Talk:Old Believers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cats

Hi all! I think it is essential to keep a balanced set of categories for this article. Look, currently there are several of them: Russia (Yes, it's a russian phenomenon, so let's keep it)

Eastern Orthodoxy Eastern Orthodox sects and heresies What about these two - actually they are just 2 viewpoints on the same topic. Ordinary Russian Orthodox (New Belivers) think that Old Believers are heretics. But Old Believers themselves certainly do not think so. Moreover, they are certainly not a sect, but just another confession, divided into several congregations. So I'm sure that at least one "good" religious category (without such offensive words as "heresy" etc.) should be preserved.

And the last category: Russian people of religion . Generally it looks like this category was initially supposed to be used for inidividual people, not for movements. If anybody is agree - maybe we should remove "Old Believers" from it. Arseni 06 May 2005

Question (relations with old-calendarists)

Do Old Believers have relations with the Greek "Old Calendarists", that is, the Greek Orthodox who have severed communion with co-religionists and Eastern Orthodox churches that use the New Calendar? Also, seeing how there seem to be some underlying enmities (Greek vs Russian?) underlying the problem, what are the relations of old-believers with the Constantinople Patriarchate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.233.29 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

no, esp since the Greek Old-calendarists did not reform their Liturgy, but only refused to accept the new calendar. Old Believers as such have nothing to do with the Constantinople Patriarchate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.226.18 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Ok, that is a good picture. We all know that it is a painting, but it looks like a photograph. The prisoner's clothes are done so well. It makes me feel like I was there. It's like one of those "Best Photos of the 15th Century", or really good photos of a historical event. There weren't any photographs in the 15th century, but the quality is there.

it was painted over 200 years after the event it shows, so don't put too much trust in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.226.18 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the word "sect" is not so offensive in the English language. The pejorative usage applies rather to the word "cult". But those are just my feelings.

This article and Raskol article

I posted at talk:Raskol a rename suggestion. Maybe that article should just be merged into this one with redirect? Please take a look. Thanks. --Irpen 07:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! Generally Raskol is a split, a schism. That's sligtly another subject. One thing is to write about the schism in some religion, another thing is to write about the parts on which the religion splitted. I think both articles should exist. For example the very process of Patriarch Nikon reforms is a very interested subject, and it would be much better to place it in the Raskol article rather than in this one. The reforms themselves have a little common with the Old Believers as a denomination. I'm agains the merging. Arseni 09:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To keep all discussions at one place, I responded at talk:raskol. --Irpen 05:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

prostrations

I called the low bows (земные поклоны) kowtows as Lingvo suggests. Now they are replaced by prostrations. The stange thing is that the article prostration leads to a medical term for exhaustion. Are you really sure the change is correct? Arseni 18:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have replased prostrations with kowtows again. As I could understand, this term is used for medieval rites in Europe too, not only for Chinise people. And it looks like this term is more close to our Земной поклон. Please, argue, if I'm making a mistake. Arseni 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"Kowtow" is a word of Chinese origin, and is commonly understood to describe a peculiarly Chinese custom. As imported into English, it connotes a certain obsequiousness or toadying that is perhaps unsuitable for an act of dignified worship. Unfortunately, "prostration" is incorrect too, since that means to stretch oneself out fully prone which was never an Orthodox custom. Alternatives I have heard are "great reverence" or "full reverence". This would still have to be explained to an Orthodox reader, of course. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparison with reformation movement

re the quote: phylosophycal basis of Old Believers was opposite of that of Protestants.

I think this is too strong. Actually, protestants were also presenting themselves as "keepers" of the original teaching, rather than reformers. They claimed that the RC is corrupt and deviated from the source (Bible) and called for the return to "original" christianity. Should we modify this paragraph? --Irpen 21:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! Please, modify if you can =) But I don't think it's strong at all. The main idea: "Old Believers vs Nicon" conflict resembles initially the conflict of "Catholics vs Protestants". Nicon was a reformer, and the essence of the reform was very like that of Protestants: to return to the 'right faith' as it was before Russian influence on it. So Old Believers tried to save what they had, while Nicon wanted to return to what should be. And only later Old Believers started to resemble Puritans a lot, but only because they both were opposed to a 'wrong world around them', but not because the phylosophycal basis was the same. And what's also very importaint - Old Believers are really very agressive against any comparison of their faith with Protestantism. I'm afraid that the very topic of this comparison will stay in the article only till the first orthodox Old Beliver will come to English wikipedia, really =) So make the statement better if you can, I'll certainly look at your result. Arseni 10:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Arsenij, the first orthodox Old Believer has come to English wikipedia! And, yes... I find the comparison inappropriate, although even in Russia some scholars like this issue. I've lived among protestants for quite some time abroad, and I possibly can't see any similarity. I would like this item to be changed. And not only this item... Vasili 5th Nov.2005

Actually, I wanted to raise the possibility that the entire section comparing OBs and Protestants might not be necessary or helpful: is there a compelling reason to leave it in? Especially as the ultimate conclusion of that section seems to be "There is no real comparison between OBs and Ps." My instinct would be to cut it, or at least shorten it dramatically, removing the bullet points, and just noting that despite superficial similarities that have been noted by some historians, there is pretty much no connection and they're not analogous. 24.199.92.113 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Andrew, 25 July 2006

• I fully agree, it's a highly unhappy approach to compare two phenomenons which haven't got a thing to do with each other. For anyone who really has deeper insights in the Old Believers issue, this is more than obvious. I don't know who came up with this philosophy comparing protestants/reformation movement/anabaptists with Old Believers, but it just won't make any sense! One might as well find some similarities between apples and pears, and that might even be interesting, but it doesn't justify that every time we start writing about apples we are obliged to write something about pears there, as well. Within the framework of this article, we should write about Old Believers and Eastern-Orthodox faith, not about Protestantism. Two different things all together, really. Some accidental/far-fetched similarities/comparisons are not at their place in this article.

