live does not matter—what matters is the ritual. A similar example of “influencing through the right words” is found in the New Testament, Acts 19:13–16:

13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” 16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

The demon replies: “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?” The fact that you know the names, some expressions, and actions, repeating them after the apostle Paul—has no significance. It does not matter what words you know; what matters is who you are in the eyes of God.

This passage clearly shows the failure of magic: even a demon needs to know who you are, not what names and actions you know.

Sceva was not actually a high priest but an impostor. From Acts 23 we know that during the time of the apostle Paul, the high priest was Ananias, and in no Jewish or general historical source does the name Sceva appear in the list of high priests. An interesting feature is highlighted in his commentary by the Venerable Bede (735), in his Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 19:

“Sceva” is translated as “barking little fox.” This animal, exceedingly skilled in cunning and deceit, symbolizes the Jews, pagans, and heretics who are always plotting against the Church of God and raising a clamor against Her.

It should also be emphasized here how deceptive this approach is: a person only thinks that he is mastering certain “forces,” whereas in reality they are subjugating him, creating an illusion of control. In truth, evil spirits can turn against the person himself.

One cannot overlook the “magic of special places.”

Some are simply convinced that if they go to a special holy place or even undertake a pilgrimage, then everything in life will surely work out and all their prayer requests will be fulfilled.

But let us turn again to Scripture. Does everything really depend on the place, or is this a magical delusion?

In the Book of Numbers, chapter 22, there is the account of how the pagan king Balak, through his messengers, asks the prophet Balaam to curse Israel. But God directly forbids him to go and curse Israel, because the people are blessed. Balaam informs the messengers of the prohibition. Balak sends more influential messengers with promises of rich rewards. Balaam nevertheless goes with Balak’s messengers, but each time he receives an indication from God, and an angel warns him to say only what the Lord directs. Thus, instead of cursing Israel, Balaam blesses it. The pagan king Balak does not understand what is happening, for he gave valuable gifts to the prophet and he went with him. Perhaps now the issue is the place? The ritual is not being performed in the right location?

The first place of the ritual, Numbers 22:39–41:

39 So Balaam went with Balak, and they came to Kirjath Huzoth. 40 Then Balak offered oxen and sheep, and he sent to Balaam and to the princes who were with him. 41 So it was, the next day, that Balak took Balaam and brought him up to the high places of Baal, that from there he might observe the extent of the people.

But instead of the expected curses, Balak hears blessings, Numbers 23:11–12:

11 Then Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I took you to curse my enemies, and look, you have blessed them altogether.” 12 So he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak what the Lord has put in my mouth?”

Now they move to another place, hoping that it will work there, Numbers 23:13–14:

13 And Balak said to him, “Please come with me to another place from which you may see them; you shall see only the outer part of them, and shall not see them all; curse them for me from there.” 14 So he brought him to the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

And again nothing happened. Balaam continues to speak what God puts in his mouth, Numbers 23:25–26:

25 Then Balak said to Balaam, “Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all!” 26 So Balaam answered and said to Balak, “Did I not tell you, saying, ‘All that the Lord speaks, that I must do’?”

Balak changes the place again, Numbers 23:27–29:

27 Then Balak said to Balaam, “Please come, I will take you to another place; perhaps it will please God that you can curse them for me from there.” 28 So Balak took Balaam to the top of Peor, which overlooks the wasteland. 29 Then Balaam said to Balak, “Build for me here seven altars and prepare for me here seven bulls and seven rams.”

Just like the pagan king Balak, some Christians seek out “special, prayer-soaked places” where supposedly all their desires will come true, not realizing that everything depends not on the place, but on God. That is why He rejects sacrifices, to remind people of the importance of true knowledge of God (Hosea 6:6).

Worship must not turn into magic according to the principle: “stand here, read this, do that, and God will surely fulfill your desire.” When faith is built on understanding God’s teaching, awareness comes: God is not a magical spirit. True connection requires personal relationship with Him, not the performance of formal rituals. For even the sacraments, when approached with a “special” method, can easily become magic. Reading a forty-day memorial service for the health only by candlelight, being baptized specifically in a cold river, and similar inventions are entirely foreign to Christian teaching.

source

Apologetic Investigation by Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin

The book “The Old Faith” was first published in 1914, shortly after the death of its author, Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin. An outstanding expert [in religious debates], a zealous defender of the Old Belief, he came from a poor family but, thanks to his natural abilities and talents, as well as his pious Christian qualities, despite life’s difficulties and obstacles, achieved significant success in understanding Holy Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers.

These extensive knowledge, combined with exceptional industriousness, broad outlook, intellect, gift of speech, and extraordinary memory, served him as a reliable shield and effective means in preserving the dogmas of ancient Orthodoxy and church piety, elevating him to the ranks of remarkable figures in the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church.

This re-edition of the book “The Old Faith” represents yet another attempt to trace church life “in the last times.”

Examining divisions in the Old Belief, the author puts forward serious arguments in favor and defense of those who accept marriage without priestly blessing, while giving doubters and opponents of the lawful teaching an open, perhaps sharp, assessment that is just and principled.

Uncompromisingness was in the author’s character. The work of Lev Feoktistovich Pichugin will serve successfully in our time as well.

Published by the Russian Council of the Ancient Orthodox Pomorian Church Moscow, 1991.

PREFACE

Circumstances create prosperity and privileges for the human race, but there is no person who is not subject to all the dangers of this present life.

All the beauties and privileges of the world are nothing but soporific means under which a person helplessly slumbers: in most cases, he surrenders to dreamy enchantment and falls asleep in the sleep of carelessness. Only a case of sharp change can awaken a person from such an age-old sleep.

The ardent curiosity of human nature often shatters against unforeseen obstacles, like a mountain stream against rocks, and breaks away from the whole into unperfected forms and crude outlines of personal imagination.

Organic vigilance is dulled by sleep, the moral state is subjected to the temptation of passions, and faith is replaced by enticing novelty.

An inevitable companion of human life is sleep. This is natural sleep, as a medicinal remedy relieving the organic nature from daily labors and cares.

But there is also another sleep—a heavy sleep—this is the sleep of the soul. Natural sleep in the original man (Adam) produced, by the will of the Creator, a helper for life, while the sleep of the soul produced transgression.

The original progenitors Adam and Eve, enjoying God’s gifts within the limits set for them, lived a life of joy without any sorrow, ruling over everything around them and enjoying all the blessings that could seem pleasant to them.

There were no cares, only merriment! There was no labor—only the intoxication of life! There was no sickness—only flourishing health! There were no tears, for there was nothing to weep over, but there was joy and happiness!

The enemy of such a life for the original people was the devil. Being envious of all good things and as the chief and main apostate from God, he endeavored to deceive people living in truth, to separate them from God, and to plunge them from great joy into great sorrow, from life into death. The cause of the transgression, in essence, was the progenitors themselves, while the devil was only a cunning and false teacher for their transgression.

The forefathers wanted to know more than was given to them by God. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as a forbidden fruit, served as a law for them, but the inclination of curiosity—to become better from the best—attracted them to the transgression of the law. But as soon as the transgression occurred, punishment soon followed without delay. The cunning devil, taking advantage of the simplicity of the forefathers, began to seduce the further human race: some with envy and fratricide, some with self-deception and a beastly life, unbelief, and idolatry. But the good God always provided worthy people to destroy the wiles of the evil enemy and to expose the very deception.

The natural law: “Do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself” was observed by few, but those who fulfilled the innate law of righteousness were above all prejudices and appeared as a light of faith for the darkened state of people infected with unbelief.

Upon dark and beastly unbelief followed the wrath of God: the unbelieving and beastly people perished in the fierce waters of the flood, but faith, as God-chosen seed, remained unharmed—though in small quantity, yet of high quality in people.

By faith Noah illuminated the universe, by faith Abraham shone, by faith Isaac and Jacob shone like two candlesticks, by faith Moses was great, by faith Aaron received the high priesthood from God, and by faith the written law was given by God to the lawgiver Moses.

By faith all the chosen of God lived, by faith the holy prophets foretold the distant as if it were present. For the sake of faith, the holy people of God struggled with beasts, with scorching fire, and with lawless people. Only by faith did people know the true God.

The cunning devil, seeing true worship of God among people, devised the invention of false gods—idols. To achieve this goal, he darkened some with the beauty of life and attachment to everything earthly. He also invented false prophets, soothsayers, and sorcerers. He wanted to darken true worship with idolatry, to replace true prophets with false ones, and believing righteous people with sorcerers and ventriloquists. But faith overcame everything. False prophets, although several times attempted to dominantly establish idolatry—as especially under Ahab, king of the Jews—yet true faith in true worship triumphed solemnly here over the false inventions of the shameful prophets. Not by quantity, but by the quality of one believing prophet, faith in the true God was solemnly restored on the summit of historical Carmel. Although the faith of true worshippers endured many afflictions from false worshippers, truth, as always, solemnly defeated the dark false belief of people.

The faith of true worship served as a guiding star for true worshippers of God to the cave of Bethlehem, where in the flesh was born the Redeemer of the world, Christ. Faith brought the Magi to worship Christ. By faith the shepherds were vouchsafed to hear the angel’s good news about the born Savior of the world and by faith worshiped the God born in the cave in the flesh. The cunning and shameful enemy of the human race, the devil, sensing his powerlessness, taught the tyrant Herod to kill the one born; but the villain blunted his weapon on innocent infants, seeking to destroy God in the flesh, and himself lost his life as a desperate fighter against God. The end came to the darkness-worship. The star in the East preceded the Sun of Righteousness; the great prophet, the Forerunner of Christ’s coming, John, already thundered in the wilderness: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Then the cunning devil again taught the scribes not to accept the true preaching of the prophet, taught Herod to destroy him; finally, he taught the high priests to deliver the Lord Christ Himself, the Savior of the World, to a shameful death. But faith in the Savior Christ remained untouched by the enemy.

The faith of the holy apostles was above all the prejudices of the Jewish scribes: thanks to faith, the gospel teaching was planted, a new true life flourished, and access to the Kingdom of Heaven was so simple that there was no special labor to comprehend it. Faith and truth—these are the two companions to the Kingdom of Heaven! But the cunning devil here too acquired people worthy of his title, trying to present them as apostles, with the intention of diverting people from the true faith. Simon the Samaritan apostate, the abominable Nicolas, founder of foul Gnosticism, Saturninus the vessel of demons, Cerinthus and the godless Carpocrates in polytheism, Basilides the false-teller of the gospel, Marcion the myth-maker and abominable Montanus with false prophetesses, the fiercest enemy of the Trinity Sabellius, and the reviler of holy baptism Eulogius—these are false apostles, distorters of faith and tramplers of the true Gospel. No matter how much these thieves tried to rob the faithful in faith, the true faith was untouchable for the foul hands of corrupters, for great preachers of God, the apostles, stood guard over faith in Christ as true servants of the Lord, before Whom demonic falsehood could not stand, and every heterodoxy was mercilessly driven out by the words of their mouths.

Attempts were also made on the true faith in the true Christ God by the lowly vain-talker Paul of Samosata, the evil-minded Arius and the blasphemer of the Holy Spirit Macedonius; Nestorius, Eutyches, the blind Didymus and Evagrius; Sergius the Monophysite and Pyrrhus, his foul companion with Celestine of Western Rome; Anthony—the patriarchal abomination of desolation in the holy place—with a demonic host of blasphemers of iconoclasm—but they too could not drown the true faith in Christ in streams of innocent blood. Lives were destroyed by the tens of thousands for the faith, but no weapon was powerful against the faith. The enemy of Christ, like a wounded wild beast, rushed from east to west, where he had long wanted to tyrannically reign under the guise of a true shepherd, with the assistance of civil authority. And the crafty deceiver, by the permission of the Holy God, succeeded in this. He endowed the pope with such pride that he considered no one equal to himself on earth, wanted to be the second prince of the world, the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and God on earth. The pope fell away from the true faith, introduced heresies, and destroyed the commandment with wicked teaching. This greatest calamity in the Christian world forced true Christians to be cautious against such encroachments on the faith and to make corresponding dispositions for the present and future generations of the truly Christian race, that any inclination toward the holy faith in Christ and open encroachment on the immovable traditions and laws of the Church would be subject to alienation from the Church and anathema, and therefore any separate heterodoxy in itself would be considered impiety. Thus, our undertaking will also aim to present before the reader’s eyes the truly true faith in Christ up to the very boundaries of the prescribed last times. The events of things bring us closer to the fateful end of the fall of the stars of heaven to the earth, that is—the episcopal rank into earthly wisdom. We have stopped at the Roman fall and the impiety of its popes; let us pass from there to the native faith and Church.

The ambition of the Roman pope in matters of faith was reflected also in the southwestern church of our fatherland. In the thousandth year from Christ’s Nativity, in the five hundred and ninety-fifth year, almost all of Little Russia fell away from the true faith and joined the Roman pope on the rights of the impious union, against which, though few, yet strong in spirit fighters arose, arose in full spiritual armor. They spared no words toward the apostates and, applying Holy Scripture to the time, openly said that the time was not far when the general falling away of the stars of heaven would follow, that is, the hierarchs, after the pattern of the western and Little Russian churches. This time was literally pointed out by the zealots of the ancient true faith to the year 1666, according to chapters 20 and 13 of the book of Revelation of the holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian. The fateful number found on the throne of our royal ancestors the weak-willed Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, but evil fate put forward for us the proud despot and capable of all evil, the Russian chief hierarch Nikon. Under the guise of correcting church books, Nikon deceived the council of hierarchs and deceived the tsar, authoritatively shook the holy faith and produced corruption of books; he brought confusion into the holy Church, setting aside the Gospel, gave free rein to passion, armed executioners, and pointed to terrible torture chambers where the bones of confessors of the old ways cracked in iron collars. Bonfires burned under the feet of those hanging on the rack for holy piety, and the merciless whips of executioners whistled over the bodies of new martyrs for the old faith, where the clerk, according to the instructions of Nikon and his accomplices, in the tone of a trusted torturer under the blows of the executioner questioned the confessor of the old piety: “Do you fold three fingers for the sign of the cross? Are you willing to say the alleluia in the psalms thrice, and a fourth time—Glory to Thee, O God? Will you submit to Nikon and his consecrated council, and recognize all the hierarchs who approved the book correction as Orthodox?” And for each negative answer, the executioner’s whip mercilessly struck the exhausted body of the confessor of the holy old faith. By this Nikon fully proved that he was not a true shepherd, but a bloodthirsty wolf in sheep’s clothing. Thanks to his cunning and satanic ambition, earthly prisons and gallows, corruption of ribs with iron hooks, cutting of tongues and ears, burying alive in the ground, and cutting off members of the body became known. All this was practiced on the confessors of the holy Russian antiquity. To requests for mitigation of tortures and torments Nikon was unrelenting. His power extended beyond command. He found no equal among hierarchs, wanted to appear as God; surrounded himself with comely youths, calling some of them cherubim and others seraphim, and surrounded by them, he solemnly performed religious services; signed acts as “great sovereign,” and finally built a “new Jerusalem,” erected a stone temple, and in this temple tried to present himself as God, and his youths as cherubim and seraphim. Such are the facts of the accomplished number 1666. But the Lord God here too did not leave His Church without providence, raising up courageous and fearless fighters for the old faith: Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, Archpriest Avvakum, Priest Lazar, the wise Abbot Spiridon Potemkin, Archpriest Daniil, Abbots Dosifei and Kapiton, Deacon Feodor, and monks Avraamii, Isaiah, and Kornilii, who, together with all the remnants of the ancient holy faith, condemned the apostate Nikon and all his accomplices. In accordance with the time and taking into account the published heresies, the remnants of the old piety decided to say that “the present churches are not churches, the divine mysteries are not mysteries, baptism is not baptism, bishops are not bishops, writings are flattering, and all is foul.” The thought is completely clear: the confessors of the faith of the old piety recognized nothing in Nikon’s new church—neither priesthood, nor mysteries, nor even baptism itself. Such is the opinion of the preservers and defenders of the old holy faith.

But the cunning devil, unable to tolerate the confessors of zeal here either, spread nets of temptation, and with the passage of time sowed enmity even among the remnants of piety. Some adhered to the teaching of the confessors, contenting themselves with priests of the ancient ordination for performing the mysteries, while others, out of necessity, began to accept priests of the new ordination as well; because of this, enmity arose among the nurturers of the old piety. Some completely refused to accept priests of the new ordination, while others, on the contrary, began to accept such priests, and from this division arose among the zealots of antiquity. Some of them came to be called bespopovtsy [priestless], because after the death of priests of the old ordination they did not wish to accept priests of the new ordination; others, on the contrary, began to accept new priests and therefore came to be called popovtsy [priestly].

Then new zealots of the old faith appeared: they too shunned priests of the new ordination, but accepted baptism from them. They did not belong to the first bespopovtsy, since the first bespopovtsy did not recognize baptism in Nikon’s church as baptism at all, and in the case of conversion from such, the first bespopovtsy gave a new baptism, whereas the second bespopovtsy, having themselves been baptized in Nikon’s church, accepted those baptized in the same church without repetition. The sect of this society is called “Spasov” [of the Savior]. Both the first and second bespopovtsy remain with the same teaching to the present day.

In the 1850s of the nineteenth century, the popovtsy divided among themselves in their opinions regarding the reception of sacred persons from the Greco-Russian church, as a result of which two sects formed among them: the old popovtsy and the new popovtsy, called Austrians or those accepting the priesthood of the Belokrinitsa hierarchy, which appeared in 1846.

All the societies I have named, both bespopovtsy and popovtsy, call themselves equally Old Believers, hold the same books and traditions of the ancient church. But they differ among themselves because of the new priesthood and the baptism derived from the new priesthood. From this arise heated disputes even among the Old Believers themselves, but to mutual agreement, to great regret, they have not been able to come even to the present day.

I consider this religious disunity among people who equally strive to be saved under the banner of the “old faith” pitiful and sorrowful; and, placing my hope in God, I take upon myself the labor, to the measure of my strength, to impartially examine the hope of salvation of each separate society and to show which society among the Old Believers truly holds the truly old holy faith, inherited from our ancestors of blessed memory, who so selflessly defended the holy antiquity in the difficult days of Nikon’s reforms. First place will be given by me to the church of the year 1666 and the priesthood of that ordination; then gradually each Old Believer hope will be set forth separately.

I pray to the Lord, Who gives understanding and mercy, that He grant to me, unworthy and the least of all in strength and understanding, to accomplish this difficult feat to the glory of the Most Holy, Life-Giving, and Life-Originating Trinity: of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!

Chapter 1. Historical, Theological, Dogmatic-Canonical Investigation of the “Old Faith” and the Division from the Greco-Russian Church from the Times of the Year 1666.

The most important division of the Old Believers among themselves into different sects and beliefs. Who among all the sects of the Old Believers truly holds the old faith in all its inviolability from the new belief.

QUESTION. What reasons compelled the ancestors of the Old Belief to refuse to be together in faith with the Greco-Russian church from the times of 1666–1667? ANSWER. Many and various. The first and chief reason: betrayal of the holy ancient evangelical, apostolic, and patristic orthodoxy.

I will say in order: the betrayer and traitor of the holy Russian antiquity was the Moscow Patriarch Nikon.

“In 1653 Nikon sent the following memorandum to all Moscow churches: according to the tradition of the holy apostles and holy fathers, it is not fitting to make prostrations to the knees in church, but to make bows from the waist; also, you should cross yourselves with three fingers.” “In the summer of 1654 Nikon ordered his servants to gouge out the eyes of newly gathered icons (painted with the two-finger sign) and to carry them in that form through the city and announce the tsar’s decree, threatening severe punishment to those who henceforth dared to paint such icons with the two-finger sign.”

“In 1655, in the presence of the tsar in the cathedral church, Nikon, pointing to certain new icons brought to the analogion, referred to our (Greek) lord the Patriarch (Macarius) as witness that those icons were painted not according to Greek but according to Frankish models. Then both patriarchs anathematized and excommunicated all who henceforth would paint or keep Frankish icons in their homes. Thereupon Nikon took one after another of the new icons brought to him, and each one, showing it to the people, threw it onto the iron floor with such force that the icons broke, and finally ordered them burned. But Nikon did not stop at this: following the sermon against the new icons, he began a sermon against another novelty—against the two-finger sign of the cross.”

“On February 12, 1656, at Nikon’s request, Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Chudov Monastery, after reading the Prologue, proclaimed: ‘Men of all Orthodoxy, hear: I am the successor and heir of this holy throne of Meletius. You know that this holy Meletius showed the first three fingers separated from one another, from which there was no sign; then he joined those three again, and with them showed the sign. And if anyone does not depict the sign of the cross on his face with these three fingers, but joins the two last with the great thumb and has the two middle ones extended and depicts the sign of the cross with them, such a one is an imitator of the Armenians. For the Armenians depict the cross in this way.’ Then on February 24 of the same year, in the Dormition Cathedral on the first week of Great Lent, on the day of Orthodoxy, the same Patriarch of Antioch Macarius, in the presence of the tsar and his synod, joined the three first great fingers in the image of the Holy Trinity and, showing them, exclaimed: ‘With these three first great fingers every Orthodox Christian should depict the sign of the cross on his face, and whoever does it according to the writing of Theodoret and false tradition is cursed.’”

“At Nikon’s special request, at that same time the Greek hierarchs—Macarius of Antioch, Gabriel of Serbia, Gregory Metropolitan of Nicaea, and Gedeon of Moldavia—answered: ‘We have received the tradition from the beginning of the faith from the holy Apostles and holy fathers and the seven holy councils to make the sign of the honorable cross with the three first fingers of the right hand, and whoever of the Orthodox Christians does not make the cross in this way according to the tradition of the Eastern Church, which has held from the beginning of the faith even to this day—is a heretic and an imitator of the Armenians. And for this reason we have him excommunicated from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and cursed.’”

“On June 2, 1656, the council decreed: If anyone from henceforth, knowing this, does not obey to make the sign of the cross on his face as the ancient holy Eastern Church received it and as now the four ecumenical patriarchs with all Christians under them throughout the universe hold it, and as here the Orthodox formerly held it until the printing of the word of Theodoret in the Psalters with the following of the Moscow press—that with the three first great fingers of the right hand to depict in the image of the holy, consubstantial, indivisible, and equally adored Trinity, but instead makes this thing unacceptable to the church, namely joining the two small fingers with the great thumb—in which the inequality of the Holy Trinity is indicated—and the two middle ones extended. In which is concluded two sons and two natures according to the heresy of Nestorius, or otherwise depicts the cross: such we, following the rules of the seven holy ecumenical councils and other local councils and the holy Eastern Church of the four ecumenical patriarchs, have entirely excommunicated from the Church, together with the writing of Theodoret, and so forth.”

From this it is clearly seen that Nikon changed and betrayed to anathema the holy tradition of the Conciliar and Apostolic Church, whereby Christians should sign their faces crosswise with two fingers. But not only this mysterious tradition of the holy ancient Church did Nikon change, but also other traditions, which will be spoken of in the following places.

In 1658 Nikon withdrew from Moscow to the New Jerusalem he had built, leaving the patriarchal throne vacant. But the work begun by Nikon began to be introduced with the severity of civil laws into churches throughout Russia.

In 1666 a great council gathered in Moscow by order of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It too continued the work begun by Nikon. In the eleventh act the council first of all condemns the confessors of the holy antiquity and those unwilling to accept the new ordinances, among which are the following: “It removes the former seals of prosphora with the depiction of the eight-pointed cross and the inscription: ‘Jesus the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the whole world’ and instead gives such a seal:

Ic Xc Nī kā

and commands: ‘Therefore we conciliarly command archimandrites and abbots, protopopes and priestly elders to frequently inspect in all churches… And also examine all prosphora bakers where it is assigned, that they seal prosphora with the seal of the four-pointed cross, as depicted above, and such a seal we have issued from the council.’ ‘Those who sign themselves with the three first fingers in their prayer should say: Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us.’ This innovation—of signing oneself with three fingers—and the rejection of the two-finger composition for signing oneself—the council of 1667 also confirms. In the 22nd rule of the conciliar scroll this council decreed:

‘Moreover, the writing composed by some schismatic and hidden heretic of the Armenian heresy and printed ignorantly and indiscreetly in the book Psalter with the following, and in others, that is, concerning the folding of the fingers, commanding to sign oneself according to the custom by which heretics the Armenians sign themselves with the cross—do not accept this, and let no one henceforth believe this writing or hold it, but we command to root it out from such printed and handwritten books.’”

