In Defense of the Old Believer Hierarchy. #

By Viktor Buzhinsky

The title is deliberately borrowed from Fyodor Yefimovich Melnikov [1], as this topic remains relevant to this day, and the Old Believer hierarchy indeed needs to be defended. But, as strange as it may sound, it must primarily be defended from… the Old Believers themselves. This has been the case throughout the entire existence of the fully established Old Believer hierarchy, which was undoubtedly restored with God’s help by the Old Believers themselves (this took place on October 28, 1846, when the former Bosnian-Sarajevan Metropolitan Ambrose joined the Old Believer Church). Every instance of even a single Old Believer leaving—let alone entire parishes—whether for Edinoverie, the dominant Nikonian church, the creation of other hierarchies (including miniature ones), priestless groups, and so forth, after this remarkable event in Belaya Krinitsa, has dealt a blow to the hard-won and painstakingly restored hierarchy.

If this matter concerned only the Old Believers, it would be a lesser misfortune. But it seems the issue is far graver. The state of the true Church, to which the believers of the Belokrinitsky Accord consider themselves to belong, is inextricably intertwined with the fate of the nation entrusted to them a thousand years ago—Rus’. Let us attempt to demonstrate this, but first, a few remarks on the current situation.

At present, there is a rather persistent stereotype that in the events of the past century, the official Orthodox Church alone is to blame, as it took on the spiritual care of the state-forming Russian nation—Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Great Russians—since the time of the Schism. Old Believers, in contrast, are generally regarded as victims, marginalized and pushed aside, having no further influence on the state. There are virtually no attempts to analyze this historical tragedy from the perspective of Higher Meaning. It is well known that we are not given to fully comprehend God’s Providence, yet at the same time, the Lord constantly calls upon us to have ears to hear and strive to listen to Him.

It is quite evident that the spiritual resistance of the Old Believers could not have failed to impact the fate of Russia. However, discussions on this topic often fall into opposite extremes. Some authors claim that the Old Believers played a significant role in the struggle against autocracy and were almost the decisive force behind the 1917 Revolution and the abdication of the Tsar.

So what is the actual role of Old Believers in Russia’s destiny? Was their resistance a constructive or destructive force? How should we understand the events leading up to 1917 and the Civil War, which resulted in the establishment of the godless Bolshevik regime? Was there truly any contribution of Old Believers to the events of the early 20th century? Finally, in 1991, historic Russia effectively collapsed—that very state which Old Believers had helped build for nearly seven centuries (before the Schism). Is there any connection between these events and the present state of Old Believers?

Naturally, we can only speculate about the answers to these questions. Nevertheless, we must search for them—and search diligently—since delay threatens the gravest upheavals.

But first, it is worth noting that, as suggested in the previous article, the Schism of the 17th century should be viewed as a particular intervention of God in response to specific circumstances—the impending invasion of civilization. Undoubtedly, the side that suffered and continues to suffer is that of the reformists, the Nikonians. The Old Believers—martyrs for Christ, who endured hardships, tribulations, and deprivations, and even gave their lives for Christ—were, it seems, promised mercy by the Lord “unto a thousand generations”, and thus, they cannot be considered as the suffering party. It is also necessary to recognize that without the Nikonians, there would be no Old Believers. Therefore, one should rather pity the Nikonians, accept reality with equanimity, and develop the correct approach to relations with them, especially since the events of the past century have, in many ways, leveled everyone.

But judge for yourselves. In the autumn of 2002, I had the opportunity to participate in the Russian Veche, organized by the Russian Bloc¹. The Veche took place in Bohdan Khmelnytsky Square, near his monument. Among the representatives from various regions of Ukraine, two stood out—a man and a woman—holding a banner that read: “As is God, so is His people: the Russian nation is one and indivisible!” It turned out they had come from a village in the Zhytomyr region and told how they always traveled when there was a need to defend Orthodoxy and Rus’: “We stood for several days² defending the Lavra from the followers of Filaret,³ and we prevailed. We also took part in the Cross Procession when the Pope of Rome visited, and now we are here.” Naturally, they had voted for the Russian Bloc in the elections.

Now, imagine: there were also Old Believers who voted for Our Ukraine, led by V. Yushchenko—a party gathering the most radical pro-Westerners and nationalists. So who, then, are truly our brothers and sisters?

The Nikonians have their own stereotypes, which only those who think deeply and strive to restore the “holy connection of times” can overcome. Such individuals have always replenished the ranks of the Old Believers, and this tendency remains alive and persistent. Undoubtedly, in the events surrounding the Schism, a special role was played by the two-finger sign of the cross, serving as a symbol of memory in a world of forgetfulness. It appears that this sign runs through the entire history of Christianity as such. The three-finger sign, on the other hand, is inherently deficient, as it does not provide reliable spiritual protection. Moreover, a believing Nikonian, when crossing themselves with three fingers, affirms the choice of their ancestors, reinforcing their indifference, sluggishness of mind, and forgetfulness—in other words, a sin that remains unrepented. This has had, and continues to have, a fateful impact on Russia’s destiny and the genetic makeup of the nation (“The Structure Did Not Burn Down, It Is Still Burning,” Part 3).

The Old Believers, if this assumption is correct, were meant to preserve something, to remember, to carry it through the centuries. And perhaps, they were meant to do or create something. And whatever they would produce must surely be pleasing to the Lord. In the article “The Structure Did Not Burn Down, It Is Still Burning, Part 3”, the suggestion was made that everything which needed to be preserved could be summed up in one capacious concept—Holy Rus’. This is the national idea of the Russian people: Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Great Russians. Let us examine to what extent they—the Old Believers—succeeded in this.