The same goes for all kinds of sects in Russia which also haven't got a thing to do with the Old Believers; let all lovers of obscure Russian sects etc. write their own articles.

Comparing Old Believers with Protestants and (Old Rite) Catholics

The comparison is very inappropriate, especially since the Nikonian Schism was no where near the size of the Protestant Reformation. If I were to compare Old Believers to another denomination, I'd consider them closer to Old Rite Catholics, not because of religious similarities, but because of what prompted their schisms. Old Believers are nothing like Protestants. In fact, the theology of most (not all) Old Believers is the same as Eastern Orthodox, they just disagree with certain liturgical issues and are very strict. To put it into perspective, the Old Rite Catholics didn't find the Catholic Church Catholic enough, while the Old Believers didn't find the Orthodox Church Orthodox enough. It is literally the opposite of Protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.186.37 (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is all quite true and interesting. Still I for one am opposed to including in this article sections or themes about either Protestants or (Old Rite) Catholics. The article should really be about Old Believers, not about anything else. The mere fact that certain information about Protestants or Old Rite Catholics is interesting doesn't mean it is at its place in an article about the Old Believers. I could think of many more interesting things that are in some way connected to OB's, but the article would become an article about most everything. Vasilij (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true. Old Rite Catholics don't have really anything in common with Old Ritualists (besides what prompted their schisms) and there is really no need to compare them to other Western denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiderivativeman (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

American view

Few Americans have even heard of Old Believers (Canadians are a little more aware, via the Dukoboors), but this seems to be the standard term in the literature. The words 'schism' and 'heresy' are usually avoided in secular contexts (as with this article). 'Dissenter', non-conformist and the such occur in English, as terms for various denominations of protestants. I agree that "Protestant" is inappropropriate for the OBs, tho' American protestants would have no problems using the word.

At the risk of being impolite, what literature there in in English tends to emphasize the absurdity of the break, with what amounts to ultra-nationalists objecting to the correction of books against the Greek originals. Its rather like those few who insisted the King James Bible was superior to the Hebrew and Greek originals. Once they realize what a corner they have painted themselves, they become even more disputatiously extreme. You all might check out the article Restorationism for a discussion of the "great apostasy", a motif the Old Believers certainly display.

Except that's not how it is. The alleged "corrections" were not correct, as later scholarship has demonstrated. The Old Believers turned out to have been correctly defending the correct practices.Dogface 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The word 'Raskol' is found only in the introductory notes to critical editions of Crime and Punishment. --FourthAve 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi! The fact is that there are (even now) two different translations of the same Greek originals into Church Slavonic. OBs believe they have the better translation. Official Orthodoxy believe(d?) they have not. Nicon's translation was more literate (for Nicon it was very important that the number of words and their sequence within a prayer should be the same in Greek and Church Slavonic). Old translation was more interested in sence. But all this isn't and wasn't the main reason and the main idea of schism. Simply one day somebody comes to your house and says: 'Starting from this day you will use 3 and only 3 fingers for the sign of cross instead of 2, since your habit is a heresy. It's an order!' You ask: 'Why?', but they just say: 'I've already told you. Since it's a heresy. And if you have something to object, you'll be punished'. Do you like this picture? Arseni 19:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Arseni. And the problem is even more general, I think. Most people's religion is not what they consciously think is right but what they were raised to and people get extremely sensitive and resistive is someone comes to tell them that they are wrong even in things they don't understand and don't care. Same was in Ukraine, when Unia came into being, orthodox Ukrainians resisted fiercely, ran to Cossacks, or kept considering themselves Orthodox in the underground. Some did convert and in few hundred years the situation repeated in the reverse direction, when after the WW2 the uniate church was banned and sent underground. With equal fanaticism, people refused to renounce the Uniate church and it survived underground for 50 years. Now people keep fighting for the Church building in Ukraine as the times of state bans are over.

So people don't really think of whether the Pope or the Orthodox Patriarch/Metropolitan are "more canonical", so to speak, whether the Filioque clause is a heresy or not, whether the Pope is infallible and which translation from Greek is more appropriate (or even less so "correct"). They just fiercely resist when someone tells them that the their religious order would be different from now on. Even, say, if one is told that he can still use two fingers, but has to admit that the priest who married him and baptized him and his children was "inappropriate" in any way and one has to renounce those "inappropriatenesses" even if staying with the same priest, it is totally unacceptable to the people for deeply intrinsic reasons. --Irpen 21:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Schism is a rather fitting term, IMHO. But of course, if there is a Schism, both sides are schismatic viewed from the other side. This is often neglected, when one side is musch larger than the other. --Pjacobi 06:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

apostolic succession

A major motif that separates certain protestants from Catholics and some other protestants is apostolic succession, i.e., the laying on of hands from Jesus to apostle, and from the apostles on to priests and bishops down thru time. The Catholic and Orthodox are very much into this; Anglicans and certain Lutheran groups are similarly into it, but importantly, not all of them are, and the absolutely necessity for it its generally denied. Old Believers are very much into apostolic succession. In this sense, they really are not protestant, but "Restorationist Orthodox", i.e., they want to return to an earlier purer form of the Church before the "great apostasy". It has been a long time since I read any literature on the OBs, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anything really good in any western theological library. The OBs are not really on the map. --FourthAve 21:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Nikon was an absolutist, who essentially was both Tsar and Patriarch, and did as much damage as he attempted to do good.