QUESTION. So did Nikon and the councils agreeing with him reject and curse the tradition of the Holy Conciliar and Apostolic Church, whereby Orthodox Christians should sign their faces with two fingers? ANSWER. Yes. And that the two-finger composition is a tradition of the ancient holy Church—hear. In the book On the True Faith, in chapter 9, it is written: “The holy Eastern Church from the days of the Apostles received it, and commands her true sons to bear it and to sign themselves with it, according to the apostle: ‘But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord.’ The time comes to speak of signing with it and what mystery is contained therein. Thus the holy Church confesses. By the joining of the three fingers of the right hand, that is, the great and the small and the third next to the small, the mystery of the divine three hypostases is confessed: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God in three persons. By the extension of the two fingers—the upper and the middle—the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is shown, that He became perfect God and perfect man for our salvation.”

On January 26, 1581, the first all-Russian Patriarch Job was installed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople. Upon ascending the patriarchal throne, Patriarch Job wrote an epistle to all the churches of Great Russia, in which, among other things, he teaches: “When praying, one should cross oneself with two fingers: first placing them on the forehead, then on the breast, then on the right shoulder, then on the left. The bending of the fingers signifies the descent from heaven, and the standing finger points to the Lord’s ascension. And to hold the three fingers equally—we confess the indivisible Trinity, that is, the true sign of the cross.”

Maximus the Greek in his book, in chapter forty, writes: “Concerning what you previously asked me to explain to you the power of the mysterious apostolic tradition, that is, the image of the cross. For the joining of the three fingers (the little finger—antirich, and the ring finger, that is, the nameless) together with the thumb and the one from the middle and small—we confess the mystery of the three God-originating hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God in three. By the extension of the long and the middle, the two natures come together in Christ, that is, we confess the Savior Christ Himself perfect God and perfect man in two essences and natures believed and known.”

The Great Catechism, chapter 2, where it is written: “To have three fingers equally: the great with the two small together joined. By this we image the Holy Trinity. And to have two fingers inclined, and not extended, and by this to indicate thus: this images the two natures of Christ: Divinity and humanity.” The same teaching of the ancient Church is handed down in the Psalters with the following. From this it is clearly seen that Nikon and the councils following him violated the great mysterious tradition of the holy conciliar and apostolic Church.

QUESTION. How then should we understand Nikon and his supporters: are they subject to the judgment of the ancient holy Church for rejecting this tradition of the Church? ANSWER. Undoubtedly they are subject. In the Kirillova Book, on the Holy Spirit, from the voice of the ecumenical councils 5-6-7 it is laid down: “If anyone rejects all the tradition of the Church, written or unwritten, let him be anathema.” In the Great Sobornik on leaf 389 it is written: “Cursed is he who destroys the statutes of the fathers and the immutable church statutes which your fathers established.” And again: “For whoever rejects little or much of the divine, rejects the whole law.” And again: “If anyone destroys the command of our immaculate and orthodox faith of the holy fathers, let him be cursed.”

The holy Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians declared: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Saint Chrysostom: “And he did not say if they preach contrary things or pervert all, but if they preach even a little something other than what we preached, if they move even a little thing—anathema they will be.” Nikon and his accomplices, having rejected the divine tradition of the holy Church—the two-finger folding—from the holy Church of Christ are also cursed.

QUESTION. From where did Nikon and his associates, the Greek hierarchs, take the custom of crossing themselves with three fingers? ANSWER. From the heretic Pope Formosus. In the book On the Faith it is said about this: “Stephen the Seventh, who ordered Pope Formosus to be dug up from the grave, and having clothed him as a pope, ordered him seated on the throne and performed mockeries and derisions over him. And then ordered him unclothed and the three fingers with which he blessed to be cut off and his body thrown into the Tiber River.” Baronius in the year of the Lord 897, under number one, writes: “Stephen ordered Formosus taken from the grave, and clothed in papal garments seated on the throne, and ordered that papal clothing stripped from him, and the three fingers with which blessing is made cut off, and his body thrown into the Tiber River.” From this it is known that the three-finger sign is from the heretic Pope Formosus, and not from Christ, not from the apostles, and not from the holy fathers. But everything alien to the holy Church and introduced outside her tradition Nikon brought into the new church, and what is newly introduced into the church is cursed by the ancient Church. As it is said in the Kormchaya Book, in chapter 71: “Everything that is newly created and done or intended to be done contrary to church traditions and teachings and the images of the holy and ever-memorable fathers—anathema.” The ancient holy council of the year from the creation of the world 7059 [1551], held under the pious Tsar Ivan Vasilievich, pronounced this decision on those not crossing themselves with two fingers: “Whoever does not sign himself with two fingers, as Christ also did, let him be cursed.” In the Trebnik, in the rite of receiving from the heretic Jacobites, it is laid down: “Whoever does not cross with two fingers, as Christ, let him be cursed.” See and understand that Nikon and his accomplices are under the curse.

QUESTION. If this is so, as indeed it is, then did this curse have effect on the followers of Nikon’s teaching for rejecting the Christ-given two-finger composition in the sign of the honorable cross? ANSWER. Not only were the followers of Nikon’s teaching not instructed by this thunder of curses, but as if in madness of mind they came to worse things.

Opening their mouths they uttered the bitterest blasphemies against the Christ-given two-finger sign with their tongues, and all together pronounced these blasphemies: 1) That the two-finger sign was supposedly received from some heretic Martin the Armenian. 2) They slandered it with Arianism. 3) Nestorianism. 4) Macedonianism. 5) Evil division. 6) Armenianism. 7) The abyss of Arius. 8) Magical sign. 9) Deadly poison, and finally Theophylact Lopatinsky in refutation concludes: 10) Whether your two-finger folding differs from the Latin finger-folding, or not, we make no investigation or reasoning here, and whether you took it from the Latins or from some worse devil, we do not inquire here. 11) Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, says: “It is more fitting for these schismatics on their Armenian two-finger folding to write the demonic name on one finger—de, on the other—mon, and thus on their two fingers the demon will sit.” 12) Patriarch Joachim in the Uvet called the two-finger folding “with foul hands.” Thus, forgetting the terrible judgment of God, the new-lovers, as if possessed, vomited forth blasphemies against the mysterious and terrible-to-demons Christ-given two-finger folding for the sign of the cross.

Thus far concerning the finger-folding.

Chapter 2. Concerning the Naming of God as Darkness

QUESTION. Is it truly written in the books of Nikon’s friends and associates: “It is better to call God darkness,” and is it so written in their books, or do they speak some lie? ANSWER. It is truly so written in their books, and those who have seen it bear true witness.

In the book Skrizhal’, on leaf 665, it is written: “For it is better to call God darkness and ignorance than light.”

The council of 1666, in the 5th act, conciliarly confirms this new theology with the words: “There was read the lying writing of the schismatic and false accuser from the city of Suzdal, Priest Nikita. In it first he blasphemes the word of the holy martyr Dionysius the Areopagite, which is: ‘For it is better to call God darkness and ignorance than light.’ The council, strengthening this—that it is better to call God darkness—confirms: ‘Dionysius the holy Areopagite, the great pillar, says these words, and not the author of the Skrizhal’ writes from himself.’ It is asked: where then does the holy martyr Dionysius the Areopagite himself write this? The council answers: In chapter 2 of the Celestial Hierarchy, ‘denials in God are more strengthening than affirmations.’”

QUESTION. Did the council speak the truth—referring to St. Dionysius the Areopagite—that he writes thus: “It is better to call God darkness,” etc.? ANSWER. The council spoke untruth. For in St. Dionysius the Areopagite there are no such words. Here is his book on the celestial hierarchy, chapter 2, where it is written: “Thus the mysterious teaching handed down to us in holy scripture describes the venerable supreme Divinity in various ways. Sometimes it calls God Word, Mind, and Essence, thereby showing understanding and wisdom proper to God alone, and expressing that He truly is and is the true cause of all being, likens Him to Light and calls Him Life. We shall see that the mysterious theologians fittingly use such likenesses not only in describing heavenly beauties, but also where they depict Divinity. Thus they, borrowing images sometimes from the most exalted objects, sing God as the sun of righteousness, as the morning star graciously ascending in the mind, as unquenchable and intellectual light; and sometimes from less exalted objects: call Him fire harmlessly shining, water of life quenching spiritual thirst, or speaking figuratively flowing into the belly and forming ever-flowing rivers; and sometimes borrowing images from lowly objects: call Him fragrant myrrh, cornerstone.”

The lie of the council of 1666 with the book Skrizhal’ is evident. Now it is clear that the Greco-Russian church, from the year 1666, mysteriously dogmatizes that “it is better to call God darkness than light.”

Chapter 3. Blasphemy Against the Divine Name

QUESTION. All that has been said is trustworthy. But what else follows after this? ANSWER. That by calling God the Father darkness, they have also blasphemed the Son! QUESTION. Where is this written—show me clearly? ANSWER. In the same Conciliar Decree of the year 1666. The council says: “Such is the most sweet name Jesus, which we received from the Greek Iēsous, a three-syllable word signifying Savior, according to that angelic announcement, as to Joseph it was said: and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

QUESTION. The defenders of Nikon’s deeds and of this council say that the name Jesus is truly Greek, that is, Hellenic—so wherein is the blasphemy against the Son of God here? ANSWER. In that, first, they lied concerning the divine name, and second, they gave a new name to the Lord Jesus Christ. QUESTION. How is one to understand the saying: a lie in the name of the Lord, and a new name to the Lord Jesus Christ? ANSWER. Hear and understand. First, the name Isus is not Greek, but Hebrew. In the Gospel of Matthew (the Gospel of the Annunciation), on leaf 27, it is written: “The name Isus is not Hellenic, but Hebrew.” In the Didactic Gospel, in the Sunday before the Nativity of Christ, it is written: “And the name Isus is Hebrew, and it means Savior.” In the Great Catechism, on the verso of leaf three, it is asked: “The Hebrew word, the word again Isus, how is it interpreted?” ANSWER. “Isus is interpreted Savior, or Deliverer, that is, Redeemer.” On leaf 36 of the same catechism it is written: “Isus is a Hebrew name; in Greek it is called Sōtēr.” In the Kirillova Book, on the verso of leaf 554, it is written: “Isus is a Hebrew name. In the Greek language it is called Sōtēr; in our language it is called Sōtēr-Savior.”

See that the council of 1666 spoke a lie concerning the name of the Lord. If this is so, as indeed it is, does this lie touch the name of the Lord? Yes! In the commentary on the 13th chapter of the prophet Zechariah it is written: “These words also deserve attention: for thou hast spoken a lie in the name of the Lord. For if we examine properly what it means to speak a lie in the name of the Lord, we shall see that this iniquity is worse than to kill an innocent man, to poison a guest who has come, to lay violent hands on a father, or to steal what belongs to another. How? God is made subject to a lie—and can anything else be compared with such dishonor? God is true, or rather truth itself: He wishes to be worshiped under this name by us. Therefore, whoever turns truth into a lie places the father of lies—the devil—in the place of God, or wishes to transform God into Satan. And thus every other iniquity, even the most cruel, as we have said, cannot be compared with this terrible iniquity. The name of God is held sacred among us because we constantly seek His sanctification, sending fervent prayers to Him; but when a lie is pronounced in this name, is not God violated? Does He cease to be God? And does not the devil take His place? Thus do impious false prophets mock God, perverting His teaching so that true piety might utterly perish from the earth.” Such is the fate of those who speak a lie in the name of the Lord.

QUESTION. Horror seizes one at what has been heard, but are there yet more blasphemies against the divine name—Isus? ANSWER. There are. And they will be brought forth here. First, Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, honored as a saint by the Greco-Russian church, in his book called Rozysk, writes: “For Iisus signifies one thing, and Isus another. Iisus is interpreted from the Hebrew language as Savior; from the Greek, as Healer. But what does Isus signify? Attend: in Greek Isos means equal, us means ear. When these two words are put together in one place, it will be Isus, which is called even-eared (equal-eared).” Further: “For among them was found one Isus called even-eared. But among us there is one who was before, and is now, and ever shall be—Iisus, called Savior.”

Pitirim, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, in his book called Prashchitsa, says: “Isos and us—these two words, when you join them together, will be Isus, which is called even-eared.”

Nikifor Theotokis, Archbishop of Astrakhan, a Greek by birth, in his book writes: “To write Isus (which is much more probable) Martin the Armenian taught, as all Armenians, even to this day, read and write not Iisus, but Isus.” Further: “And this is the name which, by the temptation of the enemy of the human race, your predecessors dared to distort, taking away one syllable from it and making it monstrous and signifying nothing.”

See the blasphemies against the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. See also the very denial by the Greek hierarchs of the name of the Lord Isus. The name brought down from heaven and entrusted by God the Father Himself to the Archangel Gabriel to say: “And the angel said unto her (Mary), Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Isus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.” See that this name was given to the Son of God and God by God the Father through the Archangel Gabriel. But the Greco-Russian teachers have blasphemed this divine name—Isus—calling it “monstrous,” “even-eared,” “sought out by the enemy of the human race,” and finally “signifying nothing.”

QUESTION. Can any church mystery or pious prayer be performed by such teachers? ANSWER. There are no words to say about such. Hear how God Himself through the mouth of the prophet Malachi condemns such: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.”

Saint Chrysostom interprets this place: “That is, I will place a curse on your blessing, by which the mystery is performed.” Then God, as though to priests justifying themselves, says: “Ye priests, despising my name, ye said: Wherein have we despised thy name? In that ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.” In the commentary it is said: “The prophet does not introduce their bold words without cause, but to show that their forehead was brazen and their neck iron, when they so shamelessly ask him: Wherein have we despised thy name? that is, what have we done, or how have we dishonored thy name? But God, repelling such shamelessness, says to their face: Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar.”

The Antichrist needs the mockery of the divine name. In the commentary on the First Catholic Epistle of John it is written: “What is proper to the Antichrist? To deny that Jesus is the Christ Himself.” Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in his first Encyclical Epistle against the Arians writes: “For such is the form of the opposing activity, and such are the fabrications of heresies. Each heresy, having its own invention from the beginning, has turned and become a murderer of men, a liar devil, and being ashamed to pronounce his hateful name, it hypocritically clothes itself in good and, above all, in the name of the Savior; yet in the words of Scripture it clothes itself and speaks the words, but steals the meaning.”

Of the same Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in the second Encyclical Epistle against the Arians: “As those falling into heresy have their mind perverted and become shameless, they change the name of the Lord of Glory into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.” Further: “The Lord Himself, how justly will He cry out against these as impious and ungrateful, which He also foretold through the prophet: Woe unto them! for they have fled from me; wretched are they, for they have acted impiously against me; I have delivered them, but they have spoken lies against me.”

The Venerable Ephraim the Syrian writes: “For with all craftiness he forges (the Antichrist) that the most holy and glorious name of the Lord Savior might not be named at all in the times of the serpent.”

Blessed Jerome, in the commentary on the prophet Ezekiel: “And I will be jealous, saith the Lord, for my holy name, which was blasphemed among the nations through heretics.” And so let the impious teaching triumph as much as it wishes, and let the prophets of Jerusalem boast that they have prevailed by lies and strengthened the hands of evildoers: their end shall be as Sodom and Gomorrah.

Chapter 4. The Greco-Russian Church with a Special Curse Renounced Naming the Holy Spirit “True” in the Creed and Thereby Distorted the Creed

The council of 1667 commanded: “For this reason we command, we the Orthodox patriarchs with the whole consecrated council, with a great curse, to receive the holy Creed without addition.”

QUESTION. What did the council mean by the word “addition”? ANSWER. The word “True.” QUESTION. Is it possible in the Creed to subtract anything or add anything, even if only a little? ANSWER. It is impossible in the Creed either to subtract or to add what the holy fathers established at the first and second ecumenical councils.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in the epistle to John, Bishop of Antioch, writes: “We absolutely cannot tolerate anyone shaking the faith or the Creed once issued by the holy fathers of Nicaea. And we absolutely will not allow ourselves or anyone else to change even one word established there, nor to omit even one syllable, remembering the words of the one who said: ‘Remove not the eternal boundaries which thy fathers have set.’”

In the Great Catechism, on leaf 335, it is written: “If anyone changes or rewrites this composition, which is I believe in one God, let him be cursed.”

In the Kirillova Book, in the seventh sign, in the discussion, it is written: “Thus also at all seven ecumenical councils it was confirmed by all the holy fathers in writing and with imperial golden seals that in the confession of the Orthodox faith, which is I believe in one God, neither to add nor to subtract. If anyone dares to add or subtract or change, let him be cursed.”

The Venerable Maximus the Greek in his book, in chapter 69, writes: “For this reason the holy third council concluded and firmly commanded with terrible curses—the holy Creed set forth by the previous two councils—that no one henceforth should dare according to his foolish audacity to add anything at all to it or to subtract anything from it, not one tittle, not one jot, nor to change any word or letter from what is in it; and they said thus: If anyone after us dares such a thing in the holy Creed of the Orthodox faith, let him be cursed.” Further: “How much did the great Emperor Justinian entreat the holy fifth council that they permit him to add in the holy Creed one particle, namely ever, so that where it says and of Mary the Virgin, it should say and of Mary Ever-Virgin. And those most blessed fathers, preserving the commandment of the first four councils, did not permit him to add that particle in the holy Creed, even though it does no harm, but rather increases the glory and praise of the most holy Theotokos.”

Thus we have learned that truly it is impossible in the Creed not only to change any word or to add or subtract any word, but it is impossible even to touch a single syllable or a single tittle.

Chapter 5

QUESTION. The Roman church, by adding one word in the Creed—“and from the Son”—distorted thereby the evangelical dogma of the faith, making the Holy Spirit a grandson to the Father, for which it was cursed by the holy fathers. Now the Greco-Russian church by its council of 1667 with a curse removed from the Creed the word “true”—has it damaged the evangelical dogma concerning the Holy Spirit, as did the Roman Church? ANSWER. It has damaged it. Hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself saying concerning the Holy Spirit: “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth.” And again: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” And a third time He says: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” See and take heed: the Greco-Russian church in the years 1656, 1666, and 1667 completely fell away from the Old Faith and Church, and uttered great blasphemies: a) against the mysterious two-finger composition for the sign of the cross, b) teaches to call God darkness, c) blasphemes and reviles the most holy name Isus of our Lord, d) with a great curse removes from the Creed the evangelical word “true,” and thereby mocked the venerable Divinity—of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Father it calls darkness. The Son even-eared and monstrous. The Holy Spirit with a curse it renounced naming True in the Creed.

QUESTION. How then do some say that the Greco-Russian church baptizes in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit just as the ancient church did? ANSWER. Saint Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the third (encyclical) word against the Arians says: “Many other heresies there are which speak only names, but do not think rightly, as is said, nor have a sound faith. The water given by them is unprofitable, lacking piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather defiled in impiety and is not delivered.”

Saint Gregory the Theologian: “I cannot endure to remain unilluminated after illumination, sketching the three into which I was baptized, and truly buried with Christ in the water—not unto regeneration but unto mortification we perform. I dare to say something: concerning the Trinity, and forgiveness of folly. For the soul is in danger—I am an image and myself of God, of the glory above, even though I have been placed in a house. I am not content to be saved partially, if the Holy Spirit is not God, that the first may be deified and thus deify me who am partial. But now what deceit of grace, or rather of those who give grace, that one should believe in God and come forth godless. To confess one thing and to be taught another—what theft and deceit of words. To ask one thing in question and confession and another thing not existing. Alas for the brightness if after the bath (after the font) they are blackened. Even if I see brighter ones, they are not cleansed. If by reviling the baptizer I blacken myself. If I seek a better Spirit and do not find it, give me the bath, that is baptism, and think evil of the first.”

If the Arians baptized into the Father as Creator, the Son as creature, and the Spirit as Comforter, the Theologian calls it black baptism and false. Then how can baptism into another “Jesus” be pure and saving baptism? Some will say: We baptize into the Son, into the Father, and the Spirit indivisibly. I know that too. But they pronounce only bare names. And the Arians also baptized into the Trinity of persons with bare names, but called the Son, the second person of the Godhead, a creature. Therefore the Theologian says that this is deceit, only patched on. How then? Thus. Ask an Arian whether the Son is equal to the Father and co-eternal? The Arian will say: The Son is neither consubstantial with the Father nor co-eternal, but created in time, and therefore is a creature and creation—such is the dogma of the Arians concerning the Son. Therefore the Arians baptize not into the Creator and Co-eternal Son of the Father, but into a creature and creation. Behold the deceit and deception of the Arians in baptism.

But what can there be in common between the Arians and the Greco-Russian church in dogmatizing about the Son? This: that the Greco-Russian church confesses Christ under two iotas—Iisus, but under one iota—Isus, confesses some Isus, not Christ the Savior, but some Isus—even-eared, monstrous, and signifying nothing; and therefore remains only with Iisus, whom it confessed as its God.

But where is this? someone might ask. There, where the Greco-Russian church confesses: “For among them was found one Isus called even-eared. But among us there was one who was before, and is now, and ever shall be—Iisus, called Savior and Healer of our souls, Christ the Lord.” See that the Greco-Russian church baptizes into another Jesus, and this confession is not only unsafe, but exceedingly terrible. The Savior Christ in the Holy Gospel says to the Jews: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” Saint Chrysostom and Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, interpret: “Another, He says, shall come—the Antichrist is manifest.” “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” according to the Lord’s saying.

Chapter 6. Concerning the Baptism of the Greco-Russian Church: That It Accepts Immersive, Pouring, Sprinkling, and Washing Baptism

The command of the council of 1667 concerning pouring baptism: “Concerning Latin baptism, which is performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by triple pouring, all the most holy patriarchs—Kir Paisius, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and universal judge, and Kir Macarius, Patriarch of the great temple of God in Antioch and of all the East, and Kir Joasaph, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia—and the most reverend metropolitans and archbishops and bishops, and the whole sacred council, having heard the extracts, judged this matter: that it is not fitting to rebaptize those coming from the Latins to the Holy Apostolic Church.”

To strengthen and put into effect pouring baptism, the ruling Holy Synod composed and on January 15, 1724, published a book entitled True Justification of the Orthodox Christians Baptized with Pouring Baptism into Christ. It recognized: “The laver (baptism) means nothing else but simply washing, however it is performed—whether by immersion or by pouring.” Further: “From this alone it is sufficiently and powerfully known that the only necessity is to perform the mystery of holy baptism in the form of washing, and there is no necessity that this washing be by immersion and not by pouring: for the Apostle calls baptism a laver, and a laver is washing, and it is well performed both by immersion and by pouring.” And again on leaf 19: “There is no necessity to perform it under the single form of immersion: but it is sufficient to perform it so that washing is depicted.” Leaf 22 of the same book: “But if we consider the power of holy baptism, we shall see even more that the mystery is equally performed both by immersion and by pouring, and the grace of the Holy Spirit is given.” On leaf 37 of the same book it is printed: “Since the laver and the font and spiritual washing are under the form of bodily washing, therefore it is sufficient that there be some form of washing, and therefore the mystery is performed not only by immersion but also by pouring.”

This little book is praised by Theophylact Lopatinsky with the following words: “We here have no need to reason about this at all: for in recent years a little book has been printed in which it is shown sufficiently and powerfully that baptism performed by immersion or by pouring is one and the same baptism.”

In the book Peace with God, in the teaching on the church mysteries, dogma 1: “There should be so much water as is sufficient for triple immersion; or now for washing, or for triple pouring, if it is poured upon the one being baptized, according to the custom of whatever country, especially in scarcity of water.” Further: “There should be the union of form with matter, that is, the words accomplishing this mystery should be spoken together with the immersion, or with the triple pouring.” “In time of necessity one may baptize, even one who is himself unbaptized and unbelieving.” And: “As when birth is difficult, and the child in the mother’s womb is near death, and only the head or some other principal part of the body appears, showing the child to be alive; then, to avoid the danger of death to the child, the midwife or anyone else should immediately baptize by pouring upon that part which has appeared, and saying the accomplishing words.” Further: “But if the child is entirely in the mother’s womb and no member appears, it is in no way possible to baptize. But if the woman about to give birth has died without giving birth, then those sin who do not immediately extract the living child, having safely cut open the mother’s womb and taken it out, and do not baptize it.”