In the Gospel of Matthew, it is written how Jesus, responding to the Pharisees’ accusation that “He casteth out devils only by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils” (Matt. 12:24), said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25). The explanation follows in the next verse: “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:26). Similar passages are found in the Gospels of Mark and Luke.

One interpretation of these verses is given by the scholarly monk Euthymius Zigabenus, [2] who explains verse 25 as follows: “Those who are divided shall rise up against one another.”

Let us compare this Gospel situation to the Schism (the division) and the subsequent events. The time span from the Schism to 1991 is just under 350 years. The scale of events and atrocities connected with the Schism was undoubtedly so vast, and the time span so significant, that Russia should have disintegrated into warring factions and been left desolate. Yet this did not happen in 1905, nor in 1917–1922. On the contrary, by 1914, Russia was a fairly strong state which, despite its defeat in the war with Japan, still possessed immense potential.

So why did Russia not fall apart as Scripture suggests? The answer seems self-evident. This could only be the case if one of the divided sides did not represent the forces of evil and did not rise up against the other. That is, if in 350 years Russia did not become desolate, then one of the two forces must have been preserving or protecting. Simple logic suggests that this was the Old Believers, since the activities of the Nikonians were clearly destructive. The Old Believers, however, did not respond to evil with evil; they did not engage in organized armed resistance, they did not rise up. Instead, they chose martyrdom or exile.

An attempt to comprehend those times inevitably leads to a state of turmoil and perplexity before the inexplicable. The reason for this is a sense of the uniqueness of the events that unfolded then and continue to this day—a sense of some great mystery that one instinctively wishes to unravel. And the deeper one delves, the stronger the feeling grows of being drawn into something extraordinary. One begins to understand that one is witnessing a special miraculous phenomenon, stretched over time. It becomes increasingly evident that there is a particular Divine Plan according to which something grand is taking place.

In explanatory dictionaries, a miracle is defined as a wondrous, supernatural phenomenon caused by the intervention of Divine Power. To this, one might add that everything created by God is a miracle. However, when a human being participates in the creation of a miracle, this reflects the synergy between God and man—a man who loves God. It could not be otherwise: “That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). Perhaps this is how saints are born—those who have attained unity with the Lord. And this happens so that others may believe.

But can a people—or at least its best, believing part—live in unity with the Lord, in a way that is pleasing to God? Are there any specific signs by which one could characterize such an extraordinary spiritual state on a national scale? For only in such a case can grand, epochal events take place—only then can we speak of the synergy between God and a people.

In the events surrounding the Schism, we find several such signs.

First, as a result of the Schism, the land of Rus’ became enriched with a vast number of holy martyrs for the Faith, most of whose names remain unknown. No other nation has known such a multitude of saints.

Second, it is striking to consider that the divided people, who fled in different directions from their homeland, ultimately arrived at nearly the same result—the preservation of the Faith in Romania, Australia, the Americas, Siberia, and even in central Russia. Such an outcome is possible only if there is unity with God. Only the Lord could have been that coordinating, guiding force; only from Him could the grace have emanated that was so necessary for sustaining the spirit and strength in difficult times.

Third, the endurance of the Old Believers’ Standing in the Faith for 350 years is astonishing, especially given that they had to start over multiple times, as if from scratch. This indicates the presence of a strong continuity of generations.

Fourthly, in the events of this era—let us call it the Great Standing in Faith for the Faith—as was discussed in the previous article, there are quite evident and instructive mystical coincidences and connections that cannot simply be attributed to mere chance.

With this understanding, one is compelled to look further back in time—what preceded all this? After all, our history did not begin with the Schism. Nearly 700 years of Christianity preceded it, beginning with the Baptism of Rus’. It was then, when churches with crosses reaching toward the heavens began to rise on the slopes of the Dnieper, sanctifying the newly Christian Rus’, that the concept of Holy Rus’ emerged, a reflection of the people’s yearning for unity with God as their pagan worldview irrevocably gave way to the Light of Christ.

In the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra rest the relics of approximately 120 pre-Schism saints. Miraculous healings and other wonders are associated with them, and these have been thoroughly documented in literature. However, one particular aspect deserves special attention—the Great Standing of the Lavra, its preservation to this very day in all its majesty and glory. Rulers and conquerors have come and gone, yet the Lavra has remained standing. But its Standing carries a deeper meaning—as a testament to the synergy between God and man, as a symbol of the divine election of the Russian people, entrusted with carrying the Christian Faith to the very end of history.

Not all Russians, at all times, have shown themselves worthy of this calling. There have been periods of profound moral decline as well as noble and heroic ascents. The well-known openness of the Russian people, their almost childlike vulnerability to foreign influences, has at times brought them to the very brink of destruction. Yet, within the Russian soul, whether openly or hidden, there has always been an insatiable thirst for truth and closeness to God. Even at a subconscious level, there exists an awareness of the futility of worldly vanity—even among those who have attained considerable earthly wealth, fame, and splendor. Even the most downtrodden drunkard harbors, somewhere deep within, a longing for heavenly purity and justice. Perhaps this is why God has never abandoned His people, rescuing them even from the very precipice. The Lavra remains necessary for the Russian people—as a visible reminder of eternity, as a stronghold for those ready to preserve the Christian Faith despite the tempests and storms of worldly life. Perhaps the Great Standing of the Lavra is itself a symbol of Christ’s Church: “I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Those who have visited Kyiv may have noticed that the Lavra stands high above the Dnieper on its right bank, seemingly turned entirely toward the east, as if blessing Muscovite Rus’ to continue its spiritual struggle. It was this very light that inspired St. Sergius of Radonezh and other defenders of Rus’. The Lavra’s spiritual support was undoubtedly felt in the hermitages and self-organized monasteries of Muscovite Rus’ during the Great Standing in Faith for the Fatherland, which was marked by the creation of the Muscovite state and the overthrow of the Tatar yoke (see “The Structure Did Not Burn Down, It Is Still Burning,” Part 1).