• Dear FourthAve, again, OBs didn't 'want to return to an earlier form of the Church'. They were just trying to save wat they had! That's a difference. There's a standard comparison between the OBs and Old Catholics, but that comparison isn't correct. Old Catholics are restorationists. OBs - from the beginning - were not. They were and they are (some of them) extremely conservative, but not 'restorative'. Imagine that the Reformation took place in Europe as a whole, including France, Italy, Spain etc. And that Catholics had to hide from Protestants, like they did in Holland, for example. Then imagine that they have been banned for centures, and that they developed into a closed religious group. That will resemble OBs. But they certainly wouldn't be called 'Restorationists' =) Arseni 15:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Icons in relief

The article claims that the post-Nikonian Russian church banned the use of cast or carved icons in relief. When did this happen, and when was it reversed? It must have been reversed at some point because they're certainly not banned now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• You are right, currently they are de facto accepted. But they really were banned, as they were strongly associated with Old Believers movement. The most strong ban for carved icons was during Peter the Great reign. There were problems even with worshiping the most famous and respected carved icon - Nicola Mozhajsky, which was certainly all-orthodox, but not exclusevely Old Believer's. The modern situation is also rather indicative: the official orthodoxy accepted carved icons, pretending that they are part of it's heritage, not the heritage of any other 'alternative church', like Old Believers churches, for example. Arseni 17:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Icons in relief extisted long before the schism of 1666-67, I have hold several icons in relief in my very own hands, icons (especially Crosses) dating back from the 11th century, made from bronze. The industry of making relief icons, however, started developping in Old believers circles after the schism. Metal icons in relief are small and were easy to carry with you while fleeing from presecutors and, of course, the saints on these icons all blessed with two fingers. In this respect, there’s nothing new in the Old believers making and venerating icons in relief, since they’ve existed in Russia from the 10th century. Vasili. 5 Nov. 2005

Sects and Heresies

Dear Mikkalai! For all old beliveres (about 10 millions worldwide) their faith isn't a heresy, but an Orthodoxy. They use this term and they believe that they are Eastern Orthodox. Sometimes they also believe that other Eastern Orthodox are not really Orthodox, but just heretics. But that's another story.

Moreover, in 1971 anathema on old rites was removed by Russian Orthodox Church, so currently Old Believers are not heretics even from the 'Official' point of view (at least Popovtsy), but are just a couple of churches that have incorrect organizational structure. From the ROC point of view they should become a part of ROC, but that's very different from Heresy.

What about bezpopovtsy - the situation is even more interesting. From the canonical point of view (for ROC) they should be treated as heretics, but practically the relations between the Pomory and ROC is sometimes even better than with ROC and ROCOR for example.

The term 'sect' isn't also really appropriate for a traditional church. You wouldn't call Old Style Catholics a sect, would you?

I don't object from the category 'sects and heresies' since a lot of people still treat Old Believers as a heresy, and for them it would be much easier to find information about OBs through this sections. But I strongly insist that this apparent bias should be compensated by some another category that would treat OBs as a 'rather canonical' faith. That would be fair.

What do you think?

Update: Thank you, Mikkalai, for your comment. It's a good idea, since your deletion was the second story with these two cats. The first was quite the same, I just went into polemics not in this talk page, but on the talk page of that particular user. And I didn't know how to make comments. It's really a good idea! Arseni 18:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Greek Church and Latin influence

The article does not offer any support for the alleged "westernization" or Roman Catholic influence of the Greek Church. It has to be stressed here that despite the proclamation of union between Rome and Constantinople in Florence, the union was never put into effect becuse of the reaction of the Greek clerics and laity. After the failure of the West to aid Constantinople against the invading Turks only a few years afterwards, anti-Latin sentiment was very high in the former Byzantine Empire - cf. "it is better to accept a turkish turban than a Latin tiara" (κάλλιο σαρίκι τούρκικο παρά κουκούλα λατινική), Grand Duke Loukas Notaras. But even without taking note of any of this, there was hardly any time for Latin a liturgical influence during the time of the Greek-Latin rapprochement. It is true that there were many typika printed in Venice, but this was the case with almost all Greek documents that were not possible or easy to be printed under the Ottoman rule. Whatever the case, a comparison between these and other older typika (such as the 14th century Jerusalem typikon) do not betray a Roman Catholic influence. This is a myth propagated by Moscow for centuries, which tried to supercede the primacy of Constantinople in the Orthodox world and promote itself as the Third Rome - a deeply unchristian and unorthodox view, since the primacy of Constantinople is nothing like a sacramental primacy as the primacy Roman Catholicism recognizes in Rome.

Roman Catholic influence started much earlier than the Florentine Union of 1439. There was the Union of Lyon of 1274 and the influence of the crusaders, who brougt Constantinople for some time even under Western rule. “After the conquest of areas having belonged to the former Byzantine Empire and of the Slavic Balkan states by the Turks, almost the entire population of Syria and Asia Minor and considerable parts of the orthodox population of Macedonia, Greek, Bosnia and Bulgaria converted to Islam. Catholic and protestant propaganda, from their part, starting from mid 16th century, tried to proselytize orthodox christians under the Ottoman yoke.” (S. Zenkovsky, 1970, 1995) Catholic and protestant propaganda were also very strong in Western Russia and the Ukraine. Those, who printed othodox typicons and missals in Venice and Rome were inevitably under an even more strong influence of Roman Catholic propaganda. It is ascertained that even the Greeks themselves considered Venetian typicons not orthodox and perverted. Many outstanding scientists, such as S. Zenkovksy from Harvard University, B.A. Uspensky and the famous byzantologist F.I. Uspensky (1845-1928), having done scientific research in Constantinople for years, have been comparing old Greek typicons with Venetian and Roman ones and have established that certain Roman Catholic elements have penetrated the latter ones. Thus they merely confirmed what was already known in Russia at the time of the Raskol.