Do you see the perverted orders and commands of heretical baptisms? Have you understood how the church that was with Nikon fell, and where it is found!? Has it not accepted the dogmas concerning baptism of the Roman pope? O evil will! They command things worse than the most impious papists themselves: to baptize in the mother’s womb, making the genital member a font and impurity as sorcerers do, commanding to pronounce the divine names. Having become foolish in mind, thinking themselves wise, and blinded in spiritual eyes, they do not know what they command—to baptize whether male or female in difficult birth. Or is this not mockery, that they command even an unbaptized pagan to baptize in necessity? And what can be more impious than this: they command, when a woman has painfully died in childbirth, to cut open the dead womb and, finding and taking the infant, to baptize it. O impiety! The most impious of all impieties! For even the impious pagans do not do what the new-lovers command to be done. In every way they have become fighters against God. What God has put to death, these strive to raise. They have blasphemed God Who makes the living and the dead, and as open enemies of God they mock the judgment of God and revile human nature. O shame, that like senseless beasts they are not ashamed of female nature!

QUESTION. Does the Holy Church accept pouring, sprinkling, and washing baptism? ANSWER. Not only does the Holy Church not accept these baptisms, but it curses them. In the Great Trebnik the Holy Church has laid down: “I curse their foul baptism that is poured and not immersed according to the Lord’s form in the Jordan.”

Chapter 7. Concerning the Divine Song Alleluia, Which the Ancient Holy Church Accepted to Sing Twice, and a Third Time: Glory to Thee, O God

The council of 1666 commanded: “Further, it says, hear and preach everywhere firmly that in churches and in homes the priests themselves should say in the doxology of God the angelic song, and should likewise teach the people to say: Alleluia thrice, a fourth time Glory to Thee, O God.”

The council of 1667 also says: “To this we also command concerning what is written in the life of the venerable Euphrosynus from the very dream of the writer himself, concerning the double Alleluia, that no one should believe it, for all that writing is false, written by a deceitful and lying writer to the delusion of pious peoples. And this confusion, which you say—Alleluia twice and also Glory to Thee, O God—did not come from Euphrosynus, but from the writer of Euphrosynus’s life by diabolical slander” (leaf 30).

The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the First: “For there are such things manifestly false and contrary to sound teaching. For example, in the life of Euphrosynus of Pskov the dispute about double Alleluia singing is manifestly false and invented by some worthless person, in which, besides the most vain dogma about doubling Alleluia, are found Sabellian, Nestorian, and other heresies.”

QUESTION. Do the councils of 1666–1667 and the Spiritual Regulation speak the truth that the double Alleluia is an invention of some worthless person and hidden heretic? ANSWER. The councils and the Spiritual Regulation speak commanded falsehood. The double Alleluia is not from a worthless person, but was announced from heaven by the holy Angels and handed down from holy Ignatius the God-bearer. And it is not a lying writing, but a tradition of the Apostolic Church. But the triple Alleluia is a tradition of the Latin Church. Concerning this the venerable Maximus the Greek in his book, in word 28, writes in the superscription: “Word to those daring to say Alleluia thrice contrary to church tradition, a fourth—Glory to Thee, O God.”

“We have received from the beginning equally with the written the apostolic and patristic tradition handed down to us the orthodox dogma, to keep the apostolic and patristic unwritten church traditions unchanged.” Further: “How then do some dare to change—this old church tradition handed down by Angels—to say Alleluia thrice, and add a fourth Glory to Thee, O God?” Further: “Judge for yourselves whether it is profitable and saving for you to sing the Holy Trinity together with the evil-believing Latins and the pope, and not with the pious ones preaching the word of evangelical truth, the four orthodox patriarchs. But if, being ashamed of the Roman pope’s rank, you thus proclaim Alleluia, it is time for you, O most good ones, to agree also with other church papal customs—or more truly to say, heresies.” Further: “To this we also say to you that you have said thus (Alleluia twice, and a third Glory to Thee, O God), preserving diligently the custom handed down from the Angels themselves to blessed Ignatius, when they appeared to him singing divine psalms, lest we be condemned also with our other sins as despisers and transgressors of patristic traditions. But you (who triple Alleluia), what do you answer against this? And how justly do you show that you think piously and well concerning this? For we know firmly (says Maximus) that contrary to patristic traditions and the very holy scriptures you are borne along and deceive yourselves and others”—thus far Maximus.

The holy council of Russian hierarchs held in 1551 in chapter 42 decreed: “That in Pskov and Great Novgorod, in many monasteries and churches in many places up to this day they have said the triple Alleluia contrary to apostolic and patristic traditions. We have learned certainly from the writer of the life of our venerable father Euphrosynus of Pskov, the new wonderworker. How for the sake of his holy prayers the Most Holy Theotokos revealed and forbade the triple Alleluia. And she commanded Orthodox Christians to say double Alleluia, and a third Glory to Thee, O God, as the holy catholic and apostolic Church has and handed down, and not to triple Alleluia. As formerly in Pskov they said and in many places the triple Alleluia, and a fourth time added: Glory to Thee, O God. This is not an orthodox tradition, but Latin heresy. For they do not glorify the Trinity, but quadruple it.”

See and understand that the Greco-Russian church openly—not compelled, but conciliarly—commanded to triple the divine song Alleluia, and a fourth time to add Glory to Thee, O God, and fell away from the ancient holy catholic and apostolic Church, and together with the falling away confesses Latin heresy. Consider, O fervent and zealous Christian, the very essence of the matter if you desire salvation and wish to be far from delusion and heresy. What does the council of 1666 say, by what spirit and whose mouth speaking thus: “that Alleluia twice, and a third Glory to Thee, O God, came from diabolical slander”? Should one believe this? O evil and destructive delusion! Not from diabolical slander, but from heaven by the holy Angels, manifestly as from God Himself, was given the order to sing Alleluia twice, and a third Glory to Thee, O God, as the venerable Maximus the Greek wrote. And not from some worthless person and hidden heretic, as the Spiritual Regulation says, but from holy Ignatius the God-bearer and the whole ancient holy Church.

But if they say that it was from a dream vision, as the Most Holy Theotokos appeared to the writer of the life of the venerable Euphrosynus and commanded to sing Alleluia twice and forbade singing thrice—then let them also accuse the evangelist Matthew who relates: “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Isus.” If they do not accept the dream appearance of God’s good pleasure, then let them not accept the Annunciation of the holy Angel concerning the birth of the Lord Isus Christ, since it too was announced in a dream vision.

Chapter 8. Concerning the Traditions of the Ancient Holy Church, Namely: The Written Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ with One Iota—Isus, the Holy Creed with the Word—True Lord.

The Mysterious Two-Finger Folding for the Sign of the Cross, and the Divine Hymn Alleluia Twice, and a Third Time Glory to Thee, O God. From the Year 1666 and Afterward the New-Lovers Say That (These Traditions) Are from Some Monk Martin, an Armenian Heretic, Who Was Judged at the Kievan Council in the 12th Century

In the book Prashchitsa of Pitirim, Bishop of Nizhny Novgorod, it is written: “Conciliar act against the heretic Armenian, against the monk Martin. In the year from the creation of the world 6665, and from the incarnation of Christ 1157, in the month of June on the 7th day.

For he (Martin) taught many new dogmas contrary to the Eastern Church… He rejected the two-part cross… he called the name Jesus written in this form Iisus a heresy among us, commanding to write thus Isus. In the psalms he commanded to say Alleluia twice, and not thrice. He taught to fold the fingers of the hand, the first finger with the two last, and with the index and great-middle to command crossing oneself, and priests to bless, and so forth there.” Thus far from Prashchitsa.

Nikifor Theotokis, Archbishop of Astrakhan, confirming the existence of this Martin and the council held against him, writes: “Thus the two-finger depiction of the cross and blessing proceeded from the Armenian sect. The chief who first taught this novelty in Russia, contrary to the most ancient church tradition, is Martin the Armenian. The time when he began to teach is the year 1149.”

The book entitled History of the Russian Schism, composed by Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, in this book in the first period Macarius also confirms the existence of the Kievan council and the heretic Martin. He writes: “Some of the present schismatic thoughts were first brought into Russia by the heretic Martin, who came to us around the 12th century (1149).”

QUESTION. Is there anywhere written by the holy fathers of Great Russia and Little Russia about this council, or does any historian mention it? ANSWER. No one, not only from the holy fathers but even from the heretics, mentions the heretic Martin and the Kievan council against him, nor does any single historian write about it. QUESTION. Whence then did this narration come in the book Prashchitsa, narrating about Martin and the council that condemned Martin? ANSWER. This narration is false and forged. QUESTION. How can you confirm this—tell me? ANSWER. Thus: investigators of the same Greco-Russian church relate this. Paul Melnikov writes: “The famous resolution of Peter I (seven years after the death of Demetrius): ‘to write something against the schism and to say against Demetrius and his brethren,’ as a result of which Stefan Yavorsky secretly wrote, and Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod openly printed the forged act against Martin the Armenian.” From the book Contemporary Church Questions by T. I. Filippov, where it is said: “The desire to confirm the opinion of the council concerning the supposed heretical origin of the pre-Nikonian rites alone can explain the appearance in print in March 1718 of the forged act of a non-existent council against a non-existent heretic Martin the Armenian, in which this heretic, dated to the 12th century, is attributed, together with heretical delusions chiefly of a Monophysite nature, also the introduction into Russia of the rite peculiarities forbidden by the council of 1667: two-finger folding, double Alleluia, procession with the sun, sealing of prosphora with the cross of the crucifixion, depiction of the name Isus—and which, despite the obvious signs of the coarsest forgery with the schism, is mentioned without denial of its authenticity even in the History of the Russian Schism of His Grace Macarius, edition of 1855.”

Do you see the manifest and crude forgery of the supposed council? Do you understand for what reason the Greco-Russian hierarchs composed and published in print this forged council? Manifestly for this: to abolish the traditions of the holy ancient church, so that they should not fold two fingers in the image of the God-man Isus Christ and three fingers in the image of the Holy Trinity for the sign of the cross, so that they should not say Alleluia twice and a third Glory to Thee, O God, and should not name our Lord Jesus Christ—Isus, but should name Him by another, Iisus. For this reason this forgery was devised.

Know this also, O lover and careful preserver of the holy old faith, that in those times when that forged tale about the false council and the fabulous Martin who never existed in the world appeared, no one dared either openly or secretly to speak of the forgery of this council. But if some somewhere said something doubtful about that council on Martin, they were seized as grave criminals, were beaten with the knouts of executioners, and exiled to hard labor in Siberia. This is written in the register of the state archive, cabinet affairs, 2nd section, book No. 56, leaves 925–926, from the words: “who for what crimes were exiled to hard labor in eternal work: Timothy, Ivan, Athanasius, schismatic teachers, cell-dwellers; Vasily Vlasov for inciting the people and for his false naming of the book of the conciliar act, which by His Great Sovereign’s decree was printed in Moscow against the heretic Armenian Martin, calling it false and substituted.”

Do you see, beloved, the cunning and severity of Satan, how much he taught to say: what is false, call true and faithful, and what is true and faithful call false.

What is false? The council against Martin, and that the holy tradition of the church is supposedly from the heretic Martin. What is true? That the two-finger folding is from Christ and the holy Apostles, and therefore is a tradition of the apostolic Church. Likewise the double Alleluia and the most holy name of our Lord—Isus—is the true and faithful tradition of the ancient holy church.

Chapter 9. Concerning the Number 666 and the Time of the Fulfillment of the Number. Concerning the Final Falling Away from the True Ancient Faith of the Ranks of the Hierarchy, as the Last Falling of the Stars of Heaven, and Concerning the Torment of the Faithful Servants of God

My heart trembles and my mind is horrified to narrate this, that the stars of heaven fell, that is, the great teachers of the Church; but the truth of things bears witness to me, and I will not grow weary to speak of this.

QUESTION. Where and what writing speaks of this, that the stars, that is, the church teachers, will fall from the church heaven? ANSWER. He who saw the hidden mysteries of God, the great theologian and evangelist John, speaks of this in the divine Apocalypse: “And lo there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” This the holy bishop Methodius of Patara explains: “But the stars which he (the Antichrist) touches their summits with the end of his tail and draws down to the earth are heretical sects.” Andrew of Caesarea in the commentary on the sixth chapter of the Apocalypse interprets: “But for the stars to fall, as was written of necessity concerning those deceived by Antiochus, that even the luminaries should fall and those thinking themselves in the world should be inclined and perplexed, as (the Lord says) the elect might be deceived if possible by the greatness of the tribulation.”

Meletius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the fourth epistle explains what are the falling stars: “That the stars shall fall from heaven. But heaven is the Church of Christ, exalted above the earth. Which, according to the divine prophet Habakkuk, the word of the Savior covered, adorned with various graces, and placed on that heavenly firmament certain ones as shining stars holding the word of life, as the Apostle says. From this heaven therefore understand the falling stars.” Further: “This is the cause of change and he who thought himself like the Most High becomes a leader to destruction. Behold one of the evils and not the least sign of the Antichrist’s apostasy—that the stars fall from heaven. Which we now see fulfilled.”

Likewise in the book On the True Faith it is attested: “The divine apostle and evangelist John in the Revelation writes: that the stars of heaven fell unto the earth. These are understood according to the interpretation of the holy ones as the notable spiritual ones in the church, which is the earthly heaven, as the great ones of this world in glory and power. Concerning such fallen stars the holy apostle Jude commands with these words: wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. And that this has already been fulfilled in its time. That the most notable, not wishing to remain in humility under the submissive head Christ the Savior at His Church bride, tore themselves away.” See that the stars, that is, the ordained and teachers of the church, fall from the church heaven.

QUESTION. Tell me, what is the fig tree casting her untimely figs, and the wind that casts them down? ANSWER. By the fig tree the blessed and venerable Maximus the Greek names the Church, as he writes in his book: “But the fig tree, he says, mysteriously spread throughout the whole universe—the holy catholic and apostolic Church; but the fruitful branch—the teaching word, that is, the evangelical preaching.” But by the wind he names the Antichrist. This was attested by the holy Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “For what other scorching wind from the desert? But unless the Antichrist is about to appear.”

QUESTION. Tell me, if you can, when and where this will be? ANSWER. Not from myself, but with God helping me, I will tell you for profit. Hear and attend with understanding. In the divine Apocalypse it is mysteriously said: “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled.” And this signifies the Roman fall; as is narrated in the book On the True Faith: “To this I will not refuse to recall also that which the holy John the Evangelist in the Apocalypse, in chapter 20, writes concerning the binding of Satan for a thousand years and afterward his loosing. The devil turns to his first beloved place, whence he still wished from heaven, and from that time the West was smitten with a heavy pestilence.”

QUESTION. This then concerning Rome and its stars is trustworthy, that they fell from the true evangelical faith, but tell me from Scripture: did this also come to pass in our Russia? ANSWER. It came to pass manifestly. Hear as the Scriptures relate. The divine John the evangelist in the Apocalypse says: “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” Further: “And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” This mysterious number of the time of the last Antichrist the writer of the book On the Faith explains: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists. Of the truth, that there are many forerunners, but he himself is now near according to the number concerning him 666. For the number of a man is the Antichrist’s. Who knows whether in these years 1666 he will not point out his manifest forerunners, or himself?” See that the number of the Apocalypse, chapter 13, is fulfilled in the year 1666.

QUESTION. So did this come to pass, that finally the stars, that is, the teachers, fell from heaven into apostasy, as was said also concerning the Romans? ANSWER. It came to pass manifestly and certainly, what you have heard in the previous chapters. Attend and again. The Moscow chief hierarch Nikon changed the traditions and dogmas of the ancient church: 1) He abolished the 12 bows in the prayer of St. Ephraim. 2) He abolished and renounced with a curse the two-finger folding in the sign of the cross, commanding instead to fold three fingers, and for priestly blessing with five fingers. 3) By the council of 1666 the three-part cross of Christ was rejected from the seal on prosphora, and instead the Latin cross was given in this form: Ĭĉъ I Хĉъ ни I ка 4) In the book Zhezl to name our Lord and God—Jesus. 5) God was called darkness. 6) In the Jesus prayer they removed the Son of God. 7) They newly ordered to sing the divine Alleluia thrice, and a fourth Glory to Thee, O God. 8) By the council of 1667 the evangelical testimony—the word “True”—was excluded from the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit. 9) They laid a great curse on those who would name the Holy Spirit True in the Creed. 10) They accepted the Latin-heretical rite of pouring baptism on equal terms with immersion, and also the Latins themselves. Moreover, washing and sprinkling baptism. 11) The Christ-given two-finger tradition for blessing and the sign of the cross, as the sacred natural symbol of the God-manhood in two fingers, and of the indivisible consubstantial Trinity—of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit—in three fingers—the church established by Nikon calls: a) Arianism, b) Nestorianism, c) Macedonianism, d) evil division, e) Armenianism, f) the abyss of Arius, g) Armenian fig, h) Armenian heresy, i) gates of hell, j) magical sign, k) demon-possession, l) devil’s tradition, m) deadly poison. See and understand what entered into the number 1666.

QUESTION. Truly it is so, as indeed it is, the fulfillment of the times according to Scripture has come. But how can I understand, looking at the order of the priesthood, the preaching of God’s covenant, and the sacrifice of the mystery of communion of the flesh and blood of Christ? ANSWER. If you delve into the Scripture and call God as helper, you will see manifestly. Look with the mind’s eye of the soul and consider what was said by the prophet Daniel concerning the time, for he spoke from the Holy Spirit: “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. And they that do wickedly against the covenant shall fall by flattery.”

QUESTION. But who will be preserved from these? ANSWER. There the divine prophet Daniel forepointed: “But the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.”

QUESTION. A fearful thing it is for the stars to fall from the church heaven, and great is the struggle in those days for the believers—will there then not be at the end sacred pastors at the church? ANSWER. Do not be horrified, beloved, but attend to Scripture. The Most Holy God Himself through the mouth of the prophet Habakkuk announced: “The flocks are cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls.” And through the prophet Ezekiel He says: “Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.” Further: “I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God. And they shall know that I am the Lord.” Know this, take heed lest you be deceived, and with bitter sorrow ponder the falling of the stars to the earth from the spiritual church heaven into carnal earthly wisdom.

Chapter 10. How, Who, and Where They Were Tormented for the Faith, According to the Number 1666

QUESTION. Where in Scripture is it said that there will be persecution for the faith of the servants of God in the year 1666? ANSWER. In the book On the True Faith this is forewarned with the words: “After the passing of the years of the number one thousand six hundred and sixty-six, is it not necessary for us also, for these reasons, to have fear lest we suffer some evil according to the previously spoken testimonies of the fulfillment of Scripture? For the day of Christ is at hand, as the Apostle said—and ought we not to be ready, if anyone reaches those times (1666), for battle with the devil himself?”

The first to enter the battle for the holy old faith was Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, against Patriarch Nikon. The zeal of the sacred Paul was expressed in the words he wrote: “If anyone takes away from the customary traditions of the holy catholic Church, or adds to them, or otherwise perverts them, let him be anathema.” For this Nikon deprived Paul of the episcopal rank and in 1655 exiled him to the Paleostrovsky Monastery on Onega Island. And from there he was taken to the Novgorod regions, and there he was burned alive in a log house.

Then: “Seeing that Patriarch Nikon with his counselors, by their cunning and machinations, achieved nothing—neither by exhortations, nor by councils, nor by tsarist decrees and epistles—could he bend the Russian people to his will. Finally, what wondrous thing does he devise, what terrible thing does he perform? He sends preachers everywhere—what kind? Chains. He sends heralds—what kind? Prisons. Teachers—what kind? Beatings, torments, unbearable sufferings, terrible ones, with which he filled all the regions of the Russian realm, with which a great trembling, a most terrifying quake resounded terribly over the Russian land.” The Russian church historian relates: “Nikon inflicted civil punishment: whom he beat with the knout, whose arms and legs he broke, whom he tortured and executed with civil executions.” “For the two-finger folding and for the use of ancient books arose terrible persecutions, exiles, tortures in the Preobrazhensky Chancellery.” “To a certain John in torture they broke his hand with shaking, then with a whip they terribly wounded his body, after that they threw that wounded body into the fire, commanding to burn it like a stone, and even then did not take pity, but commanded to pull out the ribs from that burned body with red-hot tongs, after that commanded to cut off the head.”

“To a certain Macarius he commanded to bind his feet with rope and drag him to the seashore and place him on the frozen ice, so that pressed by triple pain—from the air, the ice, and the water—he might painfully depart from life.”

“After this Chrysanthus the skilled wood-carver and Theodore the wise icon-painter with the disciple Andrew, the voivode, having tested them and seeing them firm and unshakable in the patristic laws, commanded them to be executed with the most cruel death: to cut off their hands and feet, then to cut off their very heads.” “The rest of the laymen and monks he delivered to various deaths and executions, commanding to hang them: some by the neck, some by the feet, and many others, having pierced their ribs with sharp iron and threaded hooks through them, to hang each on his own hook.” Further: “Others of the fathers the beast-hearted tormentor commanded to bind by the feet with rope, tie to horses’ tails, and mercilessly drag along the field until they gave up their souls.” Further: “To bind two by the backs instead, and to tie by the feet with rope he commanded: thus to drag to the seashore in only shirts, mercilessly, and to leave on the ice in the time of fierce frost; others, having cut through the Jordan not all the way—not in the likeness of the Theophany water-blessing—and having filled such bound hospital fathers, they let the water in, and thus in that most freezing water on the cracking ice, in the most cruel frost, the blessed fathers froze and, with their bodies iced and frozen to the ice, gratefully enduring, received the end of life, being about one hundred and fifty in number.”

In the preface to the three petitions of the corrector Savvaty, Savva Romanov, and the monks of the Solovetsky Monastery, on the third page it is printed: “To all this the Moscow government responded with numerous exiles and executions: it destroyed opponents by fire in log houses, poisoned them in damp earthen prisons, cut off heads, buried alive up to the shoulders in the earth, cut out tongues, ears, and so forth.”

From the History of the Russian Schism of Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow: “At that time Tsars John and Peter Alexeevich, having confirmed to the hierarchs to seek out schismatics, to judge them according to church rules, and, in cases of necessity, to deliver them to civil judgment, and to voivodes to render every assistance to the clergy in this matter.” Further: “After a threefold interrogation at execution, if they do not submit, to burn them in a log house.” “Those accused of schism, if they justify themselves and their innocence is attested by their spiritual fathers, to deliver them under strict supervision to the latter; but if they deny falsely and are convicted, to beat them with the knout, even if they repent, and to exile them to distant cities. Those convicted of harboring schismatics among themselves, of supplying them with food, drink, and so forth, if they confess, some, judging by the guilt—to beat only with the knout, and others to exile to distant cities. From those who kept schismatics under surety, not knowing of their schism, to take a fine of five rubles for each person.” Further: “The property of schismatics and unfaithful sureties who will be exiled to banishment is to be sold for the benefit of the treasury: because much of the Sovereign’s treasury goes for their travel expenses and for the salary of searchers.” “It was also commanded to watch strictly that schismatics do not live in forests and in volosts, and where they appear, to seize them themselves, to destroy their refuges, to sell their property and send the money to Moscow.” “To schismatics who have declared themselves and registered in the double tax, it was strictly forbidden to convert their household members and other people to schism; but secret and unregistered ones were delivered to judgment, double tax was exacted from them for past time, or they were sent to hard labor.” “Archpriest Avvakum for steadfastness in the old faith was deprived of rank and exiled to Siberia, to the Pustozersk ostrog.” “The like-minded of Avvakum were burned in log houses and on bonfires, publicly hanged, strangled in prisons, roasted in ovens.” … “The prison in which he (Avvakum) sat was a vast, if one may so speak, well without water.” “For 28 years Avvakum suffered in torments and finally, in the year 7189, was burned alive in a log house in the Pustozersk ostrog.” “Such were the torments for the old faith from the year 1666. And that this should be so, hear what is said in Scripture. The prophet Daniel said: ‘And they shall faint in the furnace and in flame and in captivity and in plundering given.’” And the Lord in the Gospel said: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.”