The significance of this people’s spiritual struggle, through which they achieved unity with God, extends far beyond the fight against the Tatar invasion. Having decisively rejected union with Rome, Russia—and the world—was presented with an unexpected, profound, and gradually unfolding idea: “Moscow—the Third Rome,” a vision of the Russian people’s messianic role in the world. The time span of this Standing in Faith for the Fatherland encompasses an entire era of roughly 300 years, culminating in the Stoglav Council and, later, the establishment of the Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus’. As a reward for all this, the Lord granted us Siberia—a land where Holy Rus’ could continue to be built and, indeed, a refuge in times of future upheavals.

All these examples of the miraculous unity between God and the people span entire epochs and hold universal significance. Is it necessary to explain that these miracles were manifested by the Lord through the participation of the Old Orthodox Christians—that is, the Old Believers? One more essential characteristic must be emphasized: this movement, this ascent toward God, was a deeply popular phenomenon. No decrees were issued for the founding of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, nor for the establishment of hermitages and monasteries in the forests of Muscovite Rus’. The state did not organize the resettlement of Christians Standing for the Faith during the time of the Great Schism. In reality, it was an exodus—an exodus into the unknown. The only treasure they carried with them was their Faith.

But let us return to the central topic at hand.

Of all the remarkable and instructive events directly related to the Schism, perhaps the most striking episode in the history of Old Believers was the acquisition of a fully restored three-rank hierarchy.

There is no need here to reiterate the canonical and theological justifications for the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, which were convincingly laid out by F. Melnikov. [1,3] What is of greater interest in this case is the mystical character of the events—something noted by many researchers of Old Believer history. Indeed, the Old Believers sought persistently and tirelessly for ways to restore their hierarchy. But it was only in the darkest of times for them (excluding the period of bloody persecutions, of course) that this restoration was finally realized—during the reign of Nicholas I.

Let us reconstruct the events of that time [3]: “Simultaneously with the widespread campaign waged by the government—both secular and ecclesiastical—against the Old Believer clergy, attacks were also directed against the entire Old Believer community. In every province, special secret committees were established, headed by governors and bishops, with a central committee in St. Petersburg, where the Tsar himself presided and took an active role. These committees dealt exclusively with matters of the Schism: they investigated its condition, numbers, and manifestations, and they developed and implemented measures to eradicate it. All Old Believer monasteries and hermitages were closed and plundered. The great centers of Old Belief—Kerzhenets, Irgiz, Vetka, Starodubye, Vyg—were all ravaged, their greatest treasures either stolen or, in most cases, handed over to the Edinoverie movement.”

The staggering tragedies endured by the Old Believers each time their sacred sites were seized from them can be partially understood from official accounts of the destruction of the Irgiz monasteries. A decree from the highest authority was issued on this matter in January 1837. By 1839, “the most significant spiritual centers of the Old Believers had already been devastated and laid waste, with only a few remaining in remote outskirts”. [3]

Let us compare the years 1839 and 1846—a difference of just seven years. By then, one might have assumed with certainty that the Old Believers had finally been eradicated. One can only imagine the shock felt by Tsar Nicholas I and his inner circle when they received news of the full restoration of the Old Believer hierarchy. Undoubtedly, many officials lost their positions. And, of course, they did not learn of it immediately, but only when the process had already become irreversible, when nothing could be changed. Elder Korniliy [4] vividly describes this moment:

“Thus, the government awaited the complete end, believing that the Old Believer faith would soon come to an end and be entirely extinguished. But no sorrow, affliction, or severity comes upon us without Divine Providence, for even these extreme hardships have greatly benefited the Old Believers, who, through such trials, now have… an abundance of bishops—metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops—throughout the whole world, filled beyond measure by the Providence and help of God. And in 1847, when the secret police in Russia captured the Belokrinitsky Archimandrite Gerontiy and brought him to St. Petersburg, the minister, with utmost astonishment, entered and said to Gerontiy: ‘Behold, gentlemen, what kind of faith the Old Believers have! We took every measure, made every effort, seized their priests, leaving them only two crippled old priests at the Rogozhskoye Cemetery in Moscow. We waited impatiently for these old popes to die, believing that once they were gone, the Old Believer faith would be finished and completely disappear. We eagerly awaited the end—any day now! And now, look at this new surprise: here stands an archimandrite, and we hear that in Austria there is already a metropolitan. What a faith the Old Believers have! Truly, this is worthy of the greatest astonishment. Whatever the Old Believers build, we simply cannot cease to marvel at such an indomitable faith. For under Tsar Nicholas Pavlovich, the greatest persecutions against the Old Believers were unleashed—and yet, under the same tsar, they now have their own legitimate bishops!’”