Some contemporary minds see in the idea of Moscow as the Thrid Rome national pride and arrogance. Little who see in its spreading the awakening of the self-consciousness of a people at the moment when it steps into the arena of world history. At that time, the circumstances gave the Russian people the right to think that it had a special mission in history: the idea that God had predestined Russia to become the last stronghold and defender of the true Orthodox faith. Rome had deviated from the true faith; both the Byzantine emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople had accepted the primacy of the Roman Catholic pope, which made the Greeks look suspicious in the eyes of the Russians, more so, it was seen by them as a betrayal of Orthodox faith. Even a Roman Catholic service had been hold at the H. Sophia. Not long after the Florentine Union Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Turks and Russia was the only independent orthodox country left. Often it is thougt that the idea Moscow as the Third Rome is a Russian invention, but in fact it was first mentioned by the Serb Pakhomy Logophet in 1442. The Russian monk Filofei used this idea at a time when it reflected the general meaning of the era and so exactly grasped the mood of his compatriots of those days that it became part of Russian state ideology of the 16th century. Since Constantinople was officially called the “Second Rome”, but was no more, now Moscow had become the “Third Rome” and, people added, a Fourth was never going to be. Vasilij 18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any proof of this nebulous "Roman-catholic influence" in your reply. The fact remains that Eastern Orthodoxy remained very much at odds with Roman-catholicism, which is why the Florentine Union was immediately rejected. Your mention of the Islamization of Anatolia is a complete red-herring, and the non-existent "influence" of the crusaders is an outright lie. The only "influence" the Western Crusaders ever had, was to present Roman-Catholicism as enemy in the eyes of the Greek Orthodox who found themselves under occupation. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying ; if anything, your claims are the very definition of "turning the truth on its head".

I'm revising parts of the article to reflect this truth, and slapping a --disputed-- disclaimer on it for good measure. This is not a NPOV representation of the facts.

Also, there are some bizzare mentions of two separate strands of Greek Orthodoxy : "in union" with Roman-Catholicism, and "not in union" with it. This is a bs statement if there ever was one (made to comply with "Old Believer" jingoism) as the Florentine Union was rejected from its very inception. Could you please direct me as to where I could find these imaginary "Greek Orthodox who accept primacy of the Pope"?

Dear Sir, beside “old believer jingoism” there exist some other “jingoisms” as well… To put it bluntly: the article’s position is false, yours is right.

If an article contains information you don’t like, it doesn’t mean the article is a priori “completely biased” and “inaccurate”. All historical information in this article is based on serious scientific investigations carried out by various objective and well-known scholars (A.P. Shchapov (1831-1876), N.F. Kapterev (1847-1917), church historian E.E. Golubinsky (1834-1912), to name but a few, none of them old believers), whose integrity among scientists is unquestioned until this very day. Among them is Sergei A. Zen’kovsky (1907-1990), a Harvard scholar, specialized in the history of Russian spirituality and author of many scientific publications. When it comes to statements which you obviously resent, you start demanding quotations at literally every square inch and become extremely critical (to say the least). Yet nothing withholds you from making fierce accusations – “completely biassed”, “inaccurate”, “lie”, “old believer jingoism” etc. – let alone you support them by any cross-references. Simply calling statements one resents a “lie” is not only a rather sad thing to do, it just won’t turn them into a lie. Of course, I could advance arguments and adduce evidence for the statements in question, but these, I feel, would be called blatant lies once again. For this reason I see no point in continuing a discussion where emotions clearly prevail over arguments.Vasilij 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• No one knows who came up with crossing oneself with three fingers. I would not be surprised however, if the Church did that before the the Great Schism. Old Believers use an old method of crossing themselves, but it's definitely not the oldest. Most historians say the two finger method came around the 6th century. It wasn't even until the 4th century where people started crossing themselves across their chest. Before Christianity was legalized, they made the sign of the cross only on their forehead to prevent it from being seen (the sign of the cross was one way Romans could identify a Christian). The reason I don't think the Latins introduced the three finger method during the temporary union is because the Greek population was very conservative in Orthodox beliefs. Although they were highly persecuted (especially Mount Athos), they still remained very zealous. In fact, the emperor's union compromised much of his support. You would think that the Greeks would do everything they could to "de-Latinize" the country. And what about isolated Greek Orthodox Churches that were no longer part of the Byzantine Empire? Wouldn't Churches in Egypt that faced no Latin pressure still be crossing themselves with two fingers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not be surprised however, if the Church did that before the the Great Schism. - with all due respect, but this is mere speculation.

It wasn't even until the 4th century where people started crossing themselves across their chest. - here you touch upon a highly controversial issue, to which there are no definitive answers. Some more moderateness would be appropriate here.

The reason I don't think the Latins introduced the three finger method during the temporary union is because the Greek population was very conservative in Orthodox beliefs. - The sign of the Cross with three fingers spreaded gradually, not just during a short period of time. The Russians were very conservative in Orthodox beliefs, too, and they were christianized by the Greek. Remains of the sign of the Cross with two fingers have also been found in Serbia and Bulgaria.

You would think that the Greeks would do everything they could to "de-Latinize" the country. "You would think" - that's not an argument, that's a hypothesis, which may well be contested.

Wouldn't Churches in Egypt that faced no Latin pressure still be crossing themselves with two fingers? - No, they wouldn't, for they are monophysites.