QUESTION. So were these things said concerning these? ANSWER. Yes. For concerning the Jews in part, but here completely: it shall stand, He says, the abomination of desolation in the holy place. When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand).

QUESTION. How is it that many did not recognize this? ANSWER. Do not marvel, for they do not believe the fulfillment of things from Scripture. To whom the Lord said in the Gospel: “Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?”

Chapter 11. Concerning Those Who Remained Faithful to the Old Faith, and Precisely Where

QUESTION. In those times when great persecutions followed for the Old Faith, who remained faithful to the old piety in faith, and in what regions—show me this from Scripture? ANSWER. The first adamant and pillar of the old piety, Paul, Bishop of Kolomna, not accepting the new dogmas from Nikon, was deprived of sacred rank and in 1655 was exiled to the north to the Paleostrovsky Monastery, as the historiographer Macarius relates: “The third place where the schism of the priestless sect most spread and established itself was the Pomorie in the Olonets regions. In these countries many schism teachers appeared. At the head of all—Paul, Bishop of Kolomna. Having been deprived of rank and exiled in 1655 to the Paleostrovsky Monastery (on Lake Onega), he for about a year (d. 1656) taught the surrounding inhabitants to remain firm in the supposed ancient patristic traditions and, among other things, commanded not to accept any mysteries or sacred rites from the Russian church, to rebaptize those coming newly baptized, not to accept newly ordained priests in it, affirming that not only the sacred monks still among them (that is, the schismatics), but also monks and simple pious men could perform the mysteries and satisfy others in spiritual needs—a purely priestless thought.”

QUESTION. So from this testament of the sacred sufferer Paul did the priestless, called Pomortsy, remain without priests? ANSWER. Yes. For not accepting the ordination of Nikon’s priesthood, necessity compelled these to remain without priesthood when, by God’s will, the priests of the old ordination died out.

QUESTION. So was Paul alone the confessor of the old piety? ANSWER. Many remained faithful to the holy antiquity besides Paul. The monk Cornelius, a tonsured of the Korniliev Monastery, from the year 1612 extended his life even to Patriarch Nikon, not loving his innovations, left his homeland and wandered in the Pomor regions. “Once, when Cornelius was still in Moscow, and when all the opponents of Nikon (ten persons in number) gathered in the house of a certain boyar, a secret Christian, yet God-loving, hiding from persecution for counsel, it was resolved: to reject all the newly introduced and to subject all this to curses and anathemas, having grievously and reproachfully arranged a council; to count the present Nikonian baptism not as baptism.” The names of the mentioned ten persons are these: Archimandrite Spiridon of the Pokrovsky from the poor, cathedral protopopes Avvakum and Daniel, abbots Dosifei and Kapiton, priest Lazar, deacon Theodore, monks Avraamii, Isaiah, and Cornelius! See how and by what zealots of the Old Faith the Pomor country was populated. “The second after Paul they name Dosifei, abbot of the Nikolsky Besedny Monastery not far from Tikhvin. Leaving his monastery, he wandered in various places preaching schism and most often loved to stay in the Kurzhenskaya hermitage near Povenez, where the inhabitants of the Obonezhie country gathered to him and were instructed in the old piety. The third was the monk Cornelius. He was born in Totma from a peasant, received tonsure in the Vologda Korniliev Monastery, steward or cellarer under Patriarch Philaret, baker under Patriarch Joasaph and Novgorod Archbishop Afthonius, overseer of prisoners from the clergy under Patriarch Joseph.” Further: “Then he moved several times from place to place, from desert to desert, received men and women coming to live with him, himself rebaptized and tonsured into monasticism, though he had no sacred rank, until finally he established himself on the Vyg River and became the first planter of the famous Vygoretsk hermitage in the history of the schism.”

“But most of all the spread of schism in the Pomor regions was aided by the Solovetsky fugitives. Some of them left the monastery at the beginning of its siege, others after the end of the siege. Having scattered throughout all the Pomorie, they everywhere spread that the Nikonians strive to destroy the old faith and introduce a new, soul-destroying one, that they torment the orthodox with every kind of suffering, chains, wounds, imprisonment, cutting out of tongues, burning in log houses, and so forth.”

“Daniel Vikulovich, clerk of the Shungsky pogost, with the monk Cornelius in the year 7203 founded the Vyg skete, in which he was hegumen or koinobiarch for about 40 years, and which after his name was called Danilov. Peter Prokopievich, seduced into schism by Ignatius Solovetsky in earliest youth, came to Daniel Vikulovich from Povenez even before the foundation of the monastery; skilled in church reading and singing and knower of the church rule, he was made the first ecclesiarch of the hermitage, established strict order in the performance of church services and celebration of feasts, and for more than thirty years was the most active collaborator of Daniel in the arrangement of the hermitage. Two brothers Andrew and Simeon Dionisievich and relatives of Peter Prokopiev, descended from the princely family of the Myshetskys, former Novgorod landowners, lived with their parent in Povenez, where even in youth both were seduced into schism by Ignatius Solovetsky. And in 1692 they moved with their brother John to the Vyg hermitage.”

“The main church needs in the monastery at first were performed by elder Cornelius: he baptized or rebaptized, confessed, tonsured monks and nuns. Then the same was done by: the Solovetsky elder Pafnutii, elders Paul, Varlaam, and others, just as Daniel, Andrew, and Simeon themselves.”

“The Vyg hermitage has also this important significance in the schism that here was formed the first in time of the existing until now sects of the priestless sect—the Pomortsy sect, or Pomor, otherwise Danilovshchina, after the name of Daniel Vikulych.” Further: “They said: 1) The Antichrist has already come and reigns mentally in the Russian church from the years of Patriarch Nikon, destroyed in it all mysteries and priesthood. 2) Those coming from the Russian church must be rebaptized.”

Historical information of Smirnov concerning the Pomortsy: “In the Pomor region the activity of priests of the old ordination rendered great service to the schism. In the Kurzhenskaya and Sunaretskaya hermitages people gathered in crowds to their divine services and for the performance of church needs, especially when the famous Abbot Dosifei served in the Kurzhenskaya hermitage. Povenez had its own old-ordained priest Ephraim, who managed to hold here approximately until the middle of the 80s. On the shore of the White Sea the hieromonk Pafnutii Solovetsky long lived, who then visited the Vyg hermitage.” Further: “The hieromonk Dosifei living in the Mileevaya hermitage rebaptized those coming to him from the neighboring Mileevaya church—peasants with wives and children.”

V. P. Andreev. The Schism and Its Significance in Russian Popular History: “But even in the less populated Olonets regions civil life soon began to develop. Marriages appeared there also among the priestless, and now Andrew Denisov consented to them.” Further: “Marriage in the priestless milieu first appears under the form of new-marriedness, and already in 1685 in Moscow Anton Kaur and Semen Artemiev preached marriage in the priestless. The first of them was a contemporary of the Solovetsky petitioners.” Further: “But with the exception of this monastery all Obonezhie already long knew family relations, and marriage was recognized by Pomor teaching.” The history of the Pomor population by the Old Believer priestless is quite extensively written by Ivan Filippov.

These inhabitants recognized: 1) The Antichrist has come and reigns in the world; 2) Nikon destroyed the old piety; 3) To recognize Nikon and those with Nikon as heretics; 4) Not to accept priests and church mysteries from Nikon’s church; 5) Not to recognize baptism in Nikon’s church; 6) To baptize those coming from Nikon’s church.

Such are the Danilovtsy-Pomortsy, tracing their origin by the path of successive baptism; and as baptism and the old holy faith were planted by the Solovetsky fathers in the Pomorie, so it is preserved even now.

As the ancient fathers, so also the contemporary Pomortsy recognize: a) The Antichrist has come into the world and reigns by the path of everything contrary to God. He is called by various names: apostate, Latin-minded proud one, bearing all evil in himself, destroyer, robber, crafty one, evil leader, bearing the seal of the time 666, or the number of his name. All these adjectival names bear allegorical coverings. In all these names intelligent people enlightened from above recognize things by experience. b) The priesthood has fallen into heresy. c) The fulfillment of the times according to Scripture. d) The world is passing through the mysterious Danielic seventieth week. e) They do not consider baptism saving among all heterodox. f) To those coming from heterodoxy they give new baptism. g) They shun priesthood, not out of contempt, but for heresies and false inventions concerning this. h) Confession, as a mystery, they reverently perform. i) They accept lawful marriage, do not tolerate depravity. j) The mystery of communion, in great necessity, believing in the Lord God, if anyone keeps himself from all impurity and ardently desires to commune, believes that the Lord Jesus Christ will vouchsafe this gift according to the faith of each, by the path He Himself knows, for: “with God all things are possible,” and: “where God wills, the orders of nature are overcome.”

Thus we have learned about the first Old Believers, and what they are we have said; the rest we propose to speak also about other Old Believers.

Chapter 12. Concerning the Old Believers Called Popovtsy, Who Accept the Priesthood of the Greco-Russian Church after the Number of the Year 1666

QUESTION. With the appearance of Nikon’s reforms, as witnessed above, there appear two warring sides: the new-believing and the old-believing—from what and how did it come about that the people faithful to antiquity divided among themselves into priestless and priestly? ANSWER. From what was indicated above concerning the priestless, you may satisfy your curiosity; but concerning the popovtsy hear and attend. When the priesthood of the ancient ordination grew scarce, some of the adherents of antiquity decided to accept fugitive priests from Nikon’s church and allowed such to perform sacred rites in their midst.

The historian Andrei Zhuravlev relates: “The popovtsy trace their beginning from one source, just as the priestless, with only this difference: that the rebaptizers, as we saw, after the death of their old priests remained entirely without priesthood and mysteries; but these determined to accept fugitive priests to themselves.

As in Pomorie the Zaonezhsky Monastery was arranged and sketes scattered from it throughout Olonets, and Vetka beyond the border was populated with numerous fugitives from Russia—at the same time in the Novgorod region on Belmash in the Chernoramensk forests Kerzhenets various popovtsy sketes appeared, of which one of elder Onuphrius from 1690 according to Avvakum’s teaching became better known than others, in the following way.”

“Vetka we see as a seductress of the superstitious; the net of delusion attracted a great number of fugitives of every rank from Russia. For Vetka greatly prided itself on the newly consecrated Pokrovsky church, which was consecrated by the monk Theodosius, and with it he gathered a monastic hermitage.”

“This Theodosius is considered the first founder of the popovtsy system. For he was the last among them of old baptism and ordination—that is, before Patriarch Nikon—and the first to establish accepting priests of new ordination, though also of such baptism.” Further: “After Theodosius on Vetka the priest Alexander took the place, and after him followed others corresponding to the quality of the people.”

The historian P. S. Smirnov concerning the popovtsy: “At the time when one part of the schism separated into the priestless, the other received the name popovtsy. Originally it appeared in the form of беглопоповщина [fugitive-priest], because its followers decided to be shepherded by priesthood fleeing from the Great Russian church.”

“Disputes about the manner of receiving fugitive priests arose at the end of the 1770s. They led to the division of беглопоповщина into two unequal parts: the перемазанцы [those anointed over], who formed the vast majority, and the дьяконовцы [deaconites], who stood for receiving fugitive priests by the third rank. Then two new centers of беглопоповщина formed: Moscow with its Rogozhskoe cemetery and Irgiz. The foundation of Rogozhskoe cemetery falls in the year 1772.”

The historian Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow: “All the Kerzhenets sketes at first accepted priests only ordained before Patriarch Nikon, rebaptized those coming to them from the Russian church; but from the first years of the 18th century, following the example, as we shall see, of their other co-believers, they began to accept also fugitive priests ordained after Nikon, and little by little abolished rebaptism.”

“In Starodubye (Chernigov province) the schism was brought by the former Moscow priest at the church of All Saints on Kulishki, Cosmas, who, not wishing to submit to the determinations of the Moscow council of 1667, fled with twenty parishioners to his friend, the Starodub colonel Gabriel Ivanov.” Further: “Among others there came from Belev another priest of old ordination, Stefan with his son Demetrius, who founded yet another settlement Mitkova. Both priests performed all services for their flock except the liturgy for lack of a temple; those coming from the Russian church they rebaptized and did not accept new priests.”

“Stefan dying commanded his spiritual children to beware generally of novelties and not to accept new ordination” (p. 324).

P. S. Smirnov. Internal Questions in the Schism: “The first Starodub and Vetka performers of needs: priest Cosmas and priest Stefan repeated with their baptism those newly baptized coming from the church, and likewise did not accept priests of new ordination. Dying, they commanded their spiritual children to keep this testament for all times.”

“Under their influence the Vetka inhabitants shunned the then-living on Vetka aforementioned priest Joasaph, who received ordination from the Tver hierarch. But when Stefan and Cosmas were no more, and Joasaph received blessing from Dosifei to perform sacred rites, the Vetka people with emotion begged Joasaph not to leave them orphans, and Joasaph indeed became their priest. He also did not accept either baptism or ordination performed according to the new books.” Further: “But Joasaph’s successor—the black priest Theodosius, himself of old ordination—already opened the door on Vetka to priests of post-Nikonian ordination, though he repeated post-Nikonian baptism: the priests Alexander and Gregory invited by them in 1696 for the consecration of the church had new ordination.” The letter of deacon Alexander which Smirnov placed in his book Internal Questions in the Schism. Theodore writes: “The last apostasy has come, soon the Antichrist will be, the forerunner of the end of the world, therefore everything approaches abolition. Hippolytus, Pope of Rome—in the word on the Antichrist by the Holy Spirit foresaw the time now begun—said concerning evil pastors destroying souls; in those times there will be an evil leader, that is, unrighteous priesthood—and now it is fulfilled. Christ said: when ye see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, and so forth, let him that readeth understand. The abomination of desolation—unrighteous priesthood, the delusion of Antichrist, shall be set in the holy place, that is, on the altar of unorthodox services, which we now see fulfilled. There will be no other apostasy.”

Ivan Alekseev of Starodub concerning the fugitive priesthood: “Let it be known to the reader concerning these that these five priests—Cosmas, Stefan, Job, Dosifei, and this Joasaph—coming from Great Russia, except Dosifei, performed simple services, not requiring blessing from other priests for sacred rites, being satisfied with the blessing of those hierarchs from whom they were ordained, and not confessing the grace of ordination in priests.”

Here is the very chief beginning of the faith of the popovtsy and the root of their priesthood; it did not proceed from the succession of Christ’s priesthood, but from the heretical root of the number 1666.

QUESTION. But how is it said in Scripture that the priesthood of heretics, if any of them repents of heresy, may be accepted? ANSWER. There is no such thing written in Scripture that it would be possible to borrow priesthood from heretics. QUESTION. How then does the first Nicene council in the 8th rule say: “The heretics called Puritans, coming to the catholic church, first let them confess that they submit to the church laws, and communicate with the twice-married, and forgive the repentant, and if there be in any city a true bishop or presbyter appointed, let him remain in his rank”? How is this to be understood, that after joining the church the council commands the heretical bishop or presbyter to remain again in his rank? ANSWER. Understand thus: when the heretics called Puritans come to the catholic Church, if there are among them bishops or presbyters, they are first anointed with holy chrism, as is said in the commentary on this rule: “And simply to say, following all church commands, having cursed their heresy and all others, let them be received, and only anointed with holy chrism.” When chrismation is performed over heretical clerics, then they become simple laymen; but when they express desire to be in that rank in which they were in heresy, if they are found without reproach, they are ordained anew by the hand of an orthodox bishop. This is confirmed by the Council of Constantinople in the epistle to Martyrius: “And then, it says, that is after chrismation, the diligent laymen are appointed to the rank in which they were, whether presbyters or deacons, or something else.” And Theophilus of Alexandria in his twelfth rule says: “Those who from the heresy called Puritans turn and approach the catholic Church, appoint from them deacons and presbyters and bishops according to the command of the Nicene council, if their life be right and they have nothing contrary.”

See that heretical clerics are ordained anew, and not accepted with heretical ordination. And understand the rule itself: that heretical clerics come to the Church where there is “a true bishop.” But among the popovtsy, when priests fled to them from heresy, there were no bishops, and there was no ordination upon the heretical priests; therefore, since heretics came running, manifestly they remained heretics according to ordination.

QUESTION. But could not those priests who had ordination from ancient orthodox bishops—the five, as indicated above—accept priests fleeing from heresy and place them in their ranks, out of necessity for lack of a bishop? ANSWER. A priest is one thing, and a bishop is another. A priest only performs sacred rites but does not ordain; a bishop both performs sacred rites and ordains. Therefore a priest may receive a heretical priest to repentance and unite him with the faithful through chrismation or baptism, but he cannot give the grace of ordination, so that a priest coming from heresy might again perform sacred rites.

Concerning the rights and duties of an orthodox priest. Symeon of Thessalonica writes: “Hear: no priest can perform sacred rites in the Spirit, or do anything else, unless he has ordination. But this is from the bishop. Therefore through him the episcopate acts. Again, a priest does not perform the mysteries without an altar: but this is consecrated through chrism; and chrism through the bishop: it is perfected by him himself. Therefore without a bishop there is neither sacrifice nor priest nor altar at all; thus all these things are through the bishop.” See that a priest does nothing without a bishop, but among the Old Believer popovtsy there was no such bishop when they accepted fugitive heretical priests—understand that this was unlawful and not according to God’s will. For a presbyter can only baptize and perform sacred rites, but he cannot give the right to sacred rites to a priest coming from heresy. This again Symeon of Thessalonica confirms: “But a presbyter, it says, called perfect as having only perfective grace in the mysteries: not transmissive. He baptizes and performs sacred rites: but he cannot ordain nor do anything else to a priest, or to any who partake of the sacred rank.”

From this it is manifest that fugitive priesthood from heresy is unlawful, and therefore not saving.

Hear also the prohibition: “It is not permissible for a priest to perform sacred rites.” In the preface to the Nomocanon it is laid down: “But the sins of priests and protodeacons which bring deposition and torment are subject to the judgment of bishops, lest a spiritual father dare to absolve them.” Of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite: the essential: “Therefore the sacred order of divine ordinances, the priesthood—that is, ordination—the divine chrism perfectly and the sacred altar’s service of divine hierarchs with perfective powers alone vouchsafes. Interpretation. Note that neither to consecrate nor to perfect chrism is of a presbyter, nor to bring an altar to offer upon it, nor to ordain. For these things only a hierarch can do; without whom a priest neither baptizes nor offers, but performs sacred rites of those afterward made by the bishop.”

See, beloved, the fugitive priesthood from heresy and attend with the mind to its validity—whether it is holy or not. History and the laws of Scripture are laid before you here; if you wish to be with Christ, attend to His teaching: that many false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and the time is near which is; the last week of Daniel is running its course, and the coming of Christ is already at the doors. Attend to what Christ said in the holy Gospel: “Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?” “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.”

Thus far concerning the fugitive priesthood among the Old Believers.

Chapter 13. Concerning the Old Ritualists Holding the Belokrinitsa Priesthood

QUESTION. Tell me about the priesthood existing among the Old Ritualists called popovtsy, which is called Belokrinitsa—what is it? ANSWER. The so-called Belokrinitsa priesthood is the same as the fugitive-priest one, with only this difference: that the fugitive-priests accepted only priests from the Russian church, but here they accepted a metropolitan from the Greek church.

QUESTION. Tell me, when was this? ANSWER. In the year 1846. As the historian Nikolai Subbotin testifies: “In general this day, October 28, 1846, from which the now existing hierarchy among the schismatics traces its beginning, when the event occurred that constitutes an epoch in the history of the schism, must be marked in the annals of the schism as one of the most memorable.”

QUESTION. So is this priesthood lawful and holy? ANSWER. It is not lawful and not holy. QUESTION. Can you confirm by Scripture that this priesthood is not lawful and not holy? ANSWER. I can. Hear and attend.

1. Priesthood proceeds by succession through ordination.
2. Priesthood that has ceased its succession is no longer successively Christ’s, but collateral.

On the first: successive ordination of priesthood ceased from 1666 according to the belief of the popovtsy themselves in general. On the second: ordination of priesthood among the popovtsy from the year 1846 took its beginning from the heretical church: since, according to their own belief, the metropolitan Ambrose they accepted was a heretic. But a fugitive priest could not ordain a heretical bishop, as has been attested above: therefore it is unlawful. Not holy because the Holy Spirit does not act in heretics: “For the Holy Spirit forsakes them,” as the Great Basil said in his first rule. And the 68th rule of the holy Apostles says: “He who is ordained twice and he who ordained him, let both be deposed, unless the first hand was only heretical. In the commentary it is said: For those baptized by them (heretics) are not baptized, and those ordained are not clerics.” Not holy because in heretics there acts not the Holy Spirit but a spirit, as the venerable Joseph Volotsky says: “Heretics have in themselves the unclean satanic spirit.” And the theologian called the Antichrist a heretic—so how can the divine judgment follow the Antichrist’s judgment?

QUESTION. But how then were ancient heretical clerics accepted, as John the son of Marcion by the venerable Sabbas and Theodosius, in his own rank? ANSWER. John the son of Marcion was not of heretical ordination, but orthodox, as was his baptism. Hear what is related of him in the life of Sabbas the Sanctified: “The venerable Sabbas was building a monastery near Castalia, helped by his own means by the presbyter of holy Sion Marcion, with his son Anthony and John. On the shore. This John was patriarch in Jerusalem after Elias.” See that John with his father Marcion and brother Anthony were orthodox.

Concerning the deposition of Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem in the life of Sabbas the Sanctified it is written: “When therefore Olympius came with much force, he immediately fulfilled the emperor’s command. He deposed the patriarch without trial and sent him into exile to Aila, and in his place raised the son of Marcion the presbyter John, who promised to curse the Chalcedonian council and to have communion with Severus.” See that John was raised from the orthodox to the patriarchal rank by the indication of the eparch Olympius and ordained by the remaining clergy after Elias—orthodox; for the eparch could not ordain. And moreover know this: that John only “promised” to defend the Sidonian council and have communion with Severus, but Severus was not in Jerusalem but in Antioch, and he fulfilled neither the one nor the other. For when the venerable Sabbas learned of this, gathering monks from all monasteries as a certain commander with an army of monastics came to Jerusalem, he reproached John for the word he had given, that he promised to reject the Chalcedonian council and commune with Severus. John, ashamed before so many great fathers who came with Sabbas, promised them not to do this—to reject the Chalcedonian council—but gave his word to defend the Chalcedonian council and to curse the Sidonian together with Severus, and thus he fulfilled it.

Hearing this, the emperor grew angry with the eparch Olympius and deposed him from rank for choosing such a one—that is, an orthodox patriarch—instead; and instead of Olympius he appointed Anastasius as eparch in this Palestine and sent him to Jerusalem to incline Patriarch John to accept communion with Severus and the Sidonian council and to curse the Chalcedonian.

When Anastasius came to Jerusalem, he seized Patriarch John and cast him into prison. John besought Anastasius to grant him respite, promising to fulfill the emperor’s will voluntarily and not under compulsion. Anastasius believed John’s word and commanded him released from prison. John secretly sent to inform Sabbas and Theodosius of this and asked them to hasten their coming. And after a week both archimandrites Sabbas and Theodosius arrived, having with them monks as many as ten thousand. When the church council took place, and the eparch Anastasius, and there also Hypatius the emperor’s kinsman came to the church with his soldiers, and a multitude of people gathered: the patriarch ascended the ambo, having with him Sabbas and Theodosius; and all the people with the black-robed cried out to the patriarch: Curse the heretics, confirm the Chalcedonian council. And taking boldness, the patriarch cried out saying: “If anyone is of one mind with Eutyches, Nestorius, Severus, and Soterichus, let him be anathema.”

See that in the action of John the son of Marcion there is nothing in common with Metropolitan Ambrose. John was orthodox and ordained to patriarch by orthodox bishops. But Ambrose was a heretic both by baptism and by ordination. Moreover, Sabbas and Theodosius did not join John but were only witnesses of his cursing of heretics. See that there is no likeness of white to black, so also of John to Ambrose. For Ambrose, as a heretic, was joined by the fugitive priest Jerome by the second rank of chrismation, and he could not re-ordain him to the rank of bishop.

