Were the Russian Old Believers justified in their schism?
fff, where is Constantine when you need her.
>>1366293
Old Believers practice original Russian Orthodoxy as it used to be for centuries, so I guess. Prior to Nikon's church reforms Russian Orthodoxy had been extremely different from what its neighbors practiced. Said reforms modernized Russian practices and brought them to be more in line with how Ukrainian clergy of the time worked. Hell, plenty of Russian Orthodox higher-ups like Theophan Prokopovich or Stefan Yavorsky had Kyiv Mohyla Academy education.
>the "schismatics" were actually more Orthodox all along
This seems like a huge deal with tons of serious implications. Why isn't it discussed more?
>>1366665
There isn't anything to discuss.
To reform is to move against orthodoxy.
The Old Believers were persecuted for entire centuries for this
>>1366740
Top kek.
>>1366665
They were more Russian 'Orthodox', but the reforms brought them closer to their Greek counterparts.
>>1366375
>her
:)
>>1366877
pls anon, don't contest our orthowaifu
>>1366882
you sad little man
where did your life go wrong?
>>1366903
I'm an apathetic nihilist craving for the absolute. I don't even believe that too many legit theists exist nowadays, but people like Constantine(or at least my idealized perception of her) give me hope that it's feasible to live in accordance to absolutes without becoming vulnerable to disappointments.
>>1366869
But the Greek counterparts had slowly deviated from older tradition, and the "schismatics" in preserving tradition that had appeared to deviate from what was Orthodox, we're actually more orthdox than both the reforming Russian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox. For groups that claim that their traditions do not change unlike the Catholics, that's a pretty serious error.
>>1367154
>we're
Esti lipovean?
>>1367179
Sorry, typo. The "we're" should be "were."
>>1367184
Ah, no problem.
Anyhow, the modern Russian Orthodox usually make the claim that the pre-reformed faith was outwardly syncretic with native pagan elements.
>>1366740
>forget to say alleluia for a third time
>get send to Siberia
>>1366293
this russian church has like 4 cars in park ave
>>1366293
>>1366293
here's another church I don't know its denomination
>>1366375
Constantine has actually ever claimed to be a female?
>>1367549
Yeah, she's a grill, but doesn't like that being brought up which is why I always just say Constantine instead of his/her, to the point where I wish English had a neutral third person pronoun usable with people.
No, they were absolute fanatics (today they are more just like Orthodox Amish), many of them burned their families alive in houses to "baptize by fire" because they believed that would purge all sins.
That said, the Patriarch was at fault for precipitating their fanaticism, and was rightfully deposed and defrocked.
>>1368356
>many of them burned their families alive in houses to "baptize by fire" because they believed that would purge all sins.
This sounds more like tsarist propaganda to justify their harsh persecution.
>>1368381
No, they definitely did it, you can read Ways of Russian Theology. When Patriarch changed the rite to Byzantine, they thought Satan had taken over and the world was ending and that you could no longer gain forgiveness through the Church because Satan took it over, so the only way to purge sins was through stuff like whipping yourself or a "new baptism"
You'll note that there were a TON of heretical movements in Russia, all the way into the 19th Century, Practically none of them were persecuted except for the Old Believers, and there is a reason for that.
>>1368391
One could argue that the Old Believers were the only ones persecuted to such a degree since they were an obstacle in the centralization of the Church. Not to mention that both a part of the clergy as well as many laymen were sympathetic to their cause(a parallel can be drawn with the more recent Old Calendarists).
By the way, do you know any books/church treatise that deals with the bogomilist heresy? I'd be interested in learning more about them.
>>1368407
There were not many clergy sympathetic to them. Not more than a handful
There are countless sects that pushed theology like you don't need clergy and other Protestant type things that obviously contradicted Church hierarchy, they were never really persecuted. In fact, the guy who pushed the most for Church centralization and control, Peter the Great, was probably too tolerant, and demanded the Church not even make arguments against heretics because it would "divide Christians"
>By the way, do you know any books/church treatise that deals with the bogomilist heresy? I
Yes, again, "Ways of Russian Theology". It's not actually a theological work, it's a history of Christianity in Russia.
>>1368414
Yes, but you are ignoring an essential aspect of this particular situation. They were part of the Church and all of their actions were a reaction to what could be interpreted as 'innovation' brought about by the Patriarch, so they held much more legitimacy to their cause than just another heresy.
Anyhow, not an OB apologist, but I'd take the statements of both sides with a grain of salt. And thanks for the recommendation, will read.
>>1368423
Not really, Judaizers were a lot more of a threat in that respect than old believers (and consequently a lot more effective at spreading their heresy).
>>1368423
>so they held much more legitimacy
Most old believers couldn't even read, by the way, so legitimacy in some theological sense was never an issue. They didn't know the Church through reading, they only knew it through ritual, and that was their Scripture, so to them, even minor alterations in ritual would be like "editing" Scripture. It was extremely disorienting and frightening, and this is really what it was about, not some sort of theological legitimacy.
>>1368431
I disagree.
Compare:
>judaizers
>preaching for a modification of already established Church doctrine
>old believers
>preaching for the maintenance of Church doctrine in the face of what could be perceived as innovation
And just like the Old Calendarists, there were people that expressed the same concerns as them, even if they didn't consider it to be cause for schism.
>>1368441
Judaizers were talking about keeping to more traditional doctrine.
Old believers had zero to do with doctrine. In Orthodox Christianity, doctrine is and only is and can only ever be what Christ himself directly passed onto the Apostles. Obviously none of this concerns that.
Several Old Calenderists did schism, and they were absolutely wrong to do so.
>>1368450
>Several Old Calenderists did schism, and they were absolutely wrong to do so.
Let me rephrase it, in case you might've misunderstood me.
In both cases, there were people that understood and shared in the concerns of those that did schism.
And no, Judaizers were still innovationist in that it was already established by the Church that Christians do not need to hold Mosaic law. The Old Believers didn't promote, but opposed change; even if in their overreaction they fell into heresy.
>>1368458
That's right, but at the time, it looked like the opposite: it was presumed that the Byzantine Rite was the older one, and the Russian one was innovated from it, so the Patriarch was trying to restore the old rite (in theory)
>>1368052
>how is this any different from differences between catholic/protestant cults that are just as trite and meaningless from outside
They didn't remove books from the Bible, for example.
>>1366740
Was it autism?