Once again: many of these things have already been sorted out by eminant scholars. It's getting wearisome to refer to them and their works to those, who don't seem to agree with certain outcomes of their scientific research. Vasilij (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: This article should be called *the Old Believer representation* of the Russian schism

Completely biased and inaccurate in many parts. I'm tagging this controversial, and hoping that some impartial editors might make the needed adjustments to comply with NPOV policy. (unsigned by anon)

Yeah... Well, I think we all got the point here: don't touch the Greek and you're pretty impartial and unbiassed, but if you do, you're gonna get hit. That what it's all about, folks, and now the whole article's got to suffer, for I don't see a real concern for objectivity here. Hey, the guy isn't even criticizing the actual OB stuff, it's all about Greek! This guy is obviously offended in some kind of national feelings and he hasn't much of an ice cap. I strongly suggest we take some measures if this is not going to stop. This is defenitely not the way to discuss an article. - Dennis

But "the actual old believer stuff" was claimed to have everything to do with the Greek Orthodox, so I don't see how you can criticize him for disputing claims such as that "the Greek Orthodox Church was unified with Rome". The real question remains whether historical research accepts this statement as true or false. Allow me to say that you're not all that better than the anonymous editor whom you criticize, when you fail to provide answers to that crucial question. Your answer is just as unsubstantiated as his original claims, since all you had to contribute was an inflammatory "Greek nationalists are ruining the article" claim. The pot calling the kettle black, quite.

Oh, but historical research does accept this statement as true; it's you not accepting historical research accepting that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.116.19 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: "Impartial editors" are, of course, non-Old Believers

Dear Sir, beside “old believer jingoism” there exist some other “jingoisms” as well… To put it bluntly: the article’s position is false, yours is right.

If an article contains information you don’t like, it doesn’t mean the article is a priori “completely biased” and “inaccurate”. All historical information in this article is based on serious scientific investigations carried out by various objective and well-known scholars (A.P. Shchapov (1831-1876), N.F. Kapterev (1847-1917), church historian E.E. Golubinsky (1834-1912), to name but a few, none of them old believers), whose integrity among scientists is unquestioned until this very day. Among them is Sergei A. Zen’kovsky (1907-1990), a Harvard scholar, specialized in the history of Russian spirituality and author of many scientific publications. When it comes to statements which you obviously resent, you start demanding quotations at literally every square inch and become extremely critical (to say the least). Yet nothing withholds you from making fierce accusations – “completely biassed”, “inaccurate”, “lie”, “old believer jingoism” etc. – let alone you support them by any cross-references. Simply calling statements one resents a “lie” is not only a rather sad thing to do, it just won’t turn them into a lie. For this reason I see no point in continuing a discussion where emotions clearly prevail over arguments.

The circumstance you disagree with some statements does not make them automatically false and does not at all justify putting the objectivity of an article, based on scientific information, into question, as you, Sir, have unfortunately done.Vasilij 20:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete or not delete the "Russian Liturgics" section?

Dear ladies and gentlemen, I have removed the section on "Examining the Sources of Russian Liturgics", due to glaring mistakes it contained with regards to the origin and development of Byzantine liturgical books (typica). The author shows his/her infamiliarity with basic works on the question, such as (at least) The Byzantine Rite: A Short History by Robert F. Taft, S.J. (Collegeville, MN, 1992). If the author reads Russian, he should refer him/herself to the series of articles on Byzantine typica by Aleksei Pentkovsky in Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii a couple of years ago. His book on the Typicon of Alexius the Studite and Studiisko-Aleksievskij Ustav would be also helpful.

For one thing, the Studite typicon, introduced into Rus' by the efforts of St. Theodosius of the Caves in Kiev in the end of 11th century, was completely replaced in Russia with the Typicon of St. Sabbas in the end of 14th-end of 15th centuries - so the differences btw. Old Believers and Nikonians were never, in essence, the differences of typica (i.e. rubrics). It was rather, the translation and certain devotional practices which Nikon and the reformers changed.

Secondly, as it seems to me, the word "liturgetics" is/was not a part of modern English language, as we know it. The proper term is "liturgics" or, in this context, probably "liturgical tradition". (ouital77 08:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

I don't quite agree with the deletion of an entire section, just because some other sources seem to contradict some statements (not all) in the section. At the moment, there are two visions on the subject, not one version irrefutably proving what you claim and the other being obviously false. For this reason the section should not have been entirely removed without at least some discussion and therefore I take the liberty of restoring it down, with some changes.

Forgive me for asking, but are you in your turn familiar with the basic works mentioned in the bibliography? Why are the outcomes of scientific research of well-known scholars, pioneers on the Old Believers issue, especially on the typicon matter, not of any authority to you? Referring in this peculiar context to the Moscow Patriarchate Journal looks somewhat awkward for obvious reasons. The information on the typicon matter in the section is entirely based on the works of these scholars, none of whom were Old Believers.

I am familiar with the work of Kapterev and Zenkovsky. AFAIK, Kapterev's conclusions regarding the sources for Nikon's reform have been accepted by the mainstream scholarship, so there's no problem there, it seems. However, my objections have nothing to do with their work, but rather with some of your (?) statements in the section regarding the development of the Byzantine typicon. There has been some work done on this subject both at the same time with - and during the century after - Kapterev, so here we also cannot ignore the "outcomes of scientific research of well-known scholars" (to use your words).

Additionally, my citation of JMP has nothing to do with this journal being the "official organ" of MP - rather with the fact that Pentkovskij's articles appeared there. Aleksei Pentkovskij is the foremost authority in the field of Slavic liturgics today, and his work should be read, no matter where it appears, so your a priori suspicions seem slightly unjustified. Thanks, and I hope we continue talking. (ouital77 16:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

As the changes in the section points out, the Jerusalem typicon was introduced in Russia by two metropolites of Moscow, Photius (a Greek) and Kiprianus (a Bulgarian of the Greek school), but they didn't succeed to complete their reform and after 1439 there were no more Greek metropolites in Russia. As a result the Russian typicon turned into a transitional typicon, containing both Jerusalem and Studite elements. This has been established long ago by Kapterev, Golubinsky and others, who have done most serious research on the matter. (Zenkovskij, S.A., Russkoe staroobradcestvo, Moskva 2006, p. 148) Yet their scientific research seems to be "glaring mistakes." Shouldn't you be somewhat more restraint?