QUESTION. I see that you speak rightly, but do not tell me also about Patriarch Meletius of Antioch, how he was ordained to the Antiochian patriarchate by the Arians, and yet he ordained Saint John Chrysostom to deacon: was ordination ever repeated over Meletius? ANSWER. Hear and attend: Saint Meletius was not a heretic first of all. As Nikephoros the Greek historian relates in his life: “Saint Meletius was first bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, then transferred to Beroea in Syria, afterward became archbishop of the throne of Antioch.” See that Meletius was not a heretic but orthodox in all things, since before Antioch he was appointed bishop in Sebaste—manifestly by orthodox bishops; but he came to Antioch already a bishop, as is related in his life. He was appointed in this manner: “When the impious heretic Macedonius, false shepherd of the church of Constantinople, was deposed from the throne, Eudoxius archbishop of Antioch, likewise an Arian heretic, desired the throne of Constantinople for the sake of riches, since in the reign of Constantius son of Constantine the Great the church of Constantinople abounded in many riches more than that of Antioch and others; therefore Eudoxius, despising the throne of Antioch, began to seek that of Constantinople. When the Antiochians learned of this, they grew very angry with their archbishop Eudoxius for despising their church and expelled him; he went and took the throne of Constantinople, but the Antiochians, having gathered a council, made a common judgment of election whom to raise to the throne instead of Eudoxius; but there were then among them very many and most notable Arians who could do much: and the orthodox were fewer, and these were despised and called Eustathians after holy Eustathius who had formerly been archbishop of Antioch and suffered exile for the pious faith. In that council the name of holy Meletius was on the lips of all, and all resolved to have him as their archbishop; and especially the Arians desired him, thinking him to be of one mind with them, and hoping that he would bring the Eustathians also to the same mind and teach all Antioch the dogmas of the Arians. They therefore composed a common judgment of election, confirmed it with the signature of their hands, and entrusted holy Meletius to holy Eusebius bishop of Samosata, a right-believing man who was at that council, and having sent a petition to holy Meletius with imperial consent, they brought him to Antioch with great honor and popular meeting.”

See that the Arianizing Antiochians together with the orthodox asked Bishop Meletius by common election—with a letter—to occupy the throne of the church of Antioch. And to whom was it entrusted by the council to raise him to the patriarchal rank of Antioch? To Eusebius bishop of Samosata, an orthodox man. See the truth of things shining like the sun, and the flower of grace-successive ordination blooming on the throne of Antioch? And therefore it is manifest that holy Meletius was not a heretic, nor did he accept ordination from heretics.

And Athanasius of Alexandria also relates: “Meletius, who had been bishop first of Sebaste in Armenia, then of Beroea in Syria. The Arians thought to see in him one of their own mind, but they were deceived.”

Likewise Baronius testifies in the year of the Lord 360, under number 12: “When Eudoxius came from Antioch to Constantinople, in his place the Arians gave Meletius bishop of Sebaste, thinking him to be of one mind with the Arians, but they were deceived. For when raised to the episcopate of Antioch, he began from orthodoxy.” Further: “Theodoret writes that Eusebius bishop of Samosata, an orthodox man, secretly arranged Meletius on the throne of Antioch, knowing what he was inwardly, and kept the writing of his election with himself.” The Menaion for the month of June, day 22; in the life of the holy hieromartyr Eusebius bishop of Samosata it is written of the same: “Knowing well concerning holy Meletius, who was bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, that he is orthodox, holding firmly to the first ecumenical council of the holy fathers in Nicaea, he counseled all to elect Meletius to the patriarchate. Those thinking Arianly, not knowing Meletius’s orthodoxy but thinking him of one mind with them, easily obeyed Eusebius’s counsel, and composed a common judgment of election against him, confirmed it with the signature of their hands, and entrusted it to holy Eusebius.”

See the truth of things, that Meletius was first of all an orthodox bishop, and he was raised to the Antiochian throne not by Arians but by holy Eusebius bishop of Samosata; the Arians only thought about Meletius—that is, supposed that Meletius would defend the dogmas of Arius, but they were mistaken, therefore they deposed him from the throne; but remembering that they had given their own handwritten letter for the election of Meletius, which they entrusted to holy Eusebius, they feared when they would be exposed at the council, and entreated the emperor to send an official to take the letter from Eusebius, but Eusebius did not give that letter, in order to expose the Arianizers in falsehood by it and to magnify the orthodox Meletius. Moreover attend to this, beloved, that then everything was done by the judgment of bishops, but the Old Believer popovtsy did their affairs by the judgment of laymen with the participation of priests coming from heresy. And that Meletius was not a heretic, free from heretical ordination is attested also by our Russian holy fathers.

At the council under Tsar Ivan Vasilievich and Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow the fathers say: “This Meletius was bishop of Sebaste, very renowned in life and word. But for the disorder of those under his authority he renounced his episcopate and remained in silence. But the heretics thought that Meletius thought with them. They asked him of the emperor to be patriarch, and this came to be.”

And by this trustworthy testimony it is certain that holy Meletius did not accept Arian ordination, but was bishop of Sebaste, orthodox, and had successive orthodox ordination upon him; the Arianizers only thought that Meletius would be their supporter but were mistaken. From what has been presented understand: what difference there is between the orthodox Meletius and the heretic Ambrose.

QUESTION. I am troubled by the narration: orthodox and Arians had a joint council for the election of Meletius—I am perplexed how the orthodox had communion with Arians; tell me about this? ANSWER. Do not marvel nor be troubled, beloved, but incline your ear to hearing and understand that the Arianizers had not yet been condemned—attend to this: the first ecumenical council condemned and anathematized only the originator of the heresy Arius himself, but the council said nothing about the followers of his teaching. Therefore the Arianizers were still in the Church, for they had not been excommunicated.

But when the second ecumenical council was held, then the rule was laid down against the Arianizers themselves, and this is the seventh rule: those coming to the holy Church from the Arians they commanded to be anointed with chrism. But the affair with Meletius and the Arians themselves was between the first and second ecumenical councils.

QUESTION. I am satisfied with this resolution, but it is still necessary to ask: you say it is impossible for a priest to accept clerical heretics and leave them in their ranks, be it priest, bishop, or deacon—so how did the priest Michael accept such and leave them in their ranks? ANSWER. The priest Michael did accept heretics, truly, but not so simply as you think. Hear what the historian Baronius relates of him: “Without delay the pope sent to Constantinople the priest Michael for the reception and absolution of those repenting who, for fear of the Caesar, had apostatized from the holy faith, and easily returned to it.” See first that the pope sent the priest Michael and gave him the right for this. Second, Michael received those orthodox who had apostatized for fear of the Caesar to repentance by the will and blessing of the orthodox pope; but the fugitive priest Jerome himself was first of all a heretic-fugitive and received the heretic Ambrose without any permission for this. The difference is obvious.

QUESTION. But Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus—so how was he patriarch of Constantinople and president of the fourth ecumenical council, and how was he accepted with ordination from the heretic Dioscorus? ANSWER. Hear and attend: Dioscorus ordained Anatolius then when he had not yet been condemned by the council for heresy.

There is testimony concerning Dioscorus and Anatolius in the acts of the ecumenical councils, saying thus: “Dioscorus, contrary to the spirit of the canons, permitting himself ordination to the episcopate of Constantinople, raises to bishops of it a certain Anatolius who appeared in Constantinople with answers of the church of Alexandria. In concelebration with Dioscorus was also Eutyches. Anatolius, not knowing what would come of this, said to him with gratitude: Wherever you appeared, everywhere you ordained.”

Let us look in history when this was—before the trial of Dioscorus or after the trial.

“This affair was in the year 449 from the Nativity of Christ. When Dioscorus came from Alexandria to Constantinople for the fourth ecumenical council, and: in the place of Flavian in Constantinople he gave Anatolius, and in the place of Domnus in Antioch he gave Maximus; this same impious Dioscorus.” See that Dioscorus ordained Anatolius in 449 still before his deposition. Dioscorus was deposed in 451, as the same historian relates: “They pronounced sentence upon him, depriving him of episcopate and of all sacred ministry. First the chief ones, then all the six hundred bishops unanimously condemned him.”

Likewise in the books of the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils it is related. Thus it was said: “The holy, great, and ecumenical council, by the grace of God, by the command of our most pious and most God-loving Emperors, gathered in the Bithynian city of Chalcedon in the most holy and victorious church of the martyr Euphemia—to Dioscorus.

Know that you—for contempt of the divine canons and for your disobedience to this Ecumenical Council, and besides other your offenses in which you are guilty, for not appearing on the thirteenth day of the present month of October before the holy and Ecumenical Council to answer the accusations brought against you—are deprived of episcopate and alienated from every church office by the holy and Ecumenical Council.”

This was in the year 451 after Christ. But Dioscorus ordained Anatolius in the year 449, two years before his deposition. Therefore the ordination, as being while he was in the church, was not rejected; but when he was stripped of episcopate and excommunicated from the church, then nothing from him was acceptable. But let us again return to the act of the seventh Ecumenical Council. The most holy Tarasius said: “What will you say about Anatolius? Was he not the president of the holy fourth Council? And yet he was ordained by the impious Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches. Thus we understand those ordained by heretics, as Anatolius was accepted. Again truly is the divine saying that children are not to be put to death for their fathers, but each dies for his own sin, and finally ordination is from God.”

See how Saint Tarasius the patriarch, as president of the seventh Ecumenical Council, did not reproach the fourth Ecumenical Council that he was ordained by the heretic Dioscorus, since Dioscorus ordained Anatolius before the trial upon him; so here the speech is about the iconoclasts, and from their number many declare submission to the Church, ask to remain in their places which they occupy in sacred ranks; therefore the holy father said that they received ordination from God—that is, from the hands of truly divine bishops; since this occurred before the trial of the iconoclasts. But when the trial was held over such, then it is forbidden to recognize ordination among heretics. As was also established by those same holy fathers who were at the seventh Ecumenical Council. They said: “If anyone dares to accept ordination from excommunicated heretics after the proclamation of the conciliar determination and the unanimous opinion of the churches concerning orthodoxy: let him be subject to deposition.” See that ordination is accepted from such heretics as have not yet been condemned; but from heretics condemned by the church ordination is taken away, as is said. This is confirmed also by the historian Baronius. In the year of the Lord 787, under number 12, he writes: “And the bishops who erred and were iconoclasts, for the sake of peace, when they repented, were returned to their episcopates.” See where ordination is from God—manifestly upon those who from orthodoxy turned to heresy. Here we will rest the answer concerning the popovtsy; let us take up the rest.

From what has been shown above it is evident: 1) The popovtsy do not have successive ordination. 2) They borrow priesthood from heresy. 3) They recognize heretical baptism as baptism. 4) They confess ordination from God in heretics. 5) They arranged the heretic Metropolitan Ambrose (according to their belief) by a fugitive priest. 6) In the encyclical epistle they confess: “The church now ruling in Russia, together with the Greek, believes not in another God but in the one with us. 7) The name Iisus they accept in the encyclical epistle, saying: ‘Nevertheless the written and pronounced by the present Greeks and Russians thus Iisus we do not dare to blaspheme nor call by the name of another Jesus and by the name of the adversary of Christ, as some priestless foolishly think. For now the ruling church in Russia, together with the Greek, under this name confesses the same Christ the Savior.’ 8) Likewise the four-pointed cross is not the shadow of the old shadowy covenant and is not abolished from the new-grace law of Christ.” Thus far concerning the popovtsy.

Chapter 14. Concerning the Old Ritualists Priestless Called Spasovy, or Netovshchina

QUESTION. Whence did the Old Believer Spasovy originate—from the ancient, pre-Nikonian Church, or from the Church after Nikon? ANSWER. The Spasovy originated from the ruling Church in Russia after Nikon. QUESTION. If this is so, as you say, confirm for me by writing that the Spasovy did not come from the ancient but from the new Church. ANSWER. That the Spasovy originated from the Church after Nikon is certain, and that this is true I will present witnesses. Andrei Ioannov Zhuravlev testifies: “A certain Kozma, an illiterate peasant, was the founder of this sect. He was the first in the priestless to forbid rebaptism, in which many, contrary to all the rebaptizers, followed Kozma and abandoned rebaptism. Therefore at first they were called ‘Kozminovshchina.’ Their teaching, excluding rebaptism, is almost in agreement with what has been described above: they also teach that the Antichrist has come into the world, and they have seen neither the word of right faith nor its mysteries anywhere. ‘And so there is no sanctity on earth, therefore those desiring to hold the old faith ought with us to flee to the Savior, Who Himself knows how to save us poor ones.’

They are called Netovshchina because they say there is no orthodox priesthood and no mysteries in the world.” Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow also testifies: “The Spasovo agreement, otherwise Netovshchina or Kuzminovshchina. It is called Kuzminovshchina after the name of its founder Kuzma, an illiterate peasant. It is still called Netovshchina because it taught and teaches that there is now in the world neither orthodox priesthood, nor mysteries, nor grace.” Further: “The followers of Netovshchina do not rebaptize those coming to them, sometimes they do not even baptize their own children in the hope that the Savior can save even without baptism; they have monks, and they consider marriage wherever it was performed indissoluble.”

V. V. Andreev: “The Spasovo agreement (Netovshchina) also represents a softening of Pomor teaching. Its founder was Kuzma, for which reason the agreement itself is sometimes called Kuzminovshchina. The illiterate peasant Kuzma also appeared as teacher to poor people. Kuzma rejected rebaptism.”

P. S. Smirnov. History of Russian Old Ritualism: “The Netov direction arose very early, still in the 17th century, and originally the Old Ritualist sect of this direction was called Kuzminovshchina after the name of the founder Kuzma.” Further: “They interpret thus: although even a heretic baptizes, yet a priest in vestments, and not a simple peasant. Nevertheless, when an infant is carried to church for baptism, at that time old men and old women of the Netovtsy distribute prepared pancakes to the poor, asking them to pray that God complete the baptism and count it as holy.” And thus there can be no doubt that the name Netovtsy was originally applied to the followers of the schism-teacher Kuzma, although the person of the latter cannot yet be determined with precision.” The historians clearly say that the Old Believer Spasovy came out of the ruling Church in Russia after Nikon.

QUESTION. It is evident that the Spasovy have the root of their baptism from the ruling Church in Russia after Nikon; I ask you to testify by holy Scripture: is it possible for them to be saved with the new baptism? ANSWER. Absolutely impossible. For the Savior Christ in His holy Gospel says: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” And again: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

QUESTION. From what plant did the Spasovy originate? ANSWER. You have seen from history that manifestly the Spasovy originated from the plant of the Church of the year 1666, when the old was rejected with a curse and the new was confirmed by councils.

QUESTION. And what Christ says concerning baptism: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit”—what are we to understand by these words? ANSWER. Grace-filled baptism. QUESTION. Tell me: can there be grace-filled baptism among all who are called Christians? ANSWER. No. Only in the true Church of Christ; where Christ is, there is grace. QUESTION. Is it impossible for baptism to be among heretics? ANSWER. Baptism is possible. But grace-filled baptism is impossible among heretics. Basil the Great in his first rule says: “For the Holy Spirit forsakes them (heretics).” In the seventy-third rule of the Council of Carthage, in the commentary, it is said: “For heretical baptism is not baptism, but rather defilement.” Zonaras in the commentary on the 68th rule of the holy Apostles also says: “For neither the baptism of heretics can make anyone a Christian, nor their ordination make anyone a cleric.”

Holy baptism is the seal of faith, as Gregory the Theologian says: “If thou shalt anticipate thyself with the seal of baptism, and for the future fence thyself with the best and strongest help, having signed both soul and body with anointing and Spirit.” And in the Great Catechism it is said: “With which the Lord God, as His own sheep, marks and seals us with holy baptism.” But the Lord God abides only in His holy Church, as the prophet of old spoke from the mouth of God: “And I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God.” But in heretics God does not abide. Hear what Scripture says of them: “For heretics have both hypocrisy and falsehood, because unclean demonic spirits dwell in them.” And again: “But heretics have in themselves the unclean satanic spirit—how can they bind and loose on heaven and on earth?”

The holy martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: “But it has been handed down to us that there is one God, and one Christ, and one faith, and one hope, and one Church, and one baptism established in one Church. If anyone now should fall away from this unity, such a one must necessarily be considered a heretic.” Further: “Likewise Peter, proving and defending this unity, taught that we can be saved in no other way than through one baptism alone, belonging only to one Church.” Further: “For as in the time of that universal baptism which cleansed all ancient unrighteousness, whoever was not in Noah’s ark could not be saved from the water: so also now, whoever is not baptized in the Church—in the mystical likeness of Noah’s ark—founded on the Lord’s unity, cannot be saved by baptism.”

In the Great Catechism “On the Mystery of Baptism”: “To this also, since no one can be saved except in union with the Church, as also in the time of Noah those not in the ark perished by water. How then shall they be united with the Church here, if they are not brought into it by baptism?”

See and understand who the Spasovy are and what their lot is.

QUESTION. But the Spasovy say of themselves that they are Old Believers, they think they are in the Church—so will they not be saved either? ANSWER. If the Spasovy were in the Church according to the old holy faith, they would accept baptism from the ancient holy Church; but they not only deprived themselves of this only saving source of baptism, but all were born by baptism in Nikon’s Church, and they fight for it. Even though they have separated from that Church in which they were baptized, yet not seeking the ancient source of holy baptism and not joining the zealots of the truly old faith, they made themselves a society of Old Believers and stood on a slippery path to salvation.

Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian writes: “Whoever, having despised the evangelical and apostolic tradition, not following anyone, came forth from himself.” And the Great Basil also writes: “For where the beginning is not firm, there the end is not strong.” And: “What one does not have himself, he cannot give to others.” But the Spasovy do not have baptism from the truly old faith, therefore they cannot give it to others. For the same holy father said: “Baptism is the seal of faith—and faith is the confession of Divinity.” From this attend to what the Old Believer Spasovy are. The Spasovy confess: 1) The Antichrist has come and reigns. 2) Baptism among any heretics whatsoever, only if it be in three immersions, is holy and divine. 3) They reject confession to the face of a man, though some confess. 4) About thirty years, a little more, ago they began to baptize infants with their own old men. 5) They recognize lay marriage as lawful.

Thus far concerning the Spasovtsy.

Chapter 15. Concerning the Old Ritualists Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy

QUESTION. What are the so-called Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy Old Ritualists? ANSWER. The Fedoseevtsy Old Ritualists by origin from the ancient holy faith, by baptism are Christians, but they err in their understanding of the mystery of marriage: they reject marriage, reasoning: there is no priesthood and there is no marriage.

QUESTION. If there is no marriage when there is no priesthood, then how do generations upon generations of Fedoseevtsy Old Ritualists continue to be born? ANSWER. By the path of open and secret fornication!

QUESTION. Do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy have any foundation from divine Scripture that it is possible to prolong the human race by the path of secret and open fornication? ANSWER. There is not only no foundation in divine Scripture for fornicating cohabitation, but it is strictly forbidden. The Apostle Paul in the epistle to the Corinthians says: “Now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, and so forth, with such an one no not to eat.” And in the commentary on the 26th rule of Basil the Great it is said: “And for this reason fornication is not marriage, nor the beginning of marriage, but sin and transgression of the law of God.”

QUESTION. So do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy Old Ritualists err against the law of God by which marriage is held? ANSWER. Not only against the law, but against God Himself do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy err. Blessing upon marriage was given by the most good God Himself in the person of the first-created forefathers Adam and Eve, saying: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” And to the second forefather Noah, as Moses writes, God’s promise was given: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” See that both Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy err against God Himself. God gave blessing to the human race, without distinction: to barbarian and believer, marriage, and not lawless fornication.

The Apostle Paul writes: “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” See that the Apostle calls the wife of a believing brother who married in unbelief a wife. Therefore even among unbelievers marriages are constituted without violating blood kinship; they are lawful marriages, but the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy, having rejected the all-powerful blessing of God upon marriage for all the days of the world’s existence, have reduced it to human conditions: there is no priest, and there is no marriage.

QUESTION. Who was the first to sow this teaching contrary to God? ANSWER. A certain Feodosii Vasiliev. As the historian Andrei Ioannov relates concerning this: “The chief of that was Feodosii Vasiliev, church clerk of the Krestetsky yam, who in 1706 or 1707 (according to the Pomortsy) was the first to break away from the Vygoretsk union.”

QUESTION. In Vygorets itself they also rejected marriage, just as Feodosii and Filipp—what will you say about the Vygoretsk Pomortsy? ANSWER. The Vygoretsk Pomortsy rejected marriage because the male and female monasteries were arranged according to the monastic rule; and therefore it was impossible to live either in the male with wives or in the female with husbands, but in the so-called sketes they lived in family fashion, as the historian Andreev relates: “In the first time Andrew Denisov could firmly stand against marriage, and married life among the priestless was established only in the south in Chuguev, on the Don, in Austria, where the surrounding sphere most quickly conditioned civil and social life. But even in the less populated regions civil life soon began to develop. Marriages appeared there also among the priestless, and Andrew Denisov now consented to them!” The reason for the celibacy of the Pomortsy is explained as the same historian says: “The Solovetsky monks planted in the north a desert-dwelling, celibate schism. The wandering and scattered life amid the inhospitable northern forests, together with persecutions, long maintained the family-less character of the schism on the Russian outskirts. Later another reason strongly influenced the maintenance of celibacy among the priestless schismatics: the recruit obligation was borne only by the married milieu, and the more resourceful of the Russian people, not wishing to bear recruit service, adhering to the teaching that preached celibacy, later had wives and children but were officially and according to the statute of their sect counted as unmarried, thus freeing themselves from recruit service.”

Here are the two main reasons that forced the ancestors of the Pomortsy to remain in celibacy. 1) The Solovetsky monks, as fugitives from persecution, could not teach otherwise than on monastic terms—by the path of celibacy, recognizing the time as the last. 2) It is quite admissible that the ancestors of the Pomortsy, in order to avoid recruit obligation—not because they did not wish to serve the tsar and fatherland, to which the Pomortsy were never opponents, but so as not to violate the old faith which was then persecuted with all severity—avoided military service by indirect celibacy, but in essence they recognized marriage as the eternal promise of God.

And here to great regret people who were in seclusion and persecuted for the faith so thoughtlessly accepted forced celibacy as law.

QUESTION. In the first times of the Old Faith was there teaching of priestless marriage among the priestless Old Ritualists? ANSWER. There was. Already in 1685, as Andreev relates: “in Moscow Anton Kaur and Semen Artemiev preached marriage in the priestless. The first of them was a contemporary of the Solovetsky petitioners.”

And with the exception of the Vygoretsk region, all Obonezhie already long knew family relations, and marriage was recognized by Pomor teaching. See that marriage was recognized by the Pomortsy even when the Vyg hermitage flourished, and even earlier in Moscow in 1685 Anton Kaur and Semen Artemiev preached marriages among the priestless Old Ritualists.

QUESTION. If marriage among the priestless Old Ritualists was preached so early and tolerated by the Vygovtsy in the sketes, then how do the Fedoseevtsy and Filippovtsy not attend to the need of lawful family life, trampling God’s blessing upon marriage, and continue to live in depravity? ANSWER. By extreme ignorance and crude stubbornness. By ignorance, because they do not enter into the position of their ancestors and their extreme necessities for existence in the faith. The ancestors had no time for family life when every moment of their life they could not be safe from persecution. By coarseness of upbringing and habits from people who poorly valued evangelical love and saving peace. By stubbornness, seeing with their own eyes that the end of the world has not yet come and, having lived whole centuries, they do not wish to acknowledge their delusion that celibacy is possible only for each separate person in the lot assigned to him by the Creator, but in no way for the existence and continuation of the human race.

QUESTION. I see that the Feodoseevtsy and Filippovtsy are not right in their teaching and far from the truth concerning the essence of marriage, but tell me: can marriage be performed without a priest, by parental blessing, or in some other way? ANSWER. Marriage can be performed both without a priest in necessity and without necessity. First: marriage has first of all blessing from God: “Be fruitful, He said, and multiply, and fill the earth.”