What further proof is needed to confirm the undeniably providential nature of these events? Even at the time, the mystical aspect of what was happening did not go unnoticed. Believers have always been sensitive to possible signs from the Lord, recognizing them even in everyday life. F. Melnikov recounts the story of the hieromonk Hieronymus, who became the spiritual father of Metropolitan Ambrose, to whom he confessed in the altar and from whom he was anointed with holy chrism [3]:

“Old Believer history is full of remarkable, providential intertwinings of significant events and all sorts of coincidences. Hieromonk Hieronymus was ordained by none other than Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow—the most zealous persecutor of the Old Believer clergy. According to testimony from Gennady, Bishop of Perm (the prisoner of Suzdal), Hieronymus was of noble origin, as confirmed by his own brother, State General A.A. Alexandrov. He took monastic vows at the Resurrection Monastery, built by Patriarch Nikon himself. Philaret was extremely strict with those he ordained, and if he elevated Hieronymus to the rank of hieromonk, it means he found good qualities in him. Befriending the Old Believer monk Paisius, Father Hieronymus, under his exhortations, decided to join the Old Believers. Since it was dangerous at that time for a clergyman to serve within the Old Believer community, he fled abroad. The rite of reception was performed upon him on October 28 (another remarkable coincidence), 1843, by the priest Alexei Bulgakov, who was then serving in Manuilovka among the Moldavian Old Believers, anointing him with holy chrism.”

Another remarkable episode is found in the visions of Monk Pavel, who set out to find the bishop so desperately needed by the Old Believers [3,4]. Skeptics might say that he merely dreamt or imagined these visions. But let us reconstruct the sequence of events [3,4].

Monk Pavel, along with Monk Gerontiy, whom Pavel chose as his companion based on the guidance of Saint Nicholas, set out on their mission in 1836. However, their search was interrupted by their arrest in Kutaisi. They were detained for three months, and their mission could not resume until 1839. It was then decided that the episcopal see should be established in a monastery located in the village of Belaya Krinitsa, which at that time was within the Austrian Empire.

F. Melnikov recounts [3]:

“For four whole years, the tireless Monk Pavel, an unparalleled laborer, conducted extensive negotiations to finally obtain the highest authorization for establishing an Old Believer episcopal see in the Belokrinitsky Monastery. How many obstacles, confrontations, misadventures, and misunderstandings he faced—within his own brotherhood, with the public, with government authorities, with officials of all ranks and in various institutions—in the provincial city, in the capital itself, Vienna, and most of all, in the immediate locality! How many documents, memoranda, petitions, and even entire complex and well-reasoned treatises he had to compose—such as the famous Charter of the Belokrinitsky Monastery! Yet the incomparable Pavel overcame everything. In Vienna, he managed to secure a personal audience with Emperor Ferdinand himself and other high dignitaries. Only Pavel’s unwavering faith in God’s protection over his cause and in his own lofty mission—a faith that never wavered, even in the face of the most glaring setbacks—gave him the strength and determination to see everything through to the end. Finally, on September 6, 1844, Emperor Ferdinand issued the following decree:

“At the request of the Lipovan community and the Old Believer monks of Belaya Krinitsa…”

a) “With our most gracious favor, we grant permission to bring from abroad one clerical figure, namely an archpastor or bishop, so that he may confer the higher ordination upon the Lipovan monks residing in Belaya Krinitsa. He shall also ordain priests and select and consecrate a successor for himself.”

Melnikov conveys the atmosphere of jubilation and elation that prevailed in Belaya Krinitsa at that moment:

“Then, after this, Metropolitan Ambrose came forth through the royal doors to the people, now officially united with the ancient Orthodox Old Believer Church according to the established rite. He stood in his full hierarchal splendor as the rightful archpastor of this Church, and, taking the trikyrion and dikyrion in his hands, began to bless the people, both toward the church and to either side.”

An eyewitness historian exclaims:

“What a touching sight and what an unspeakable joy has been arranged today by the Almighty Divine Providence! All the people—of every age and rank—looked on with tears, each feeling in their soul a true delight, and from the depths of their hearts, all gave thanks to the Lord God, who had shown His abundant mercy to His people, the new Israel.”

Could the participants of these events, these true ascetics, have imagined that even 160 years later, the Old Believers would remain divided?

One cannot but agree with F. Melnikov that all of this was accomplished under God’s providential care. For five years, Pavel operated almost openly within Austrian bureaucratic structures, yet Russia took no notice. Surely, he could not have secretly communicated with Emperor Ferdinand and his officials, pleading with them not to inform Nicholas I or anyone else in Russia.

Another important detail must be emphasized: everything was prepared even before a bishop was found—at a time when it was entirely uncertain whether one could be found at all. It was only in 1845 that the search for a bishop actually began. Such confidence in oneself and one’s mission can only come from a deep and grace-filled unity with God. Is this not a miracle—the realization of something that should have been impossible?

Despite the clear providential nature of these events, which should have convinced all Old Believers of the necessity of uniting around the newly established Belokrinitsky hierarchy, such unity never came about, even to this day. Some might argue that Melnikov’s work [3] was published only in our time—perhaps if he had written it earlier… However, the mystical dimension of these events was well known before, as The History by Elder Korniliy [4] dates back to 1881.

The idea of unity has always, in one way or another, been present in Old Believer thought. Before the 1917 revolution, the Belokrinitsky hierarchy repeatedly issued synodal epistles calling for unity among both the Popovtsy (priestly Old Believers) and the Bezpopovtsy (priestless Old Believers), but unfortunately, these appeals went unheeded [3]. Yes, councils were held, passionate debates between Popovtsy and Bezpopovtsy were organized, and the number of parishes steadily grew. However, the main goal remained unachieved—Old Belief remained fragmented into various factions and groups, unable to reconcile with one another. The symptoms of this most severe and prolonged ailment manifested immediately after the restoration of the hierarchy. One need only recall the Neokruzhniki schism within the Belokrinitsky hierarchy itself, and so on.

There was a chance for unity in 1905, when freedom of religion was granted. But this opportunity was lost.