Thank you, that is much better. In fact, I never claimed that the pre-Nikonian and post-Nikonian typica are totally identical - if I seemed to say something like this, this is a misunderstanding. Obviously, if one compares Oko tserkovnoe of 1641 and Typicon of 1695, they are different, just as any two typica of two different monasteries are in the time prior to the book-printing! However, it is wrong to say that the difference btw. them is that one is "Studite," and another - "Sabbaite". It is more accurate to say (as Pentkovskij does in his book) that the pre-Nikonian typicon was the Jerusalem typicon (neo-Sabbaite) with some Studite elements, borrowed from the Studiisko-Aleksievskij Ustav. Thanks, and more later. (ouital77 16:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for you reaction; it is most instructive and interesting. I think we've found mutual understanding. Vasilij 19:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Denying that the typicon issue has got anything to do with the differences between Old Believers and Nikonians seems rather strange, if not unsubstantial. It is the typicon matter that explains many things about the discrepancies between the Greeks and the Russian in the 17th century and about the differences between the Old Believers and the Nikonians now. Reducing the problem of the reforms of Nikon and the schism to some "devotional practices" is even more strange. This, it seems, is the very attitude and the tradional misunderstanding the above-mentioned scholars wanted to change by their elaborate investigations.

Many differences between Old Believers' and Nikonian practice are not simply a result of some devotional practices, but can rather be deduced direcly from the different typica being used. The Old Believers do not use the rubrics of St. Sabbas, but the transitional typicon as it has been used by the Russian church until the schism, which contains elements of both the St. Sabbas and Studite rubrics. This explains why the structure and duration of the All night Vespers (vsenoscnoe bdenie) in the Old Believers' and Nikonian practice are so different, not to mention the rite of confession. Nikon's assistants deleted ca. 40 pages from this rite and added a new absolution prayer. One cannot maintain that fourty pages from the typicon come down to "devotional practices". And these are just two examples.

I think we've sorted this out, too. Thank you again.Vasilij 19:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Sorry, but I took an extreme liberty to edit that section of the article once again, setting the typica "story" straight and adding a little more about Kapterev's work. Please feel free to revert to previous version, to add or change anything you like. However, I would insist that the way the typica developed in Russian ecclesial practices were approximately how it is described in the current version of the section (first par.). Thanks! ouital77 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's excellent. Thank you for your contribution! Vasilij, 24 April 2006

Only someone who totally lacks understanding of eastern liturgics and is also unable to read what is written in those two revisions of the Sabbaite Typicon would claim that the outward differences in worship between Old and New Rites would have anything at all to do with the revision of Typicon used!!!

The Typicon, yes indeed, is mandatory for Old Ritualists who could not even exist before a Typicon had been printed (because without one they couldn't claim a strict adherence to some specific rites), but normal Orthodox people have always been able to conduct their worship even without the Regulations at hand.

Зинон (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely technical, poorly ordered

I found it difficult to get a simple description of a) who Old Believers are, b) how they are different from standard Orthodox Christians in this article... one has to read way toward the bottom to get basic information about Old Believers (the topic of the article) but first wade through tons of detailed and complex information about the Schism.

I recommend that someone rewrite the introductory summary for a lay audience to describe WHO old believers ARE, and then let interested readers read onwards to find out how they got there.

Likewise, some judicious editing could remove many of the details in this article that are duplicated in the linked articles and re-order the sections so that key information about Old Believers came first and THEN told about their theological justifications, the religious innovations they rejected, etc. --Pshopboy 05:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried to order things in such a way, that more specific themes (justification, validity) come at the end. With all due respect, I think it's not that difficult to find out who the Old Believers are, when their movement emerged and why. At any rate, one doesn't have to read way toward the bottom to find these things out. I agree that some details are being duplicated, but that's the trouble when many editors are involved.

Detailed and complex information... If one is to explain who the Old Btlievers are, there's NO WAY to get around technical and complex matters, involving history, church history, Eastern Orthodox liturgy and theology. At least not if one aimes at writing a solid article with background information (which is, by the way, nowhere else to be found) for an encyclopedia instead of some superficial infotainment. The subject itself is just rather complex, but I hope there's nothing wrong about that. Vasilij 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Part: Main alterations introduced by Patriarch Nikon

I noticed that the phrase "и Животворящаго" was not translated into English, so I translated, taking the most modern English version at Nicene Creed. Please feel free to change that into the correct version used by English-speaking Orthodox.

About the procession difference. The Orthodox Church in Ghent-Belgium (which like other most Orthodox churches resides under Constantinople) (photograph at Holy Corner (Ghent Béguinage)) makes its Paschal procession sunwise. It may be a practical thing in this neighbourhood: they may do so to initially avoid the street on the North where there is the biggest risk of running into late arrivals (there is no way to arrive by car from the South). Or it could be giving in to Celtic custom, of course: this part of Belgium was Celtic before 500 AD, when the area first turned Christian.--Pan Gerwazy 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian?

Greek and Bulgarian missionaries officially converted the Russians to Christianity....? To the best of my knowledge the theories on who Kyril and Methodius range from Greeks to Slavs, but never name them as Bulgarians. I'm reverting to Greek. This can be refenced to an article on the conversion where the reader can get the details.24.62.63.6 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation tag

I put this tag on because I thought if we put more inline citations in this article it would improve credibility and avoid arguments. Wrad 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• In my view, there isn’t any necessity for adding quotations. Any standard encyclopedia article tries to inform about its subject in a general way, providing sources and references at the end. Numerous quotations are likely to destroy the article’s structure and won’t improve its readability.

What if citations were to be introduced in the article? Would that satisfy a. those who want to support the alleged truth of the Old Believers’ cause, by means of quotations anticipating objections from their opponents, or b. those who are questioning the article’s contents and request more evidence, i.e. citations? I think neither request should be granted: this would soon turn into an endless polemic that won’t get us anywhere. I trust all agree that’s not what an encyclopedia article is meant to be for.