Marriage was honored by His own presence by Jesus Christ Himself and was vouchsafed by the miracle of turning water into wine. Second: the Apostle Paul recognized marriages also among pagans—marriages in ancient times were performed even without a priest, by the personal consent and love of bridegroom and bride, with the consent of parents. As Theodore Balsamon testifies in the commentary on the 38th rule of Basil the Great: “And therefore only the subsequent agreement (of parents) makes the marriage innocent. And this, it seems to me, took place when marriage was concluded by agreement alone.”

Sevast Armenopulos. Book 8: “Marriage is the union of husband and wife and joint inheritance for the whole of life, communion of divine and human laws, whether by blessing, or by crowning, or by record. And what is done without these is counted as not having been.” Likewise Matthew the Corrector repeats: “Marriage is the union of husband and wife and joint inheritance for the whole of life, communion of divine and human laws, whether by blessing, or by crowning, or by record; and what is done without these is counted as not having been.”

The law of the Greek emperors Leo and Constantine. Book of the Rudder, chapter 50: “Christian marriage is agreed, whether written or unwritten, between husband and wife.” Further: “Written marriage is constituted in written proper form by three trustworthy witnesses according to what is now lawfully ordained by us piously. But if by narrowness or humility one cannot well and pleasantly constitute and write the marriage, then let the marriage be agreed even unwritten, without guile, by the counsel of the uniting persons’ parents. Or in church for the sake of blessing, or before five friends it was commanded.”

QUESTION. Marriage then is a church mystery. Tell me wherein this mystery consists? ANSWER. In the bridegroom and bride. See what is written concerning the mystery of matrimony in the Great Catechism.

QUESTION. What is marriage? ANSWER. Marriage is a mystery by which bridegroom and bride from pure love in their heart earnestly desire one another, and make agreement between themselves and a vow that they will willingly, by God’s blessing, be joined in common and indivisible cohabitation. Just as Adam and Eve before the fall and without carnal union had right and true marriage. And it is the union of husband and wife according to lawful order in indivisible cohabitation, who from God receive specially this grace: to bear children well and Christianly and to raise them, and to be preserved from abominable fornicating sin and incontinence.

QUESTION. What is the matter of this mystery? ANSWER. Those being joined in marriage. QUESTION. Who is the agent of this mystery? ANSWER. First, the Lord God Himself, as Moses the God-seer writes: “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” And in the Gospel He confirms, saying: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” After this the spouses themselves perform this mystery for themselves, saying: “I take thee as my wife,” “I take thee as my husband,” as if one sells oneself, he himself is both the thing and the merchant. So also in this mystery they both sell and give themselves together into this honorable service.

Thus it is trustworthy that the mystery of marriage is constituted by the spouses themselves. This constituent love those who wish to be lawfully joined, without hindrance of kinship, with the consent and blessing of parents, God Himself blesses; which the priestless Old Believer Pomortsy undoubtedly have as lawful marriage, even though it is performed without priesthood. For they do not lack priesthood out of contempt for priesthood, but for benevolent reasons.

But the teaching of the Feodoseevtsy is such: 1) they recognize the Antichrist as having come. 2) Priesthood has fallen into heresy. 3) They baptize all coming to them from heterodoxy. 4) They have no communion in drink and food with heterodox. 5) They do not recognize lay marriage. 6) They recognize: the time of Antichrist, in which marriage cannot be. They have many other peculiarities, but they are not important.

The Filippovtsy teach: 1) Not to pray for heterodox tsars. 2) To write the eight-pointed cross of Christ with the title I. N. Ts. I. 3) They shun the Pomortsy for praying for tsars and for signing to voivode Samarin that they would pray for tsars and authorities.

Such is the main teaching of the Feodoseevtsy and Filippovtsy Old Ritualists.

CONCLUSION

All this I have written for the sake of saving cause, and I have depicted each agreement in its hope of salvation with things and appearance. I have omitted nothing from the belief of each separate hope of salvation, and I have added nothing unnecessary. But everything that each separate society has in the realm of canonical right, church traditions, and the very dogmas, I have written exactly and clearly, moved by the zeal of care for the old faith; not wishing to be a partaker of anything new. The reason for writing this is the reproaches from people who are not with us in faith: You, say the reproachers of us, all called Old Ritualists do not agree with the ruling Greco-Russian Church—why do you not agree among yourselves when you all confess the old faith? For this reason, as far as God’s grace helped, having written, I have delivered it, for what reasons we do not agree in faith with the ruling Greco-Russian Church and among ourselves for very important reasons, and not out of contempt for one another. For all zealots of ancient piety desire to be saved under the banner of the old faith, but you see who among all Old Ritualists truly holds the old faith in all its inviolability. Do not marvel at this if there are many Old Ritualists; for it must be so, that each, even if he will be saved in struggle, and not grow lazy concerning his salvation. Do not marvel also at the disputes among Old Ritualists themselves, but attend, for they do this for the salvation of souls, and not to shame one another, even if somewhere they speak harshly, yet they seek truth alone. For even the most insensible and cold stones, if they simply lie on the earth, manifest nothing but insensibility; but if they strike one another, they give forth fire. If cold and insensible bodies from striking one another give forth such heat, how much more do the animate bodies of zealots of the old faith from disputes give forth the bright light of their confession. But you, seeing what is sanctified by Scripture, who stands closer to the number 666, understand. For it has been shown you clearly: 1) The popovtsy accepting fugitive priesthood from heresy accept it and are shepherded by it. 2) The popovtsy founded a new hierarchy from 1846, which they now hold and are governed by. 3) The Spasovy, not recognizing any priesthood, originated by baptism from the ruling Church, and now accept it. 4) The Feodoseevtsy reject marriage, thinking to live purely, but lead a life more impure. 5) The Filippovtsy likewise reject marriage; being unmarried, they love foul lawless marriage by the path of which people are born to them. 6) The Old Ritualist priestless Pomortsy, confessing God’s promise upon the human race, accept lawful marriage and, reverently honoring it, offer praises to God who gave the law for the continuation of the human race. They honor virginity, but true virginity and not pretended. They have no priesthood by great necessity: there is no ancient, and they fear the new. They confess the most pure mysteries: the most precious and most honorable life-giving flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ God; though for lack of an orthodox performer of the mystery they do not have visible communion, yet they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that they will be vouchsafed also mystically, that is, spiritually, to partake of this great sanctity, according to holy Scripture: John, chapter 21; the Evangelist from John, leaf 105 verso; Ephraim the Syrian, word 83, his creation, part 4, p. 349; Great Sobornik, in the second word on Pascha, leaf 687. They accept confession. They honor their superiors in the Lord as they received from their ancestors who were fugitives from the Solovetsky Monastery and Danilov. They do not accept baptism from all heterodox—not from pride and contempt, but from fear of God, lest they infect their faith in Christ with that leaven. If, as the Apostle Paul said, a little leaven leavens the whole lump, how much more foreign baptism to the holy faith.

Thus doing, they abide in the holy old faith, accepting neither priesthood nor heretical baptism. This holy Church under the banner of the old faith I also confess to be the true and saving one.

The most lowly member thereof L. Pichugin

This work, to the measure of my strength, was finished after a long interruption. Year 7418, April 9th day.

source

Anonymous lecture on the words “A strong soul amid temptations” (St. Ephrem the Syrian, Discourse 105).

When I was in prison, I constantly had to move among worldly people with a psychology foreign to me: I was surrounded by people with different worldviews, people of other faiths—Nikonians, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, or outright unbelievers.

The mood of these people sharply differed from mine: the atmosphere, at any rate, was not Christian, not monastic. Swearing, obscenities, foul language, songs, blasphemous phrases—these were everyday occurrences; frequent fights, quarrels—everything offended religious feeling.

Once, in conversation with a serious man, I pointed out these “inconveniences” of imprisonment as ones that weighed heavily on me. I said that I feared for myself, lest I myself become like them: I feared that long-term stay in this environment would have a corrupting influence on my morality and religiosity. At these words my interlocutor gave an unpleasant smile. “What kind of Christian are you then?” he said, half mockingly, half contemptuously. “Can’t you remain religious among people? You’re afraid your faith will go out: that means you’re a poor Christian, that your faith is very weak!” These last words strongly affected me: I felt in them a great reproach. I became ashamed of myself. In my soul I had to agree that this man was speaking the truth. At least there was much truth in his words.

Indeed, can a true Christian stand firm only when he sees and hears nothing bad? Only by living somewhere far from people, in solitude? Must a Christian inevitably decay upon contact with evil? Among immoral people, must he himself become corrupt? Where then is the strength of the Christian religion? Where is its conquering power? Where is that firmness it imparts to its sons? No! If vicious people corrupt us by their presence, this only shows our own weakness—in essence, things should not be this way.

When Jesus Christ taught His doctrine to the apostles, He did not send them into the desert to be saved in solitude—how then would the world have been enlightened? No, He sent them into the world to preach, to teach “all nations,” and said to them: “You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world.” When founding His Church, Jesus Christ did not remove it from the midst of evil, but said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it: “They shall not overcome her” (Matthew 16:18).

The first Christians, upon accepting the faith, remained in their places, right in the midst of the world, amid paganism. They had sufficient strength so that the surrounding evil did not harm them. Having firmness in their hearts—firmness of faith and hope—they were inaccessible to corruption, rising above the vicious environment surrounding them. They themselves influenced that environment, weakening and conquering every evil. By their faith, by their healthy psychology, they healed others. Their very presence refreshed the atmosphere, bringing new healthy forces into it.

In our present time, our Christian life is usually arranged so that in our cells we are isolated from the worldly environment: we live an almost monastic life. But in recent years this arrangement of our life has changed significantly. A great many cells have been completely destroyed, large groupings of Christians have been broken up. Christians in large numbers have been scattered into worldly homes, often one person at a time, living among the families of benefactors. Thus they find themselves torn from their closed environment; they no longer breathe the “cell” spirit; they have been thrown into the worldly, everyday milieu. Living in worldly homes forces close contact with worldly weaknesses, face-to-face encounters with various vices. Here a Christian can constantly see something immoral: hear bad conversations and imperceptibly be drawn into them. Sometimes Christians are directly drawn into worldly vices. For example, they offer a Christian refreshments and are thus ready to make him a participant not only in this but in further evil. I have even seen such things: a Christian man or woman sits somewhere in a side room, while next to them in the hall or overhead upstairs a wildly merry ball is taking place: music, songs, dancing are heard; the whole building shakes from the noise. In my opinion, such hosts are not benefactors: they deserve some other name. Christians in such a position deserve sincere pity. Yes, Christians scattered among worldly homes endure many great temptations. Compared to life in a cell, moral life has become heavier, and moreover, being in such circumstances, they are deprived of great guidance and left to themselves. They no longer have the feeling they once had—that someone is over you, watching your life, someone to fear or be embarrassed before. In an hour of despondency no one extends a hand of consolation; there is no one from whom to expect support and good advice; often one hears bad advice, weakening words.

With these brothers I would so much like to speak heart to heart, to help them according to my strength. I want to say: Brothers and sisters, do not lose heart, do not let your hands drop, do not get lost in the new circumstances, do not attribute some invincible power to evil, do not fear it excessively. Even if a bad environment surrounds us, there is no necessity to submit to that environment. Even if our former guides are no longer with us, let us continue our ascetic struggle independently. Let some fall, let the faint-hearted turn their backs—what of it? “Do not envy evildoers, nor be jealous of those who do iniquity,” it is said. The wind will blow away only the chaff; the wheat will always remain.

Those who fall are the ones who previously stood only with the support of others. Those who remain are the ones who have within themselves an impulse toward the divine. For us who remain, it is now time to delve deeper into ourselves, into the inner moral wells, and there find strength to continue the struggle. A good support for us now can be the saints who pleased God amid people, who conducted their lives blamelessly. Was there no evil in the world back then? Does not Chrysostom say that out of a thousand, one man is saved, and out of ten thousand, one woman? “Woe to the world because of temptations,” said Jesus Christ. Yes, even then the world was full of temptations. But the saints who were saved amid the world were able not to be perverted by these temptations. That means it is possible; that means, with God’s help, it is within human nature’s power.

Remember Alexander the Coal-burner (Menologion, August 12), and Philaret the Merciful (December 2); remember how Ambrose of Milan was taken directly from civil service to the episcopal throne by God’s indication.

During a great drought, when the people’s prayers could not bring rain, it was said to ask a certain blacksmith to pray; and when he began to pray, rain came.

In the Life of Macarius of Egypt, about two daughters-in-law who lived in the city and by their holiness surpassed the great ascetic Macarius himself (January 19).

In the Life of St. Xenophon and Mary it is said that their children, who from youth renounced the world, “did not attain the measure of their parents” (January 26).

So great were some of those saved in the world; and many of them were right in the thick of worldly affairs: Ambrose was governor of an entire province; St. Xenophon served at the court of the Greek emperor; Alexander burned and carried coal; the aforementioned daughters-in-law lived with their husbands.

But none of this prevented them from being virtuous and holy. Everything visible is ultimately judged by the intention of a person’s soul: God looks not at the face, but at the heart.

Recall here the chaste Joseph. While in Egypt, among idol-worshippers, this handsome young man did not forget God; he always kept the fear of Him in his heart. To his shameless mistress he said: “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:9). What held him back from the base act was not fear of his parents—they were not with him; nor shame before people—the bedroom of his mistress was hidden from the eyes of outsiders. What restrained him was his own prudence and the fear of the all-seeing eye from which nothing is hidden.

Here is an example worthy of imitation! Here is a champion of chastity whom we must constantly remember, especially when we find ourselves in similar circumstances—where no supervising eyes are upon us, where everything depends on our own will. Let the same thing hold us back from evil deeds: our own prudence and the fear of God. Let those exalted feelings—that “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him” (Hebrews 4:13)—be our guide in life. This feeling will save us from many temptations.

In the Life of St. Xenophon it is said that, while daily fulfilling his official duties, he never abandoned the church of God “evening and morning.” This means he never missed either Vespers or Matins. See how this man was saved amid the world! What zeal he had for prayer! And of all the saints it must be said that they became saints precisely because they prayed constantly.

Look at the desert-dwellers: their life was unceasing prayer; their mental eye was always directed toward God. That is why all the hardships of desert life, complete solitude, and the difficulties of battling demonic temptations did not frighten them.

Of the saints saved in the world, it must be said that worldly evil did not corrupt them because they were always clothed in the strong armor of prayer. A person whose gaze is fixed on heaven is inaccessible to temptations. Abiding in daily communion with God, he finds there an inexhaustible source of moral strength and power. Prayer is life for a Christian; it is the beating of his spiritual pulse. From it is kindled in his soul that heavenly fire of which Christ speaks: “I came to cast fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49). Therefore, if any of us seriously thinks about eternal salvation, let him learn to pray; let him know that this can be attained only through prayer.

Besides prayer, the strongest weapon against evil for a Christian is Holy Scripture. The remembrance of its divine sayings and their frequent repetition have great power for moral strengthening and the quenching of passions. The “word of God” can sober a person; it shakes and softens the soul and chastens the mind. The “sayings of God” are a “spiritual sword” (Ephesians 6:17) by which every assault of sin is cut off; it is a healing balm for every wound of the soul, an antidote to all passions. Whoever listens to the words of Holy Scripture with a simple soul and sincere faith experiences their irresistible influence: they regenerate him, impart strength, and give him great moral power.

“You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life,” said Jesus Christ (John 5:39).

Through Scripture a Christian can not only strengthen and educate himself, but also edify those around him: he can not only avoid corruption himself, but also protect others from corruption. And he is obliged to do this. If he only saves himself, that is still not enough. “What benefit is there from the sun if it does not give light?” says Chrysostom. “What benefit is there from a Christian if he benefits no one?” A Christian must be “the salt of the earth.” Salt not only does not spoil or rot itself, but preserves other things from rotting, making them inaccessible to the bacteria that cause decay. The same must the Christian do in the spiritual realm: he must “salt” those around him, impart strength to them so that the various microbes of moral evil flying about do not produce corruption in them. Let them swarm in great numbers in the air around, but let them not touch believers, let them be powerless to harm them.

“You are the light of the world,” said Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:14). A Christian is called not only to have light in his own soul, but to share that light with others; not only to preserve spiritual warmth within himself, but to warm others as well.

To be salt and light, it is not necessary to be a preacher or to speak eloquently. A simple, unlearned Christian man or woman—even an old woman—can possess the evangelical salt within. The salting effect is produced first of all by the Christian’s life: when he conducts himself piously, prays often, and does not participate in evil deeds. The mere presence of such a person already does much good. The mood of those around him is dissolved by his virtues; evil is ashamed before righteousness.

But apart from his pious life, let the Christian also benefit those with him by his words. “Whoever does and teaches, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

Living among the families of benefactors and in constant contact with them, he has every opportunity to exert a beneficial influence upon them. Let the “spiritual sword”—the word of God—manifest its power here as well; let the spiritual plaster be skillfully applied to the wounds of human souls. In despair, let the Scripture be recalled that speaks of God’s great mercy toward the repentant. In carelessness, remind them of God’s justice and the eternal punishments for unrepentant sinners. In luxury and revelry—the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In temptations to carnal sin—the saying of the Lord: “Whoever looks at a woman…” and so on. If he notices in the benefactor’s family a striving after gain, let him bring the words of the Lord: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19–20). The Christian may add that the passion for gain is the source of many evils. From it arise offenses, quarrels, lawsuits. For, as the Apostle says: “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10).

If a quarrel arises in the house, let the Christian bring the Gospel words: “Everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew 5:22), and “Do not let the sun go down on your wrath” (Ephesians 4:26). If the offense drags on into the next day, remind them of Christ’s words: “If you do not forgive men their trespasses from your hearts, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:15). If worldly gossip and idle talk go on in the house, the Christian should first refrain from participating himself, and then teach that such things do not lead to anything useful and do not elevate us morally. “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33). And again: “Every idle word that men speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36). By speaking of others’ sins, we only increase our own: “With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged” (Matthew 7:2). If a noisy, merry worldly celebration is held in the house, let the Christian remind them of Christ’s words: “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25). And again: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play” (1 Corinthians 10:7; cf. Exodus 32:6). “And they perished in that day about three thousand men” (Exodus 32:28).

In all such cases the Christian recalls the corresponding words of Holy Scripture, thereby weakening and diminishing evil. Let him enrich the tastelessness of life with spiritual conversation; let him fill the emptiness of souls with the fear of God and love. By sharing his spiritual content, he at the same time increases his own spiritual wealth and enriches his own reservoir.

How precious it would be if one of us not only stood firm himself, but also gave support to others—who could support the weak, heal the sick, raise up the fallen, bring back the erring. How valuable such a person is in our time! How great he would be before God! Such a one would be like an apostle; he would be the mouth of Christ. “If you separate the precious from the vile, you shall be as My mouth,” says the Lord (Jeremiah 15:19). It must be said that serving the salvation of one’s neighbor is a virtue extraordinarily great. Neither fasting, nor prayer, nor anything else can compare with it. Even almsgiving is lower than it. “Even if he distributed countless riches to the poor,” says Chrysostom, “you would not do as much by converting one soul.” Nothing can be compared to a soul—not even the whole world (Homily 10, p. 28). And if someone converts and saves not one, but several, how much greater and holier is his work!

Knowing and remembering all this, therefore, let us strive, brethren, to be worthy of the calling of “Christian.” Let us be Christians not only in faith, but in life as well. While in close contact with the worldly environment, let us have the courage not to be corrupted by it, not to descend from the height of our vows; let us strengthen ourselves against the temptations surrounding us, and let us steadfastly go forward along our path to the victorious end—until we can say: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that Day” (2 Timothy 4:7–8).

And while living under the eyes of our benefactors, let us bring them benefit through moral edification, and above all through our own life, so that the words of Christ may be fulfilled in us: “Let your light so shine before men…” (Matthew 5:16).

source

By Andrey Shcheglov.

In what follows below, there will be no direct reference to the modern “heroes” of Old Ritualism. Considering their intellectual and spiritual level, it is shameful to speak of them en masse, and even more so to subject them to analysis. Those who understand what is being discussed need no explanation; accordingly, those who need an explanation are better off not receiving one. For the uncomprehending, as well as for the important people “in the Old Believer cause,” this is empty noise.

Our task, in the most general terms, is to survey the contemporary spiritual ruins of what was once justly and proudly called “ancient Orthodoxy” (“Old Belief,” “Old Ritualism”).

Let us begin, perhaps, by saying that we must stop deluding ourselves with optimistic illusions. All this apparent—and now grown to indecent proportions—“successful” external bustle: the restoration of what was previously destroyed, the gilding of domes, the countless and meaningless inter-confessional and scholarly “meetings” where “Christians” appear as ridiculous caricatures at someone else’s merry farce—all of this is utterly worthless from the point of view of Christ’s Faith.

It must be understood that the pompous, delirious statements of the same professional “Old Believers,” constantly scurrying across television and radio channels, proclaiming “the opening of the treasures of Old Belief to the world,” evoke nothing but rejection and contempt. In reality, these pompous incantations serve as a cover for inner spiritual emptiness and their own material interests, which they alternately pass off with varying success as some sort of “Old Believer spirituality.”

The issue here is not the usual reproaches and discussions of the base deeds of these people (Who among us is without sin?), but rather that for these figures, God has either remained somewhere in the inaccessible, radiant past, or at best is supposed to appear at the end of time, in some indefinite future—while in the present, they can easily go about their petty dealings. And it is this stillborn, mundane, and vulgar notion of theirs that they attempt to present as a still-living phenomenon, which for them has already ceased to be the greatest mystery.

All their discourse about Faith resembles the attempt of animals that have suddenly taken it upon themselves to judge the essence of Man. No amount of their cunning, vindictiveness, malice, or desire to put themselves on display will help here. But let us leave them be—they have already found their happiness in the form of material well-being and satiated tranquility. And it is utterly uninteresting what dark winds howl in their empty heads!

The main difficulty lies in the fact that the majority views the current state of affairs “from the outside,” as indifferent external observers, whereas the problem itself can only be understood “from within.” The majority of “ancient Orthodox” people completely fail to see the avalanche of destructive processes taking place before their eyes, when the normal, lawful Christian order is being destroyed, and the current spiritual “leaders” falsify the highest understanding of life, its actions, and true knowledge.

This spiritual “ignorance,” in the final analysis, leads to the refusal of any internal or external spiritual struggle. Only a few are capable of seeing the full vertigo of the fall. These “pastors,” administrative leaders, and the passive “flock” sing hymns to their own past, choking on the vomit of their own exceptionalism, while trying to deceive themselves and others with the phantom of a spirituality that no longer exists. For them it is already unknown that they have descended from the spiritual heights attained by former Christians into the world of materialistic reality and have become an integral part of it.

The very phenomenon of “ancient Orthodoxy” was an attempt, under the banner of Christ, to organize resistance to humanity’s unrestrained slide into the yawning abyss. Outwardly turned toward the past, “ancient” Christianity became a new concept of spiritual ideals of courage and dignity in the stale atmosphere of various purely human ideologies that gave birth to the modern world.

Against the backdrop of the faceless mass-man, this phenomenon signified a spiritual feat of fidelity to the Christian duty. In the “Old Believers” there was always the ability to clearly and sharply distinguish the essential from the secondary—unlike the mechanical (worldly) man, who represents the extreme form of degeneration.

We now find ourselves in a world of ruins. And here there is only one question: are there still people who have held firm amid these ruins? And what must they do—what can they still do today? Has that spiritual state been preserved in these “remnants” which could serve as an example for resistance to the Antichrist? Are there still people who prefer a harsh and dangerous life, who continue to wage spiritual battle even knowing that the external struggle has already been lost?

One would like to hope that there remain people in whom fidelity to Christ is stronger than material fire, who by their very existence affirm the idea that it is precisely the sense of honor—not vulgar moralizing—that defines the essential difference between human beings and mere physiological creatures. What matters is not the quantitative unification of people bound by ritual, but the qualitative state. Yet this state can be achieved only through quiet transformation taking place in the depths of the human soul. First of all, this change occurs within oneself; then it manifests in a few individuals; and only in this case can the prerequisites of true order be established outwardly, in opposition to the destructive forces of the modern world.