Justifying the significance and necessity of the Old Believer hierarchy, F. Melnikov writes [1]:

“No one, we hope, will deny the immense significance of the Old Believer hierarchy, both among the Old Believers themselves and in their relations with the dominant Church in Russia and the Russian government. It is the center and guiding force of all Old Belief. The Old Believers can and must unite, but only around their own hierarchy.

Without a hierarchy, Old Belief would lack the majestic appeal that draws to it all the faithful who sincerely seek ecclesiastical truth and legitimacy. The internal creative energy within Old Belief, which has led it to an open and free existence within the state, would not be as pronounced, nor would its spiritual strength and gifts be as developed and reinforced. The Old Believer hierarchy acts as the cement that holds together the ecclesiastical structure of Old Belief, granting it mighty and proper growth, outward and inward beauty, and unshakable strength.

Previously, when Old Belief was deprived of its own episcopal leadership, it was forced, due to well-known historical circumstances, to rely solely on priests and deacons. At that time, both the ecclesiastical and secular authorities regarded it as a temporary phenomenon, which would soon come to an end. Without a hierarchical foundation, Old Belief would have fragmented into small sects and, through internal strife, would have ultimately perished—leaving behind no visible trace except for sad and insignificant recollections. This was always the prevailing view of both the dominant Church and the Russian government, and they took the necessary measures to ensure that this expectation was realized as swiftly as possible.”

Today, we see that the dissolution of Russia (meaning the USSR), as the heir to Kievan Rus’ (i.e., the united Russian state of Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Great Russians), has already taken place. Furthermore, even the integrity of the part of Russia inhabited by Great Russians is now in question. Some predict that China will seize Siberia, while Muslims will take over the Urals and the Volga region, and so on.

Finally, as recent events suggest, it has become a real possibility that NATO or even the United States could launch an attack on Russia—should they be dissatisfied with the course of democratic reforms, or should they find some other trivial excuse, such as a supposed violation of LGBTQ rights on the Yamal Peninsula. There have even been predictions that the U.S. would attack Russia in 2010. However, every prediction naturally invites skepticism.

There is a more reliable way to foresee upcoming catastrophes—the weeping of icons.

What, then, are the icons warning us about? What is the scenario of the coming upheavals? How soon will this happen? What is the future of Russia and of each of us? As we can see, there are more questions than answers.

Here, we must pause for a digression. This article was completed in January 2004 but was never published online. In the three years that followed, color revolutions occurred in Georgia and Ukraine. With some reservations, the turmoil in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan can also be categorized in this way. These revolutions followed almost identical scenarios, demonstrating a well-practiced and effective method of bringing anti-Russian forces to power in these countries. Unlike us, they act in a coordinated and calculated manner, advancing on all fronts.

At the same time, such revolutions are nothing new and can be explained from a spiritual perspective. Every such revolution—including the “red” one in Russia from 1917 to 1924, the “brown” one in Germany in 1933, the events of the late 1980s and early 1990s in the USSR, and the “orange” revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine—is, first and foremost, a massive uprising of a godless mob driven to frenzy, blaming anyone but themselves for their misfortunes. The circumstances and nuances may change, but the spiritual foundation of these events remains the same.

Few in the world, if any, can be considered entirely innocent, even in the slightest measure, regarding the catastrophic earthquake of December 26, in which more than 200,000 people perished. However, as with every global or even minor upheaval, the greatest responsibility falls upon those to whom the most has been given. It is now becoming evident that Orthodoxy is no longer capable of maintaining even the appearance of order in the world. Natural disasters are becoming increasingly devastating, and the war of civilizations is growing ever more relentless, with daily human casualties.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine is, on the one hand, a sign of the most serious weakening of Orthodoxy and, on the other, a clear attempt to eradicate it within the sovereign territory of Holy Rus’. Undoubtedly, a new timeline has begun, and the Lord has announced it openly—the revote of the second round took place precisely on December 26.

And though the “orange plague” did not take hold in Russia in 2008, nor in Belarus, there is no reason to speak of any positive shift in the spiritual condition of Russia. On the contrary, Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia may well have been a provocation with far-reaching consequences.

Of course, we must recognize that current events are part of a natural apocalyptic process. But this should in no way bring us comfort. Nor should we take solace in the fact that the forces of evil always perish by their own evil. We must not remain indifferent to how we, as Russians, will conclude the modern history of mankind. God will not forgive us for inaction. He awaits our spiritual resistance.

It seems that even military defeat would not be the worst outcome, for resistance itself would mean that we exit history unbroken in spirit. Far worse would be for Russia to fall as a result of an “orange revolution” or betrayal. Such an end would mean that history has taught us nothing, and that we have proven to be very poor, if not utterly foolish, students.

How and when did the Old Believers lose the qualities so essential for safeguarding Russia?

To understand the events of 1917 and 1991, we must return to 1905, when Nicholas II signed the “Supreme Decree on Strengthening the Foundations of Religious Tolerance.” By this time, Old Belief possessed enormous moral and material potential. Indeed, despite the harshest persecutions, they had managed to restore their priesthood. The Old Believers, in terms of literacy and moral-business qualities, significantly surpassed the rest of Russia’s population. They had developed, under the most challenging conditions, a strong network of mutual assistance and reliability in partnership, skills in commerce, accumulated production facilities, capital, and a significant human resource.

It seemed that with such a foundation, in the new conditions of relative freedom, Old Belief could soon become the dominant spiritual force. Even the rapid pace of church construction indicated a remarkable momentum. Yet, despite this promise, we came to the First World War and then to 1917.

Apparently, the Old Believers’ wealth was not what the Lord required. But not everyone realized this, as many became increasingly entangled in material accumulation and excess.