Those sections of the article which refute traditional misconceptions about the schism and the Old Believers (for these are usually the sections some may find lacking credibility and therefore needing citations) are entirely based on scientific research, carried out by well-known scholars whose reputation and integrity is beyond any doubt. Their names and their standard works on the subject are listed in the “References and Selected Biography” section at the end of the article. Either one recognizes the authority and integrity of these scholars, or one doesn’t. If one doesn’t, will quotations be of any use? I’m afraid they won’t. Sadly enough, we’ve already been through this a year ago, when a rather fierce discussion aroused on Latin influence in Greek tradition: competent scholars have been quoted, but one hasn’t got the impression it convinced anybody who disagreed on the matter.

What if quotations were requested for the sake of NPOV? First of all, mere citations probably won’t contribute to NPOV, for one can manipulate using quotations. In fact, there is only one guarantee for NPOV: the stainless reputation of the above-mentioned scholars which has continued to be stainless for the last hundred years or so. Their books are still being published, their authority and expertise have remained unquestioned until this very day. Science continues to develop, yet the main results of their scientific research have never been refuted ever since. Given these facts, a request to add quotations in order to give the article more credibility really seems quite inappropriate.

The schism of the Russian church and the Old Believers’ movement are an extremely complicated issue. Also, it is a primarily Russian issue, which has been seriously investigated mainly in Russia and mainly by Russian scientists. In order to investigate and analyze this entangled material, one has to be highly competent in many scientific disciplines: church history, ecclesiastical paleography, theology, byzantology, liturgistics, one has to know Greek, Latin and Church Slavonic, one needs to be a specialist on Russian history and culture. Few scientists combine all these rare disciplines and are interested in the origins of the Russian schism. Therefore it’s not at all surprising that scholars like Kapterev, Dmitrievskij, Golubinskij and Zenkovskij are not known to a wider audience (investigating the Russian schism comes down to many years of stiff reading). Hence few who were (or are) interested in this and the same goes for most of the audience. The results of their scientific research have been published in Russia, in Russian and to my knowledge, have never been translated into any other language. This is a most unfortunate circumstance, since it is their scientific research that has refuted the misinformation redundantly spread by the Russian State Church and its missioners to discredit the Old Believers. Still it can’t be stressed enough that these scholars were primarily interested in the origins of the Russian schism and they had no aim as to exculpate the Old Believers (although ludicrous accusations in such a direction have been made to them in the past).

The fact remains that source material on this subject is scarce and mainly available in Russian. On the other hand, it’s impossible to ignore the scientific works of these scholars when writing or discussing an article on the Russian Old Believers, regardless of what language they’re written in. That’s why they have been used to write this article and that’s why they are mentioned at the end of it – instead of citations in season and out of season. Quotations – which would have to be translated into English – are unlikely to add any substantial credibility. For those who have a thorough understanding of the subject, the names of these scholars speak for themselves – and for NPOV, by the way, as well. Vasilij 09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as saying this article had POV or poor information issues. I did not intend this. The fact is, inline citations are what makes a good article great. If I was a russian scholar (or a budding one), I would want them badly in order to go deeper into any statements within the article that may be of interest, rather than having to read everything at the bottom of the page. Once again, I'm not saying this is a bad article, just that it could be better. Wrad 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Slavonic Script

Just a note to the anonymous editor who kept reverting the Slavonic letters to Russian Civil script - the yat', little yus' and uk should be visible if you have a unicode font. Please do not keep replacing them with est', ya and u. InfernoXV 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been using many computers at many places, still these letters do not become visible. Besides, the spelling is of secundairy importance. This article is after all adressed to English speaking readers who are interested in the Old Believers issue, not in orthographic details of Slavonic. Vasilij 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've once again replaced those illegible ₳ ₳ ₳ things by letters which are available and legible for the rest of the world. If you are so concerned with authenticity (as I am, by the way), you should try harder to make those Slavonic letters legible to all of us, not just you, and not making it our problem (for not having certain specific fonts many obviously don't have). As the situation is now, you actually impose your preference for Slavonic letters to the rest of the international audience. And this international audience only sees ₳ ₳ ₳. Do you think that's fair? I don't. So either you're going to do something to make those Slavonic letters VISIBLE to all of us, or they're going to stay like this. No more playing, please. Vasilij (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

With all respect - install a Unicode font. Almost all the Slavonic letters are in Unicode now, and Wikipedia prefers Unicode for non-Latin scripts. Install a Unicode font and set your browser encoding to Unicode, and they'll show fine. I'm not imposing my own preference for Slavonic letters - the Old Believers use Slavonic letters, not transcription into the Civil script as it exist after the Soviet orthographical reforms. Why should we use the Russian transcriptions? Why not Ukrainian or Balkan Cyrillic for the letters? As it happens, I've tried viewing the pages in five countries, on three operating systems and with eight browsers. The letters show up fine on all of them. Meanwhile I've inserted the Unicode template into the article at the appropriate places, that should help. InfernoXV (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we're not all able or that anxious, let alone obliged to install Unicode fonts to please some extravagants (forgive me for putting it this way). I, too, have tried viewing the pages in three countries and the Slavonic letters didn't show up at all...

The Old Believers do not use Slavonic script or pre-revolutionary orthography in all their books and publications (unlike the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad). Only liturgical books are being printed in Slavonic; prayer books and church calendars, for instance, are being printed in comtemporary Russian Civil script. Within the context of an encyclopedia there is no Old Believer in Moscow I know who would resent reading the pages in question in contemporary Russian script, I assure you.