We must reach such a state that the type of Christian we are describing becomes immediately recognizable—so unmistakable that one cannot confuse him with others—so that at first glance it can be said: “This is one of ours,” a person who refuses any compromise with the world of things.

Today we find ourselves in far worse conditions than previous Christians, when everything was clear and definite: here are “ours,” and there are “the others.” Now everything is intertwined, and at times it is extremely difficult to distinguish what ought not to be from what is true. Our own spiritually formless “leaders” live by the principle: “First fill your belly, preserve your own hide, and only then seek the truth”; or: “These are not the times when one can afford to hold an opinion different from the currently dominant principle”; and finally: “Who’s forcing you…?”

And it is precisely to this mentality that we must firmly oppose a different principle—this is not our path! Our existence does not depend on bustling, scheming quasi-ecclesiastical operators and spiritual politicians, but on people capable of living and acting according to Christian principles. Such people may be poor or rich, workers or entrepreneurs, theologians, engineers, peasants, or even politicians. But such a person must necessarily understand the inner differences between a clear, courageous, ordered world and the standardized, conformist, vulgar gray life in which empty “morality” reigns supreme.

We must attain such a spiritual state that we can look with contempt upon the stupefying bonds of the collectivist and mechanical system, upon any ideology that establishes false “social” values in place of spiritual values that reside solely in the divine order.

It is important to see in life the interconnection of causes and effects, the essential ideal foundation hidden beneath the chaotic movement of various opinions and temptations. We must grasp that all of this is merely diverse levels of one and the same spiritual disease, each of which inevitably leads to the next in the general cycle of decomposition. The beginning of this process was the rupture with authentic Christian tradition and its replacement with false surrogates that lead to empty and ghostly individual freedom. This is the path to fragmentation and disunity instead of the conscious desire to be part of a genuine and hierarchical spiritual unity.

The Christian personality finds itself confronted by countless “multitudes” of opposing individuals drawn into the kingdom of quantity, the natural series of numbers, the world of quantitative masses that have no other god besides all-consuming spiritual and material consumption. To stand firm in this chaos, it is necessary to understand that one cannot make a deal with the forces of destruction. Any attempt to settle matters peacefully with these forces is equivalent to surrender—defeat today and final annihilation tomorrow. Spiritual principledness is the readiness, when the time requires it, to step forward outwardly with all the uncorrupted forces still remaining.

We see how our society is gradually being squeezed, as if by iron tongs, in the grip of an alien and hostile force. This force is no longer the one that once confronted us with visor raised; the attack no longer proceeds by violent and coercive means. A Christian society that has lost the high Christian ideals within itself opens its gaping spiritual void to consumption and profit—and from this comes all our present primitivism, mechanicity, mustiness, and bestiality, which explains the appearance of scurrying clowns who now determine the direction of our church institutions. This danger is far more serious than direct violence; it is akin to the Trojan Horse. Evil now acts more cunningly, and changes in our customs and general worldview occur imperceptibly—and thus the situation is completely different from what it once was. In the name of this spiritual “relaxation” we have already practically abandoned all our ideals, so that perhaps no external intervention will even be necessary to seize the abandoned and discarded pearl of Truth and finally place it in a stinking cesspool.

It is from this spiritual blindness that our entire material demonism arises, because the worldly factor has become primary and decisive. The gathering of all interests and values revolves around the level of consumption, which with its last strength covers the Christian rite. Is there a way out of this gloomy circle? But this is a question no longer addressed to people.

Given such weakness in both internal and external forces, it is unlikely that we will quickly rid ourselves of the smug, senile swindlers in our church institutions. Our task is to overcome our isolation and fragmentation, to create a special spiritual atmosphere under whose influence we can acquire a new life characterized by fidelity, devotion, and service. This will help us surmount the grayness and insincerity of our present condition. What unites us is not the rite, but the power of our hidden intentions on the path to Truth. This is the foundation, the point of departure that unites people who remain faithful to Christian principles and are therefore capable of bearing witness to the Supreme Authority and the Supreme Law born of Truth.

There is now no other way: among our “ancient Orthodox” ruins, a movement must begin toward the restoration of the original principles and ideas. We must resist the slide toward the animal, primitive principle within us that seeks to reduce our entire existence to the biological level. We know that our true Self opposes this, desiring to remain conscious and independent. For this, first of all, we must become aware of that dark and lowest part of our soul that is increasingly gaining the upper hand over us. What is needed is an exact and impartial assessment of our decrepit state—and this, in turn, will help us reject our own seductive mask, reflected in the mirror of distorted being. In this case we will not merely seem, but truly exist; at the same time we must silently do our work in harmony with the command resounding from the heavenly heights. Only then will empty, sluggish, and false existence vanish into non-being.

The spirituality of which we speak has no need for the cheap and worthless, deceitful moralizing imposed upon us, through which the “domestication” of the Christian as an animal takes place. It is in the creation of this spineless “flock” that the hypocritical essence and goal of the modern modernist “church” lie—the very embrace into which we are striving with all our might. In this case, what is sufficient for us is a pure turning to the Holy Ghost and to Christ as the unclouded evident reality of Divine Reality, while any genuine church “institutions” may vanish into desolation and emptiness. Inner cohesion and correct awareness will make it possible to withstand the final victory of chaos and destruction masquerading as practical materialism, which is thriving comfortably in the “church” milieu.

In the form in which our “administrative” puppets offer us “Christianity,” it is dead and cannot serve as a point of departure upon which genuine spiritual freedom can be attained. All they can offer is aesthetically wretched ritualism and primitive piety, at best reducing the Church to social and charitable service. All of this turns the Church into something insipid and dull, deforming the personality and giving birth to intolerance toward any form of life. The people who have created this state of affairs are not titanic villains, but petty, cynical, bastard ecclesiastical politicians possessed of the simplest drives and interests tied to the satisfaction of purely physical needs and the pursuit of sensual pleasures. These “characters” do not even realize that they are easily manipulated by global forces of destruction that clearly understand their actions and goals. All the “correct” words of our “spiritual leaders” are pure verbal fornication. They do not care about any “noble ideal”; they are immersed in worldly routine and delirious with their own importance. Their actions are logical absurdity from the standpoint of the Christian Church and Christian Canons; therefore they are heralds of the final decline and degeneration.

On the other side stands an infinitesimally small number of people who differ from the former as witnesses to a different inner disposition, to other orders of lawfulness and authority granted by the Christian Idea and firm devotion to it. For such people, only the Kingdom of Heaven can be the true homeland. Whether they will succeed in withstanding final destruction and remaining unshaken in Truth—this is again a question not addressed to people. It will become possible only when we preserve God; only then will He be always and everywhere, here and now. Sensing the living presence of God within ourselves, we find in Him a point of support, the center of the world, and as a result we see the only path worth following. Only the sacred fire blazing within us is capable of incinerating the phantom, motley world that plays false images around us. Having embarked on this most difficult path, a person takes a great risk: if he proves unequal to his original intention, that flame will consume him to the foundations—he will simply dissolve into the general mass and become tame. But if he endures, he will acquire the greatest strength, for he will be able to discern divine meanings in the fleeting, senseless world.

Our Faith gives us the understanding that earthly life is a trial, an interconnected battlefield not only of human but also of spiritual forces, which can very conditionally be designated as the forces of Good and the forces of Delusion, of Chaos. And here each person possesses the freedom to make his personal choice—on whose side he will stand. In either case he steps beyond the mere physiological animal state. In the first case, the path leads upward to the Divine Principle that transcends every human measure; conversely, the other path drags downward to the subhuman. In everything, what matters is precisely our inner predisposition, not the construction of ideological schemes or the donning of pious masks upon foul visages. In reality, the right of choice confirms the dominion of the sacred principle of justice, which establishes—“To each his own” (Suum cuique).

-M. L. Vlasov.

The Fall of the Priesthood

When speaking of the sacrament of Holy Communion, it must be pointed out that not only among us, but nowhere in the world today is it present in a form acceptable to true Christians, because the priesthood with successive ordination — tracing its origin from Christ and His holy apostles — is absent.

The Lord Himself, through the holy prophets and holy fathers, clearly foretold that the priesthood of lawlessness, once accomplished, would cease to be such, being deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

And the time came when the priesthood gradually fell into heresy in various countries; the turn came for the Russian land as well, where only until the time of Patriarch Nikon did a truly Orthodox hierarchy exist.

The aforementioned patriarch shared the common fate of the priesthood’s deviation from the true faith: by beginning to introduce heresies, he infected the entire Russian clergy with them. Having fallen away from piety and plunged into the heretical abyss, it lost its grace-filled power, for the holy fathers say: “Heresy separates every person from the Church” (Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council, Vol. 7, Art. 93); “To depart from piety is to depart from God” (Homilies on the Apostle, Galatians, Ch. 1, fol. 1473).

Let us turn to proofs of the above assertion regarding the cessation of the priesthood. First of all, let us recall the words of the prophet Ezekiel and the interpretations of them by Blessed Jerome, where we shall be assured of the following:

“Therefore, shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I Myself will require My flock at the hand of the shepherds, and I will destroy them, so that they no longer pasture My flock, and the shepherds will no longer pasture themselves; and I will deliver My flock from their mouth, and they will no longer be food for them” (Ezekiel 34:9-10).

Interpretation: “The word is addressed to the shepherds of Israel, whom we must understand either as kings or princes, scribes and Pharisees, and teachers of the Jewish people, or, in the evangelical people, as bishops, presbyters, and deacons”…

“Behold, I Myself will come to the shepherds and require My flock from the hand of those to whom it would have been better to have millstones hung around their necks than to scandalize even the least of My people.”

“And this will be the greatest punishment for them: that they will no longer pasture My flock, and under the guise of sheep pasture themselves and amass wealth. And I will deliver My people from their mouth” (Works of Blessed Jerome, Vol. 4, Part 2, pp. 94, 97-99. 2nd ed., 1912).

In another place we have the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “Wail, shepherds, and groan, and cover yourselves with ashes, leaders of the flock. For your days are fulfilled for your slaughter and your scattering, and you will fall like precious vessels, and flight will perish from the shepherds and salvation from the leaders of the flock” (Jeremiah 25:34-35).

Interpretation: “Your days are fulfilled for your slaughter. Their days will be fulfilled when their sins are fulfilled. And they will be scattered and fall like precious vessels, so that, once broken, they cannot be restored; and the more precious they were before, the greater the loss from their destruction — or like chosen sheep that will become a fat sacrifice for those who wish to devour them” (Works of Blessed Jerome, Vol. 4, Part 6, pp. 435-436. 2nd ed., 1905).

And in a third place, Blessed Jerome speaks in the name of the prophet, applying the interpretation to the fall of the shepherds: “The prophet and the priest are defiled; in My house I have found their iniquities, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:11-12).

Interpretation: “The house of Christ is the Church… but when they are in darkness and on a slippery path, that is, in heretical delusion, then they will be forced into all wavering and will fall” (Blessed Jerome, Vol. 4, Part 6, p. 405. 2nd ed., 1905).

The above prophecy, together with the interpretation of Blessed Jerome concerning the fall of the shepherds — both Old Testament and New Testament — has been fulfilled among us in Russia as well. Twenty-two years before the schism of the Russian Church, Abbot Nathaniel of the Kyiv St. Michael’s Monastery wrote the “Book of Faith,” printed in Moscow under Patriarch Joseph in 1648.

In this work, fully in accordance with what has been said above, the very year of the fall of the priesthood is prophetically foreseen: “After a thousand years,” we read in the “Book of Faith,” “from the incarnation of the Word of God, Rome fell away with all the western countries from the Eastern Church. And in the five hundred and ninety-fifth year after the thousand, the inhabitants of Little Russia joined the Roman Church and gave him a charter of submission to the full will of the Roman pope. This is the second tearing away of Christians from the Eastern Church. Guarding against this, it is written: when 1666 years are fulfilled, may it not happen to us, because of previous causes, some evil.” “And whoever reaches those times will be at war with the devil himself” (Ch. 30, fol. 272v and above, fol. 271).

As we see, the “Book of Faith” notes, after a thousand years from the Nativity of Christ, the falling away of Rome from piety along with all western countries, and in 1595 the same deviation of the inhabitants of Little Russia and their union with the Roman Church.

Protecting Russian piety, the author further warns that with the arrival of 1666, what happened to Rome, the western countries, and Little Russia might not happen to us as well. In 1666, whoever reaches it will have to fight with Satan himself.

Patriarch Nikon himself, more familiar than others with the work of his own hands, remarked very notably about his subordinates and the work done: “The entire Russian Church has fallen into Latin dogmas and teachings” (History of the Russian Church by Metr. Macarius, Vol. 12, p. 742).

“It has separated from the holy Eastern Apostolic Church and joined the Roman Church” (Ibid., p. 724).

“As many as are now metropolitans, archbishops and bishops… priests and deacons, and other church clergy… Metropolitans are no longer worthy to be called metropolitans, likewise archbishops, even to the last, even if they count themselves in rank and appear adorned with the beauty of sacred vestments, as metropolitans and archbishops and others — according to the holy divine canons they are deposed; and whatever they bless is unblessed. For those baptized by them are unbaptized, and those ordained by them are not clergy… and for this reason all priesthood and sacred office has been abolished” (Prof. Kapterev, “Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich,” Vol. 2, p. 200).

With the abolition of the priesthood (only external vestments and human titles do not serve as a sign of its authenticity), there can also be no visible sacrament of Holy Communion, which can only be administered by truly Orthodox pastors.

Suffering for the Faith

It must be noted that during the times of Rome’s falling away from piety, as well as the conclusion of the union in Little Russia, there were shocking events: there was no limit to the sufferings and misfortunes of Christians persecuted and cruelly oppressed by those who had fallen away from piety. This is precisely what the prophetic book had in mind when foretelling that Christians would have to endure greater evil and bitterer sufferings in the struggle with the devil himself.

Thus later, exactly as written, everything happened: the Russian pastors, led by Patriarch Nikon, not only apostatized from piety by falling into Latin heresies, but also raised terrible persecution against the faithful Christians who rejected the newly introduced dogmas and heretical customs.

The only steadfast bishop in those years of trials, Paul of Kolomna, who did not accept Nikon’s innovations, was personally beaten half to death by the patriarch and ordered sent into exile, where by Nikon’s own order the last bishop was murdered and his body burned (History of the Russian Church by Metr. Macarius, Vol. 12, pp. 145–146). Burned alive in Pustozersk were Protopope Avvakum, Priest Lazar, Monk Epiphanius, and one Nikiphor (Sketches of Priestism by L. I. Melnikov, Vol. 7, p. 382).

Dry excerpts from historical investigations paint for us the sufferings of our ancestors for their unwillingness to follow Nikon’s heresies: “Schismatics were exiled, imprisoned in jails, casemates, and monasteries, tortured and burned with fire relentlessly, flogged mercilessly with whips, nostrils torn, tongues cut out, heads chopped on blocks, ribs broken with pincers, thrown into wooden cages and, covered with straw, burned, naked doused with cold water and frozen, hanged, impaled, quartered, veins pulled out… in a word, everything that human beastliness could invent to instill panic and terror was put into action” (Schism and Sectarianism in Russian Popular Life by A. S. Prugavin, p. 31, 1905 ed.).

The human mind refuses to understand how archpastors of the Church, calling themselves the Orthodox priesthood, could perpetrate this horror, truly inspired by the devil himself; the apostasy of the Roman popes, following the indications of the English historian Robert James (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2), and the persecutions associated with papism pale in comparison to the sophistication of Nikon’s lords in tortures and murders.

Another very interesting reference fully confirms the main idea of the “Book of Faith” in depicting the elemental events of that time in Rus’: “The Supreme Church Administration in Russia” (Religious-Philosophical Library ed., 1905, p. 89) describes what was happening as follows: “Under the most gentle Alexei Mikhailovich, a significant part of the Russian population suddenly felt that it was impossible to live, and in despair rushed into forests and deserts, climbed into burning log houses. What had happened? To these people it seemed that the greatest calamity on earth had occurred: that the hierarchs had deviated into Latinism, that true spiritual authority was gone, and the kingdom of the Antichrist had come in the Orthodox world. A tyrant-patriarch sat on the throne of the martyr-metropolitan, himself accepted Latinism and forced others to do so.”

This text represents a classic Old Believer (particularly priestless/Bespopovtsy) explanation of why, after the 17th-century schism, the visible sacrament of Eucharist (with proper priesthood) is considered impossible in their communities — the grace-filled apostolic succession was lost due to the “heresy” introduced by Patriarch Nikon in 1666, as prophesied in pre-schism books.

Servants of the Antichrist

Now let us consider the next point of our discussion — the prophecies and interpretations of the holy fathers as proof of the inevitability of the shepherds turning into servants of the Antichrist.

The holy prophet Zechariah says (11:15): “And the Lord said to me: Take yet again for yourself the shepherd’s equipment of an unskilled shepherd.”

Blessed Jerome provides the following interpretation of this: “It is undoubtedly the case that the foolish or unskilled shepherd is the Antichrist” (Works, Part 15, p. 150, 1915 ed.).

And St. Ephraim the Syrian confirms this thought with the words: “In the image of this shepherd the Antichrist is presented” (Works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, Part 6, p. 189, 1901 ed.).

Thus, foolish shepherds who deviate from the true faith and sin against it, according to the words of St. Ephraim the Syrian, already represent the Antichrist themselves.

The concept of “Antichrist” is not and will not be the personality of a single man or other living being, as some often think; the understanding of the meaning of this term must be broader, so that in this sense every heretic and apostate is a particle of the body of the Antichrist, and individually is his servant, drawing the trusting and faint-hearted onto the path of unrighteousness by his teaching.

It is precisely such false shepherds, as servants of the Antichrist, who by their apostasy from piety have destroyed the sacrament of Holy Communion.

The Abomination of Desolation

The Antichrist will destroy the sacrament of Holy Communion — such are the reflections and explanations of St. John Chrysostom. The Antichrist, through his emissaries, begins to destroy the true sacrifice, but the time will come when not only everywhere, but even in the Apostolic Church, on the holy place, “he will set up his abomination,” and the true Christians who are in Judea should “flee to the mountains,” the Book of Kirill warns.

It is necessary to explain what “the abomination of desolation” means and how to understand “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” On these last words, St. John Chrysostom gives the following explanation: “Those who are in Christianity should take refuge in the Scripture, for from the time when heresies began to disturb the Church, no true Christian refuge can be had for those who wish to know the correctness of the faith, except the Divine Scripture” (Book of Faith, Ch. 23, fol. 215v).

Thus, whoever is a true Christian must always turn to the Holy Scripture, because from the time the Church was disturbed by heresies, nothing can serve as a Christian refuge for knowing the true faith except the Divine Scripture. And the holy father Hippolytus, Pope of Rome, in his discourse points out to us that “those who hear the Divine Scriptures and hold them in their hands and are always instructed in them in their minds, many will escape his deception” (Discourse 3, Meat-fare Sunday after the Synaxarion, fol. 183v).

Let us also turn to this indisputable and sole source in our further examination of the concept of “the abomination of desolation,” which is to be established by the Antichrist on the holy place, and how to understand this latter designation (the holy place).

Regarding the first, in the Menaion (Life of St. Eusebius of Samosata) we are assured: “Thus not only people of full age, but even little children abhorred that heretical bishop, who was as the abomination of desolation standing on the holy place” (Menaion, June 22, fol. 149). In the city of Samosata, the heretics, having driven out the truly Orthodox bishop, appointed one like themselves in his place, and it was this other heretical bishop whom not only adults but even children called the abomination of desolation on the holy place.

In the same source, but in another place, we read: “For it was to be seen how, in place of the true shepherd of Christ, a wolf in sheep’s clothing of the episcopal rank entered into Christ’s flock. The Orthodox people of Odessa, unwilling to turn to that false shepherd-heretic who was the abomination of desolation standing on the holy place in the Church as its head, went out of the city into the fields and, gathering in a deserted place, performed the divine services to God” (Menaion, August 29, fol. 527v).

From the cited passages of Holy Scripture we are convinced that pious people considered the appearing heretical hierarchs to be “the abomination of desolation” and, striving to distance themselves from the abominable, went out into the fields to perform divine services.

Blessed Jerome confirms this designation with the words: “Under the abomination of desolation one may also understand every perverse teaching, when we see it standing on the holy place, that is, in the Church” (Blessed Jerome, Part 16, p. 250, 1901 ed.).

The holy place denotes the throne on which the sacrifice must be offered to God, that is, the sacrament of Holy Communion, as the Book of Kirill states on fol. 31: “The throne is the holy place, on which the priests offer the sacrifice to God, consecrating the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Therefore, according to what has been cited above, heretical archpastors and pastors are servants of the Antichrist, constituting his body; they are themselves the abomination of desolation, performing the service on the holy place, that is, on the throne.

The Destruction of Holy Communion

In the Book of Kirill of Jerusalem we read: “For concerning this Christ the holy one says: that the Antichrist, before his coming, will do what he will everywhere destroy the altars and the true sacrifice, and will set up his idol on the holy place. Already such abominable desolation is being begun by the false prophets sent by him, and from this we know that the day of the Lord is already near, for when the last daily sacrifice established in Solomon’s church was desolated, as spoken of that desolation in the Gospel and likewise said by the prophet Daniel, the power of the Jews was again fulfilled and completed and ended, and the temple was destroyed.”

“Thus in desolation will be the present holy sacrifice, which is not in Solomon’s temple but is established throughout the whole world…”

“And not only everywhere and in every place, but even in the original Apostolic Church in Jerusalem he will bring the true sacrifice into desolation and set up his evil abomination on the holy place, as it is written: When you see the abomination of desolation standing on the holy place, then let those in Judea flee to the mountains” (Book of Kirill, fol. 32v).

The Antichrist will destroy the sacrament of Holy Communion — such are the reflections and explanations of St. John Chrysostom: the Antichrist through his emissaries begins to destroy the true sacrifice, but the time will come when not only everywhere, but even in the Apostolic Church on the holy place “he will introduce his abomination” and true Christians who are in Judea should “flee to the mountains,” the Book of Kirill warns.

Particular attention deserves the prophetic word about the Antichrist from the teacher of the 3rd century, the holy Hippolytus, Pope of Rome: “The Churches of God will weep with great weeping, for neither offering nor incense is performed, nor God-pleasing service. The holy Churches will be like vegetable storehouses, and the precious Body and Blood of Christ will not appear in those days” (Discourse 3, Meat-fare Sunday after the Synaxarion, fol. 184v).

Another holy father, who lived in the 4th century, predicted: “Then all the Churches of Christ will weep with great weeping, for there will be no holy service in the altars, nor offering” (Ephraim the Syrian, Discourse 105 according to the collection, fol. 227v).

St. Theodore the Studite writes on p. 440, Letter 80, Vol. 2, Part 2: “For a temple defiled by heretics is not the holy temple of God, but an ordinary house, as Basil the Great says, since the angel who was present at each Church has departed from it because of impiety. Therefore the sacrifice performed in it is not accepted by God.

Listen to how He Himself says: ‘The lawless one who offers Me a calf is as one who kills a dog’” (Isaiah 66:3).

And Blessed Jerome (Vol. 4, Part 2, p. 155, 1912 ed.) points out that heretics also imitate the gentleness of the Church, but their offering is not as service to God, but as food for demons.

Thus, the holy fathers teach us that the temple of God defiled by heretics is likened to an ordinary house, and the angel of the Lord departs from it; the sacrament of Communion performed by heretics in imitation of the true one is food for demons.

The external, purely theatrical action is still performed to this day under the guise of the sacrament of Communion by false shepherds, in particular by those who have apostatized from ancient piety; but, remembering the instructions of the holy fathers of the Church, true Christians must in every way avoid both heretics and their inventions. For even St. Theodore the Studite warned: “And if he again abstains (from Communion) because of heresy, this is necessary. For Communion from a heretic or from one openly condemned in life alienates from God and delivers to the devil” (Theodore the Studite, Vol. 2, Part 1, Letter 58, p. 323).

Old Rite Christians Without Priests (Bezpopovtsy)

Do the Old Believer-Bespopovtsy sin against the commandments of God when they flee from apostate shepherds, whose false sacraments bring destruction to their souls, according to the testimony of the holy fathers of the Church? They do not sin; the sacrament is absent among us because it does not exist in the world today in a pure form worthy of its high purpose, just as in general there is observed a deviation and shift from the paths of righteousness.