Once, I had the opportunity to watch a documentary, Russian Art Nouveau. Among the architectural achievements of the early 20th century, the film featured the mansion of the Old Believer Ryabushinsky family. Its intricate and extravagant architecture was striking—so unlike the calm dignity of a wealthy believer’s home. The restless ambition to impress had been frozen in this “music in stone.”

As Russia became increasingly capitalized, the Old Believers clearly succumbed to the spirit of civilization. This was particularly evident among those living in cities. Perhaps pride was also a factor in some of their behavior. And likely, there were other signs as well.

There is another perspective that can be justified if we approach it from the opposite direction, using the Gospel passage cited above.

Let us ask: what happens if those who were once spiritually and ethnically united—descendants of people who, though suffering in different ways and places, nonetheless endured great hardships to preserve the Faith—fail to reunite even when the slightest opportunity arises?

It would mean that their division was not merely a consequence of historical events, but that at least some of them have aligned with the forces of evil. There cannot be more than one True Church. By 1914, there were several major Old Believer factions, along with the dominant state Church. And the state itself stood on the verge of collapse.

The Apostle Paul exhorts:

“If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Philippians 2:1–3)

Another factor must also be considered. The events of 1917 or 1991 were perhaps inevitable. Yet woe to those who brought them closer or did nothing to prevent them. The time is coming—indeed, it may already be here—when we must consciously draw lessons from our history and, if possible, preempt certain catastrophic events or alter the course of impending upheavals. This would be a worthy endeavor for the people whom God chose over a thousand years ago. It would mean that the sacrifices of those who suffered for the true Faith were not in vain.

It is logical to assume that even today, Old Believers bear responsibility for preserving the state, though, considering the current state of Old Belief, this is difficult to believe. Nevertheless, it seems that the necessary spiritual potential for this task still exists within Old Belief, however dormant. It is now essential to emphasize the critical importance of uniting Old Believers, as such unity could serve as a stabilizing and protective force for the state—at the very least by increasing the proportion of people who practice true Orthodoxy. In other words, the balance between piety and sin, the “level of holiness” in society, would shift, increasing its receptivity to divine grace. This transformation would exert a profound spiritual influence on all aspects of national life. Major political and social changes, both internal and external, would take place in favor of Russia. Life itself would become more bearable.

According to Scripture, the ratio of grace to sin can be decisive. Consider the biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, a foreshadowing of the end of the world. Abraham asked the Lord how many righteous people would be sufficient for Him to spare the city (Genesis 18:23–33). The Lord settled on ten. This makes it clear that there is a critical threshold—below which destruction is inevitable. It appears that this threshold is extremely small, and we might even be able to determine it. The First Epistle to the Corinthians may indicate the number of sinners destroyed in Sodom:

“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” (1 Corinthians 10:8)⁴

A simple calculation gives us:
10 × 100% / 23000 ≈ 0.043%

For a safety margin and rounding, let us assume 0.05%.
Using this proportion, the number of faithful required to preserve a state with a population of 200 million would be approximately 100,000.

Of course, “one cannot measure harmony with algebra,” but every number in Scripture is significant, and so these proportions are entirely reasonable.

It is possible that a united Old Belief could gather a sufficient number of believers willing to make sacrifices, just as their ancestors did.

Of course, this reasoning is overly schematic. In reality, things are far more complex. However, simplification is necessary to illustrate that Ancient Orthodoxy could very well be a primary spiritual force—or at least be at the forefront of those spiritual forces whose mission is to hold the world back from premature anarchy and chaos.

In his letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul writes:

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, 6–7)

Saint John Chrysostom explains that the “restrainer” refers to the Roman state [5]. In other words, today’s “restrainer” is Russia, the heir of Rome—the “Third Rome.” But a state cannot exist without the people who inhabit it, and within this people, or at least within a part of it, there must be the spiritual strength and capacity to preserve and uphold the nation. Who, if not the true Church of Christ—whose body is the faithful—has the responsibility to be the “restrainer” in our time?

How, then, can the believing people serve as a restraining force? Who or what can organize them, guide them, compel them to act with unity of purpose, in a manner pleasing to God? By what law must all act in order to fulfill the task of preservation and restraint?

Ivan Kirillov [6] interprets this law as ritual, which arises from tradition:

“A ritual is a custom that has been legitimized by the appropriate authority; custom itself is the sum of experience in a given field. A custom in daily life, when sanctioned by civil authority, takes on the form of law; a custom in religious life, when sanctioned by spiritual authority, becomes a ritual. A citizen who does not obey the laws of his state faces punishment and the loss of certain rights; a member of the Church who does not observe its rituals (laws) thereby excludes himself from the ranks of its spiritual children.”

Bishop Mikhail (Semyonov) [7] attributes special significance to the spiritual power of ritual:

*“What is ritual? It is a ‘shell,’ a garment of dogma, as we have said before. Now, let us express it somewhat differently: it is the preserved spiritual life, a powerful moment of Christian life, a great instant, halted, as it were, for eternity, for the sake of spiritual edification.

Ritual was created in its time by a great thought, by immense spiritual energy, by the upliftment of spiritual fervor.

Like warmth, the spiritual power of ritual is preserved within it in a latent state.

We must not forget what has been said about the origin of ritual: ‘Ritual cannot kill the spirit. The spirit created it, and as a recollection of previously experienced religious feeling, it once again awakens that feeling; and if the soul is not asleep, the outward form and the ritual once again become spiritualized for a person and become a life-giving force.’

We must not forget that ritual, as we have said, is ‘the visible covering of an invisible mystery, an invisible truth, the living body of a living soul.’ At the same time, it is, we repeat, ‘the steps upon which millions of believers have ascended to God for centuries and centuries.’”

Fedor Melnikov [8] writes:

“Old Believers never attributed significance to ritual apart from its content, apart from that connection which carries us into the depths of ages, linking us with an unbroken thread of reverence and authority to the former teachers of the Church, the holy fathers, and the holy apostles, and thereby building us up into one ecclesiastical body. In this sense, ritual—according to the Old Believers’ understanding—never dies.”

Melnikov also cites the words of S. A. Apraksin regarding “the letter,” i.e., ritual:

“Behind this letter lies a great spirit—the Spirit of God, the mind of the Holy Fathers.”

He also quotes A. S. Khomyakov:

*“The visible is always only the shell of an inner thought. Ritual is a great matter: it is an artistic symbol of inner unity” (Collected Works, vol. I, p. 28).

The Holy Church,” he wrote, “professes its faith with its entire life: through doctrine, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, through sacraments, in which the Holy Spirit acts, and through rituals, which He likewise governs” (vol. II, p. 9).

Bringing these statements to a conclusion, it would seem, is Saint Ephraim the Syrian [9]:

“Thus, until the ancient Divine Service, which now restrains, is abolished—through the already prepared destruction of the city (Jerusalem)—and until the apostolic ministry, which now preaches, is restrained, and its teaching does not spread further, the Day of the Lord will not come, about which those false deceivers preach to you, saying that it is already at hand.”

According to Saint Ephraim the Syrian, the restraining force may be Divine Worship—ritual in the very sense understood by the authors just cited.⁵

“Before a new service is proclaimed, the old one remains in effect” [9].

Note the key words: “a service is proclaimed.”

Divine Worship is the co-creation of God and the believer in Christ. Divine Worship is preached just as Holy Scripture is preached. When the Old Testament was in effect, a corresponding Divine Worship was in effect. Then, the Lord gave humanity the New Testament, and naturally, a new Divine Worship was required for it.

As we have observed, Saint Ephraim the Syrian does not speak of preaching new forms of worship; he speaks of one service for all people without exception, for according to the New Testament, all are equal before God—Greeks, Jews, and Russians alike.

From this, it follows that nothing in Divine Worship can be changed. Only through the correct, that is, Orthodox Divine Worship, is it possible to achieve unity between God and the people. Divine Worship establishes the spiritual continuity of generations. It does not end in the church; the religious worldview sanctifies the everyday life of the Christian, in which Divine Worship is also present.

Only through the preservation of Orthodox Divine Worship—only through the proper glorification of God—is it possible not only to hold back the forces of chaos but also to build anew. This is why it was necessary to hold fast to Divine Worship. By preserving Divine Worship, the Old Believers preserved the Faith and Holy Rus'.

Having lost ancient Orthodox Divine Worship, even while still independent, Byzantium declined for 300 years. During this same period, the Moscow state grew, strengthened, and gained power—even under the yoke of foreign rule. Such a thing is possible only in unity with the Lord.

There is no Orthodox Divine Worship without the priesthood. Likewise, any form of worship that deviates from Ancient Orthodoxy is unorthodox.

Attention must be drawn to one crucial point. The Apostle Paul says: “until he who now restrains is taken out of the way.” This means that before the end of the world, the restraining force must exist, must act, must preserve, must continue to be “now.”

A little-known Old Believer from Vyatka put it this way:

“The end of the world must be met by building—God must find us not in despair, but in creation” [10].

Indeed, it could not be said better! As long as people think this way, all is not lost.

This realization is necessary for all, and first and foremost for the Old Believers. It seems that a new synodal message should once again be sent to all Old Believer factions and movements, setting forth the current situation, our responsibility before God, the paths to overcoming the present crisis, and a call for unity around the Belokrinitsky hierarchy.

And yet, it is necessary to prepare for the most undesirable turn of events. It is possible that no one will respond. In that case, the Belokrinitsky hierarchy must act alone. The True Church is true precisely because it is capable of fulfilling any task set before it by the Lord. Action must be taken with the same selflessness, energy, and trust in God as was shown by Monk Pavel and his companions in their search for the priesthood. The results must become immediately visible so that the Lord may see the intent and decisiveness of our efforts. Goals and objectives must be clearly defined, that is, the national idea must be formulated. The primary task at present is the preservation of the integrity of the remaining part of Russia. Possible impending upheavals must either be averted or their course altered.

Life itself, in all its richness and diversity, will suggest the most necessary and correct steps. Moreover, there is no need to “reinvent the wheel”—the Lord has already shown us everything through the examples of communal living in the spiritual centers of the Old Believers and even through the experience of Soviet rule. Everything must simply be applied creatively. Conciliarity in the Church must be restored. Everything must be considered carefully, honestly, and righteously, in accordance with the rules of the Holy Fathers.

Some may ask: why all this effort, when the end of the world is inevitable? Why these calls and appeals? Given our bitter experience and the understanding of our remarkable history that it provides, the answer is clear—woe to those who hasten this end or who do nothing to delay it.

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, the holy Apostle Paul writes:

“This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” (Ephesians 4:17–24)

The Apostle Paul tells us that our instruction is complete. Now, everything depends on us.

Thus, the ancient Divine Worship has been preserved. It has been preserved to restrain the world from complete anarchy and chaos, until all things that must be fulfilled have come to pass. It has been preserved for all those who are able to overcome modern stereotypes—for those like these Russian Ukrainians, participants in contemporary stands for Orthodoxy and Holy Rus’. It has been preserved for all others, across all continents. Were Old Believers scattered across the earth not for the very purpose of proclaiming ancient Divine Worship? Could this, too, be the mission of the Russian people? The service of the old and yet ever-new Faith continues.