The Lord God, for the sins of men, permits the holy temples, the holy sacrament, and the priesthood to be defiled.

In the Menaion for the month of August, on the 20th day, in the Life of the Prophet Samuel, we read: “And the sins of the people do not so quickly move the wrathful God to vengeance as the sins of those who have been appointed by God as authorities and rulers of the people.”

“For wherever the righteous vengeance of God overtakes, there it spares not even the sanctuary.”

“Thus God, for the sins of the rulers, delivers the subjects to punishment, and for the foul deeds of those who serve the altar, permits the holy altars to be plundered by the hands of the impious, and the holy temples to be laid waste” (fol. 501v).

From what has been read it follows that God permits the abomination of desolation to be in the holy altars because of the foul deeds of those who serve them (that is, the priesthood).

In the holy writings there are also such lines on this subject: “You marvel, beloved, how God does not spare His own houses when He permits wrath upon the earth. For if He did not spare the holy Ark, but delivered it to the foreigners, together with the priests who had sinned, and the temple of consecration, and the Cherubim of glory, and the garments, and prophecy, and anointing, and apparitions, to be trampled and defiled by the Gentiles, neither does He spare the holy churches and the most pure mysteries” (Book of Nikon of the Black Mountain, Discourse 41, fol. 308v).

We justifiably compare the above with the defilement and delivery into the hands of the impious of both the altars with thrones and Holy Communion from the time of Patriarch Nikon. And what is called Communion and is still practiced among those who are only so-called Orthodox we evaluate with the words of St. Theodore the Studite:

“This is an abyss and a net of the devil — communion with heretics. One who falls into this net is cut off from Christ and led far from the flock of the Lord. As great as the difference between light and darkness, so great is the difference between Orthodox Communion and heretical communion. The first enlightens, the second darkens; the one unites with Christ, the other with the devil; the one quickens the soul, the other kills it” (Theodore the Studite, Vol. 2, Part 2, Letter 154, p. 742, 1908 ed.).

We follow this teaching of the holy fathers: if there is no true sacrament of Holy Communion — we do not accept the false one that is destructive to the soul. Cyprian of Carthage points out (in Letter 56, Part 1, p. 316): “And thus the people who obey the divine commandments and fear God must separate themselves from the sinful leader and not participate in the sacrifice of the sacrilegious priest.”

The above-quoted Theodore the Studite writes in the same second volume: “As the divine bread of which the Orthodox partake makes all who partake of it one body, so exactly the heretical bread, bringing those who partake of it into communion with one another, makes them one body opposed to Christ” (Part 2, Letter 153, p. 532).

We do not forget the warning of Blessed Jerome, in Part 6 of his works (p. 78, 1905 ed.), reminding Christians of the church of heretics, “which calls to itself the foolish in mind so that, deceived by it, he may receive stolen bread and stolen water, that is: false sacrament.”

Is Holy Communion Salvific?

It is necessary to note one more very important point in the matter of the sacrament of Holy Communion: even in its pure and untouched form, it cannot of itself save a person, as is confirmed by the proofs cited below:

“Truly, then, in Judas it bears witness that, having received the most holy bread from the most pure hands of the Master Christ, Satan immediately entered into him because of his unworthiness” (Prologue, March 22, fol. 117).

“‘Take,’ He said, ‘the bread of which you have partaken from Me…’ Since the Lord gave the bread to Judas, perhaps in the hope that, coming to his senses at the table of bread, he would abandon the betrayal; but Judas was not thus persuaded, and then he became wholly satanic” (Blessed Gospel, Interpretation of Theophylact on the 45th Pericope of the Gospel of John, fols. 222 and 223).

As we are convinced — the apostle Judas, having communed directly from the hands of the Savior Himself, nevertheless perished; the utterance of Christ’s words “take from Me the bread and commune,” and the very performance of the sacrament of communion, which was intended to bring Judas Iscariot to reason and to his senses — did not restrain the latter from the greatest crime and his own destruction.

Therefore, it is not communion that has the power to save a person or to restrain him from crime — this depends first of all on the Christian himself, who is recognized by the manner of his life, by his good deeds, and not by whether he communes, as St. John Chrysostom also teaches us:

“For a believer should not be known by partaking of the holy mysteries, but by an excellent life and pleasing deeds” (Blessed Gospel, Preface to Matthew, Moral Teaching of John Chrysostom, fol. 24).

The thief crucified with Christ, who was considered a desperate sinner, was brought by the Savior into Paradise, although, of course, during his greatly sinful life he never communed; about this St. Ephraim the Syrian says:

“Since the Jews chose the thief and rejected Christ, God chose the thief and rejected them. But where then is that (which was said): ‘Unless one eats My flesh, he has no life’? (John 6:53): (above). When He received faith from the thief, in return He freely granted him immeasurable gifts, freely poured out His treasures before him, and immediately transferred him into His Paradise and there placed the one brought in (into Paradise) over His treasures: ‘Today you will be with Me in Paradise of desires!’” (Works of Ephraim the Syrian, Part 8, pp. 306–305).

The holy father refers in this case to the passage from the Holy Gospel with which the “zealots” of the Old Rite so love to reproach us, citing the well-known words of the Savior: “Unless one eats My flesh, he has no life.”

St. Ephraim the Syrian, as if emphasizing this, asks: “But where then is that which was said, that whoever does not commune will not be saved?” For the Lord did bring the thief into Paradise, granting him all good things for his sincere faith.

A person can be saved even without visible communion under the conditions that determined the existence of the followers of ancient Orthodoxy. The New Rite Church, in the person of the memorable missionaries, literally raged, frightening the already oppressed wisdom of the rulers and their adherents of the priestless faction with the notorious absence of physical communion.

Thunderously and with lightning raging about our “pernicious transgression,” the fathers of the Jesuit stripe diplomatically bypassed the embarrassing book for their methods of “persuasive” processing, the “Rod of Governance,” published with the blessing of two Greek patriarchs and the entire council of 1666. In this source, already of Nikonian origin, we read what the grieving “schism scholars” preferred to keep silent about us: “It is necessary for all to know that some church mysteries are, by necessity, intermediate, such as chrismation, the Eucharist, and unction, of which, if someone is not vouchsafed because of some necessity, he can still be saved. Others, however, are commandments of necessity, and these are two: baptism and repentance, without which it is not possible to obtain salvation” (Rod of Governance, fol. 49v, 1666 ed.).

In another little book published by the New Rite Metropolitan (of St. Petersburg and Novgorod) Gregory under the title “The Truly Ancient, Truly Orthodox Church,” on p. 311 it is stated: “In all such cases, one who earnestly desires to commune, even though he does not actually commune, communes spiritually: that is, then, according to his earnest desire to partake of the holy mysteries of Christ, his earnest desire to commune is accounted to him as actual communion, just as faith was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. Whoever communes thus spiritually receives all the good things that one who communes in actuality receives” (Part 1, 1898 ed.).

The cited texts from Nikonian theology, contrary to the heated missionary heads, also indisputably support our main thought about the possibility of salvation without Holy Communion when it does not exist in an undefiled form.

But even in our time worthy of bitter weeping, the Old Believer-Bespopovtsy have their consolation, for, according to the testimonies of the holy fathers cited below, they possess another altar, high but invisible — by the sacrifice of which they commune spiritually. St. Gregory the Theologian says: “They will not allow me to the altars, but I know another altar, of which the visible altars now serve as an image… which is entirely the work of the mind and to which one ascends by contemplation. I will stand before it, on it I will offer to God what is pleasing, and a sacrifice and whole-burnt offerings, so much better than those offered now, as truth is better than shadow… From this altar no one will drag me away; they may expel me from the city, but they will not expel me from that city which is above” (Works of Gregory the Theologian, Part 1, Art. 382 and 3, Soykin ed.).

It is to such an altar that our prayerful gaze has been turned since the times of the ill-fated reformer Patriarch Nikon; the holy father Athanasius of Alexandria teaches in his works: “They shall not be ashamed in the evil time” (Ps. 36:19). In times of persecution, when teachers are scarce, the Lord Himself will nourish the believers in Him with His Spirit” (Part 4, p. 29, 1903 ed., in the interpretation of the Psalms according to the excerpts of Permyakov, Part 1, fol. 222v).

In Part 3 (Letter 4, pp. 98–99), the holy father explains more extensively and definitely: “I also note this figure of speech in the Gospel of John, when the Lord, speaking about eating His body and seeing that many were offended by it, says: ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life’ (John 6:63). For He says: the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. And this meant that what is shown and given for the salvation of the world is the flesh that I bear. But this flesh and its blood will be given by Me to you spiritually as food, so that It will be imparted to each one spiritually and will become for all a preservation unto the resurrection of eternal life” (Works of Athanasius of Alexandria according to the excerpts of Permyakov, Part 1, fol. 220v).

And we, Old Believers, not having now the visible sacrament of Holy Communion and its performers, nevertheless receive the possibility, through faith in Jesus Christ, to commune spiritually, according to the words of St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Gregory the Theologian.

This spiritual union with the Body and Blood of the Lord also occurs through the knowledge of the word of God, as Blessed Jerome writes about this: “Since the body of the Lord is true food and His blood is true drink, then, according to the mystical interpretation, in this present age we have only this one good thing: if we feed on His flesh and drink His blood, not only in the sacrament (Eucharist), but also in the reading of the Scriptures: for the true food and drink received from the word of God is the knowledge of the Scriptures” (Blessed Jerome, Part 6, p. 37).

Afterword to the Second Edition

The present brochure is intended for people who are already well acquainted with Christian doctrine and capable of serious and thoughtful reading. For those who are only now, in our troubled times, coming to faith in the Lord, it would be advisable at first to recommend books that can be easily assimilated by them without excessive spiritual and intellectual strain.

Much has been written about spiritual communion among the Old Believer-Pomortsy, and it is difficult to add anything to what was said by the instructor of the Riga Grebenshchikov Community, Fr. Mikhail Vlasov († 1958). Perhaps only a few lines.

Today, followers of the New Rite more insistently than ever repeat the well-known words of Christ: “Unless one eats My flesh, he has no life” (John 6:53), directing them against the Old Believers who have no priesthood and therefore no sacrament of the Eucharist.

Yet these words become a snare not for the Old Believers, but on the contrary — for those who attempt to use them against the ancient Orthodox Christians.

First of all, let us reflect: did the Old Believers themselves deprive themselves of the priesthood, and along with it the Eucharist, or is this the “merit” of the New Rite adherents? Who destroyed, exiled, and executed the ancient Orthodox bishops and priests? Was it the Old Believers who did this? It turns out that the New Rite adherents, while believing that the deprivation of the Eucharist leaves a huge number of deeply believing Russian people without hope of salvation and eternal life, have nevertheless condemned them to eternal torment and spiritual death! But then, will the reward from God for this be great for them either? Perhaps, then, it would be better to weep not for us, but for themselves?

Usually the New Rite adherents object: “Of course, there were injustices on our part toward the Old Believers, but much time has passed, we acknowledge our mistakes, now there is no reason for alienation, and you Old Believers sin against God by still remaining without the Eucharist.” In these words only one thing is just: one should not hold onto evil and offenses. But neither should we forget our history. The Lord alone knows what an ocean of tears and blood was shed by Russian people for their Old Faith; yet every Christian well knows that the true Christian Faith was never spread by violence and blood. The Old Believers were brought to “Holy Communion” by sword, fire, and penal chains, and it would be surprising if the thought did not arise among them that in spirit this would be communion not to Christ, but on the contrary — to the Antichrist. The word of historical truth and sincere repentance from the side of the New Rite adherents (with rare exceptions) has still not been spoken. For these were not mere “injustices” and “mistakes”; it was a well-organized and enormous in scale mass destruction of the spiritually most developed representatives of their own people. Today something similar is called genocide. And if the roots of the New Rite hierarchy were nourished by Christian, rather than Christ’s, flesh and blood, can there be confidence that the tree grown from these roots (i.e., the contemporary New Rite Church) is preparing life-giving fruits for all who partake of it? God grant, as they say, that we are mistaken in this; but if there is even the slightest serious ground for doubt, does a Christian have the right to approach Holy Communion?

And are there not reasons for such doubts given to us by the entire history of our people? Few doubt that the Bolsheviks are responsible for bringing Russia in a short time to spiritual and economic crisis, but was not the spiritual crisis already at its sharpest peak in 1917, when Russia entered that year after 250 years of the New Rite adherents’ monopoly on the truth? Why did the Russian people as a whole so easily renounce Christ? Are only “foreigners” and “non-believers” to blame? The New Rite Church itself took upon itself responsibility for the spiritual state of the Russian people, and took it by force — from it the accounting will be demanded. “By their fruits you shall know them,” said Christ (Matt. 7:16), and these “fruits” give plenty of food for thought even in our time.

Let us return again to the main argument of the New Rite adherents (John 6:53). It is a remarkable phenomenon: they always strive to emphasize their refinement, theological sophistication, dislike of literalism, “spiritual ignorance,” and so on, but the cited words of Christ have become for them some kind of stumbling block — for some reason they are understood this time exclusively literally. Meanwhile, one does not need to graduate from theological academies to understand that in these and similar words of Christ the main thought is not a reminder of the visible sacrament of the Eucharist, but life in accordance with faith in Christ, the assimilation by the whole human being of the Saving Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This seems so obvious that it hardly requires any proof. One need only read the writings of the holy fathers more often, and the Gospel itself. And did not Christ also call Himself “the fountain of living water,” offering everyone to drink from Him? Should not the New Rite adherents recognize that they do not have an exclusive right to interpret Holy Scripture, and acknowledge that in the words (John 6:53) there is, of course, a literal meaning relating to the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, but above all one should see in them the spiritual meaning? And our ancestors in the times of piety had Holy Eucharist, reverently performing the sacrament in remembrance of Christ’s Sacrifice, but they did not fall into the extreme of literalism. M. Vlasov reminds us of the thief saved on the cross; one can also read in the Menaia or Prologues about those holy martyrs who believed in Christ but who had not yet been vouchsafed not only Holy Eucharist, but even Holy Baptism (like the thief), yet suffered for the faith and were granted the crown. Any literalism in interpreting Holy Scripture can lead to dangerous heresies. So in this case: who gave the New Rite adherents the right to limit the Almighty God? Is it worthy of the title of educated theologians to make the action of God’s Grace dependent on accidental circumstances of earthly life? Does the absence of earthly priesthood stop or limit the action of the Holy Spirit, and is Christ no longer the High Priest? No, the Nikonians were able to destroy Bishop Paul of Kolomna, but no one will succeed in destroying God’s Mercy and His Omnipotence. Yes, we have no visible sacrament, but we are not guilty of its humiliation. With all our heart we desire Communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ and believe that He Who in His Essence is Superabundant Love and Perfection will not abandon us in His goodness!

A thinking person must distinguish the visible and invisible sides of the sacrament. If only the form is performed — which, though in a distorted form, has nevertheless remained among the New Rite adherents — can one always be confident in the efficacy of the sacrament? After all, any Old Believer instructor could arbitrarily put on priestly vestments and dare to perform the sacrament, but at the same time it is perfectly clear that the sacrament would not be valid, for the one who dared has usurped what was not given to him by the Church, broken the succession, and done what he has no authority or blessing from predecessors for. Among the New Rite adherents the visible side of the sacrament has not been interrupted, which serves them as a constant reason for condescending attitude toward the Old Believers. But is everything so simple with the invisible side? Has not only the external form remained? Grace is an invisible thing — has it not departed from those Nikonian hierarchs on whose conscience were the weeping of orphans, the sobbing of widows, and ruined lives? Is it not from those hierarchs that the current clergy have received ordination in succession? Were not those hierarchs the ones who not only rejected the native church tradition, but mocked it and subjected it to anathema? Did not this very anathema, together with the blessing and incitement of the civil authorities to violence, break precisely that apostolic succession of which the New Rite adherents are so proud? The point is that it is impossible not to recognize that the visible side in no way can guarantee the validity of the sacrament if other important conditions are not fulfilled — and the first of them is apostolic succession, not only in form, but in spirit. But as for the invisible side of the sacrament, which depends on God — this is precisely the most important side, without which only an inactive form remains of the sacrament. And there are many examples in church history when, by His mercy, the Lord granted His Gifts to people regardless of external circumstances: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).

However strange it may sound to the New Rite adherents, no one reveres the purity of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist more than precisely the Old Believer-Bespopovtsy. The New Rite adherents ought once honestly to acknowledge: does their church society exist on the foundations laid by the seven Ecumenical and nine Local Councils, which are called “church rules” and constitute an integral part of the Ancient Orthodox Sacred Tradition? What can now be seen in New Rite churches during the performance of “baptism” and “Eucharist” is, at best, not a holy sacrament but a church rite; at worst — a mockery of the sacrament. When was the last time church rules were applied to New Rite pastors and flock? After all, anyone familiar with these rules knows that in our time, according to the ancient church canons, very few people can be admitted to Holy Communion without a corresponding penance lasting years. Who and when abolished the church rules? Who and when introduced new rules into the Church? To what are the New Rite adherents — willingly or unwillingly — calling us: to apostasy from the Holy Tradition, to the replacement of the sacrament with a rite?

So let it be better that in the Ancient Orthodox Church there be preserved the bright and pure memory of the undefiled Throne of God, upon which the Lord will come again to tread in the Day of His Second and Great Coming! And if we have faith and deeds, if we have love and the truth of God, then there is also hope in the Mercy of the Creator and Savior!

Glory to our God, now and ever, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Published by the Brotherhood of Zealots of Ancient Orthodoxy in the Name of the Holy Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Publishing House “Third Rome,” Moscow, 1999.

by E.A. Ageeva.

In the Old Believer tale “About the Greatly Zealous and Long-Suffering Archpriest Avvakum,” the great ascetic of faith is described as follows: “Archpriest Avvakum, a man of great good and abstinent life, of such great and fiery zeal: abundantly endowed with magnanimity and enriched with much suffering; he was known and loved by the earthly tsar, princes, and boyars for his righteous life; and he appeared desirable to the heavenly King, the angels, and all the saints for his long-suffering endurance. Everywhere he always had good and most useful clerics—friends in prosperous times, counselors in standing for piety, companions in suffering: and everywhere he proved to be valiantly zealous for good. How many long years he suffered, in how many great torments he was enveloped, how many most severe exiles, imprisonments, and dungeons he endured with magnanimity: yet he remained immovable in piety.”[1] Indeed, for Archpriest Avvakum, not only prayer but the entire daily liturgical cycle constituted the most essential foundation of his Christian life—and so inseparably that the archpriest sought to maintain the full liturgical cycle in any circumstances of his own life and that of his spiritual children. The initial source of such prayerful views was, of course, his mother, who later became the nun Martha: “My mother was a faster and a woman of prayer, always teaching me the fear of God,” writes the author of the Life.[2] Undoubtedly, Avvakum himself possessed a special disposition of personality: “Once I saw a dead animal at a neighbor’s, and that night, arising, I wept much before the icon over my own soul, remembering death, that I too must die; and from that time I grew accustomed to praying every night.”[3] He also turned to prayer before marriage, for which he was rewarded with a bride, Anastasia, who “constantly made it her habit to go to church.”[4] Later, Avvakum had many spiritual children, whom he, “without resting, diligently attended in churches, in homes, and at crossroads, in cities and villages, even in the reigning city and in the Siberian land, preaching and teaching the word of God….”[5]

Avvakum encouraged prayerful zeal and conscientious fulfillment of the liturgical cycle. He recalled about Tobolsk: “My spiritual daughter greatly applied herself to the church and cell rules and despised all the beauty of this world.”[6] For Avvakum, sincere striving and self-overcoming in fulfilling the prayer rule were important. He addresses Boyaryna Morozova thus: “Rise at night—do not order people to wake you. But arise yourself from sleep without laziness and fall down and bow to your Creator.” Neither the difficulties of the last times nor persecutions could serve as a reason to weaken prayer discipline. Thus, in a letter to Feodosia, Avvakum remarks: “It seems to me that you have grown lazy about nighttime prayer: that is why I say this to you with joy, recalling the Gospel: ‘When they revile you and drive you out, rejoice on that day and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven.’”[7]

While demanding of others in prayer discipline, Avvakum was extremely strict with himself. Even the most severe circumstances could not serve as a reason to abandon the statutory prayer: “Then another superior, at another time, raged against me—he ran into my house, beat me, and bit my fingers with his teeth like a dog. And when his throat was filled with blood, he released my hand from his teeth and, leaving me, went to his own house. But I, thanking God, wrapped my hand in a cloth and went to vespers.”[8] And another time: “From weakness and great hunger I grew faint in my rule, having almost no strength left—only the vespers psalms, matins, and the first hour, and nothing more; so, like a little animal, I drag myself along; I grieve over that rule but cannot perform it; and now I have grown completely weak.”[9] That is, we are speaking only of some shortening of the rule.

Avvakum’s liturgical practice was also not strictly tied to the space of an Orthodox church, except for the Liturgy. The peculiarities of how Avvakum fulfilled the rule are especially evident in the example of his exile: “Walking along, or dragging a sled, or fishing, or chopping wood in the forest, or doing something else, I recite the rule at that time—vespers and matins, or the hours—whatever comes up. <…> And riding in a sled on Sundays at stopping places, I sing the entire church service, and on weekdays, riding in the sled, I sing; sometimes even on Sundays while riding, I sing. When it is quite impossible to turn, I still turn a little bit anyway. Just as a hungry body desires to eat and a thirsty one desires to drink, so the soul, my father Epiphaniy, desires spiritual food; it is not hunger for bread nor thirst for water that destroys a person, but great hunger for a person is to live without praying to God.”[10] Thus, Avvakum used the daily liturgical cycle as his personal prayer rule. And this was adopted and embraced by the Old Believer accords.

Divine service constitutes the most important part of religious life. History shows that where the prayer rule is strictly observed, the community of believers continues to live, and conversely, where public liturgical life is abandoned, the community falls apart. For Old Believers, the temple of God is the community of the faithful itself. Personal prayer and public divine service form an indivisible complex, especially vividly manifested in Old Belief, and so closely interconnected that attention to liturgical space is diminished, thereby bringing the sacred and the everyday closer together. God’s presence is not necessarily tied to the sacred. What matters is not the place or the number of believers, but faith and piety. Liturgical space is not as important for Old Believers as it was for Avvakum.[11] His prayers took place not only outside churches but often without the necessary attributes, for example, without icons or books. And this too was adopted by Old Believers. The main thing is that prayer should be regular and meaningful. This principle is known from the book The Son of the Church, which has been published many times and is highly respected among Old Believers: “When you stand in church in your place, do not look here and there, nor step onto another’s place. … Do not give in to weakness of the flesh, and do not indulge in the vanities of this world. Only listen to the singing and attend to the reading. And if some word comes and you cannot understand it, then ask those who know about it after the singing.”[12]

Avvakum’s own writings and instructions eventually became difficult for his followers to access. As the study of Old Believer manuscript collections from the second half of the 18th–20th centuries shows, copies or excerpts of the archpriest’s works are quite rare in them. To a greater extent, Avvakum’s written heritage became the property of the scholarly community. However, the universal idea that performing divine services and sacraments is more important than certain external conditions—for example, the presence of liturgical space—firmly took root in Old Belief and found development both in theological thought and in liturgical practice.

source

[1] Tale about Archpriest Avvakum [Text]. — Moscow: Moscow Old Believer Printing House, 1911. Pp. 1-2.

[2] Life of Archpriest Avvakum. M., 1959. P. 54.

[3] Ibid. P. 59.

[4] Ibid. Pp. 59-60.

[5] Ibid. P. 60.

[6] Ibid. P. 117.

[7] Ibid. P. 210.

[8] Ibid. P. 61.

[9] Ibid. P. 91.

[10] Ibid. P. 90.

[11] This idea is convincingly developed; see Ivanov M.V. Archpriest Avvakum on Prayer Outside the Church. Electronic resource: https://ruvera.ru/articles/protopop_avvakum_o_molitve_vne_hrama/comment-page-1

[12] The Son of the Church. M., 1995. Folios 24-25.