It follows, then, that Old Orthodoxy, as a spiritual force tasked with restraining the world from anarchy and chaos, cannot simply be disregarded. On the contrary, the primary role of the restrainer has been placed upon the Old Believers, who have constituted and continue to constitute the body of the True Church of Christ. The numerous interwoven facts and events of a providential nature bear witness to this.

This conclusion necessitates a reassessment of the role of Old Orthodoxy in Russian history. The weakening of the Old Believer movement negatively impacts Russia’s political and socio-economic stability. For various reasons, by 1917, Old Belief had to some extent lost its function as a restraining force. The primary factor in this was the division among the Old Believers. The collapse of Russia in 1991 was further exacerbated by this internal division, as well as by the decline in the number of Old Orthodox Christians.

The reunification of Old Belief would be an extraordinary event—one that, under certain conditions and through dedicated effort, could preserve Russia, which now faces serious upheavals in the near future.

Given the rapid decline of retained grace in the world and in Russia in particular—an indication of a new phase in apocalyptic times—the Belokrinitsky hierarchy, as the true spiritual force of Russia (the pan-Russian state of the Russian people), must develop and propose a Program of Action along with a series of emergency measures.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Viktor Buzhinsky

References #

1. Melnikov, F.E. In Defense of the Old Believer Hierarchy. http://semeyskie.narod.ru/
2. Euthymius Zigabenus. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and Commentary on the Gospel of John. St. Petersburg: Society of St. Basil the Great, 2000. 640 pages.
3. Melnikov, F.E. A Brief History of the Ancient Orthodox (Old Believer) Church. http://www.kirov.ru/
4. Elder Korniliy. A Brief History of the Establishment of the Old Believer Episcopal See in Austria, Lviv Province, Chernivtsi District, in Bukovina, near the town of Syret, in the monastery in Belaya Krinitsa, in the year 1846. January 1881. http://www.kirov.ru/
5. St. John Chrysostom. Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Homily 4. http://www.ispovednik.ru/zlatoust/Z11_2/Z11_2_15.htm
6. Kirillov, I.A. The Essence of Ritual. http://semeyskie.narod.ru/
7. Bishop Mikhail (Semenov). Why Are Rituals Necessary? http://semeyskie.narod.ru/
8. Melnikov, F.E. Old Belief and Ritualism. http://semeyskie.narod.ru/
9. St. Ephraim the Syrian. Works. Volume 7. Moscow: Otchiy Dom, 1995. 397 pages.
10. Trushkova, I.Yu. Old Belief as Late Medieval Orthodoxy (Ethnocultural Aspect). Old Belief: History, Culture, Modernity. Proceedings of the VI Scientific-Practical Conference. Moscow, 2002, pp. 441–450.

Translation of the Footnotes: #

Known historical sources recount that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were among the richest in the world. The surrounding land was exceptionally fertile and also rich in gold, silver, and other valuable minerals. In the Book of Genesis, it is stated that God destroyed only the city of Sodom. However, in Deuteronomy 29:22–29, the full list of destroyed cities is provided: “After the overthrow of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the Lord overthrew in his anger and wrath.” Likewise, 2 Peter 2:6 states: “Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, he condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly.”

One of the most reliable historians of antiquity, Tacitus, who lived in the first century A.D., wrote the following about the Dead Sea region:
“…There lie plains which… were once fertile and covered with populous cities, but were later burned by fire from heaven… The remnants of the cities are still visible today, while the land has since been… charred and rendered barren. Any plant, whether sown by human hands or sprouting on its own, withers, blackens, and crumbles to dust. As for the destruction of these once glorious and great cities, I am inclined to believe that they were indeed consumed by heavenly fire.”

Underwater explorations of the Dead Sea floor have revealed the remains of ancient structures. Archaeological discoveries of the past century allow for an estimation of the number of casualties in Sodom and Gomorrah. The discussion concerns a previously unknown kingdom called Ebla, which existed in the second half of the third millennium B.C. in what is now northern Syria. The most significant archaeological find in Ebla is a collection of 20,000 cuneiform tablets, the deciphering of which has yielded invaluable results. The Ebla archive has forced scholars to reconsider their understanding of the origins of civilization in the Near East. For a long time, it was believed that in the third and second millennia B.C., the Syro-Palestinian region was a backward area separating two highly developed civilizations—Mesopotamia and Egypt—and that its only inhabitants were the nomadic Amorites. Thanks to discoveries in Ebla, it has become clear that this region was not inhabited by mere nomads or semi-nomadic tribes, but rather housed highly developed city-states, like Ebla, which maintained trade and diplomatic relations with both Mesopotamia and Egypt. Among the names found on the cuneiform tablets are Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, proving the historical existence of these cities.

The population of Ebla is estimated to have been 260,000 people, with a diameter of only 180–200 km, making its average population density approximately 8–10 people per km².

Considering the wealth and fertility of the now-destroyed cities (meaning they could support a large population), these population density figures can be reliably used to estimate the number of casualties. The modern area of the Dead Sea is approximately 1,000 km². Thus, an estimate of the number of those who perished in the region currently occupied by the Dead Sea alone would be 8,000–10,000 people. Given that parts of the Dead Sea’s shoreline (especially in the south) remain barren to this day (meaning they were also affected by fire) and that this area is quite large (“…there lie plains”), it is reasonable to assert that in his epistle to the Corinthians, Apostle Paul could very well have been referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

source