But now something else has happened: the New Style text has vanished. This needs to be fixed. Vasilij (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the new text - I've fixed that! I think the unicode template must've fixed things somehow. meanwhile, You're right that OBs use Civil Script for calendars and non-liturgical materials - I get the Belaya Krinitsa calendar every year. I hadn't realised they print prayerbooks in Civil type these days though! I use the Old Rite Prayerbook published by the Church Abroad, and apparently the Old Believers are awfully impressed by it. InfernoXV (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Semeiskie

Could someone possibly write either a page on the Semeiskie, or add a section to this article if you think it necessary. It needs doing and isn't adequately covered by the Old Believers page.Tomkeene 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Semeskie are just one of the priestless Old Believers denominations, I don't see why the Semeiskie should have their own special section. Within the article, it's enough when they are mentioned. If someone feels the urge to write a page on them - please do feel free to do so.

Vasilij

Editing "Main alternations introduced by Patriarch Nikon"

The fact is that the Old Believers do not regard the formula of the Doxology to be one of the most essential alternations. Show me any Old Believer publication which mentions this peculiar alternation as such. This "i vo veki vekom" thing is just one of the countless differences that occured after the so called book revision by Patriach Nikon. If this particular formula were to be "one of the main alternations," then one might as well sum up all changes, which comprise about 400 pages. To illustrate what I mean, I just mention some other alternations:

OLD:

1. (...) Ty bo esi spasenie rodu christianskomy (hymn to the Mother of God)

2. (...) Pascha netlenija, miru spasenie (hexapostularion of Easter)

3. (...) Milost', mir, zhertvu i penie (from the Liturgy of the Faithful)

NEW:

1. (...) Ty bo esi spasenie roda christianskogo

2. (...) Pascha netlenija, mira spasenie

3. (...) Milost', mira, ...

Do I have to go on? I could go on for many hours! And there are some very interesting thing among them, too.

Please do believe me: the "vo veki vekom" thing is just one of these similar changes. So it should not be in this section. Vasilij 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging the NPOV label

Tagging the NPOV label, stating that things are not presented in a neutral way, without any argumentation or examples, is, of course, the easiest thing in the world to do. Actually, the person who has tagged the label has expressed his own, very personal attitude towards the article, rather than establish something requiring improvement.

What are authors expected to do in such cases? Put in quotations and references at every square inch? No, that won't make sense. Sadly enough, we've gone through all this before... In April last year I wrote:

What if citations were to be introduced in the article? Would that satisfy a. those who want to support the alleged truth of the Old Believers’ cause, by means of quotations anticipating objections from their opponents, or b. those who are questioning the article’s contents and request more evidence, i.e. citations? I think neither request should be granted: this would soon turn into an endless polemic that won’t get us anywhere. I trust all agree that’s not what an encyclopedia article is meant to be for.

Those sections of the article which refute traditional misconceptions about the schism and the Old Believers (for these are usually the sections some may find lacking credibility and therefore needing citations) are entirely based on scientific research, carried out by well-known scholars whose reputation and integrity is beyond any doubt. Their names and their standard works on the subject are listed in the “References and Selected Biography” section at the end of the article. Either one recognizes the authority and integrity of these scholars, or one doesn’t. If one doesn’t, will quotations be of any use? I’m afraid they won’t. Sadly enough, we’ve already been through this a year ago, when a rather fierce discussion aroused on Latin influence in Greek tradition: competent scholars have been quoted, but one hasn’t got the impression it convinced anybody who disagreed on the matter.

What if quotations were requested for the sake of NPOV? First of all, mere citations probably won’t contribute to NPOV, for one can manipulate using quotations. In fact, there is only one guarantee for NPOV: the stainless reputation of the above-mentioned scholars which has continued to be stainless for the last hundred years or so. Their books are still being published, their authority and expertise have remained unquestioned until this very day. Science continues to develop, yet the main results of their scientific research have never been refuted ever since. Given these facts, a request to add quotations in order to give the article more credibility really seems quite inappropriate.

Vasilij (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the Section about Roman Catholics holding Old Russian Rites

Kingstowngalway, InfernoXV, Gentlemen,

Please pay close attention to what Old Believers are:

In the context of Russian Orthodox church history, the Old Believers became separated after 1666 - 1667 from the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church as a protest against church reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon. Old Believers continue liturgical practices which the Russian Orthodox Church maintained before the implementation of these reforms.

I can understand your enthusiasm for the Roman Catholic Church, your Catholic faith, your interest in Eastern Orthodoxy and your apparent sympathy with old Christian traditions. However, within the context of this article the term “Old Believers” or “Old Ritualists” is specifically reserved for the above-mentioned Christians. The article is meant to give information in general about these specific Russian Christians. In connection to Old Believers any more broad definition just won’t do.

I somehow feel you miss the point. This article is about Old Believers. This article is not about any other Christians, holding Old Russian traditions, this article is not about any converts, regardless of their original faith. Besides, Edinovertsy – because it’s them you’re talking about – are not Old Believers. True, they are often being referred to within the context of the history of the Schism and the Old Faith, but the very fact that there is a separate article about Edinoverie only confirms my point: Old Believers are not Edinovertsy and vice versa. So “Old Believers having been received into communion with the Roman Catholic Church” sounds very strange indeed. If Old Believers were to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, they would simply no longer be Old Believers, meaning they should not be discussed in this article.

Any more detailed information about Edinovertsy has to be placed in the relating article. Furthermore, I doubt Edinovertsy converted to Catholicism can still be regarded as Edinovertsy or are being regarded as such by the orthodox Edinovertsy themselves; let alone that one could maintain they are closely related to the Old Believers. Such Edinovertsy have formally become Catholics[1], regardless of which traditions they hold. What relevancy Catholics have in an article, specifically giving information about Old Believers (see definition above)?

Apart from all this, one further objection: With all due respect for father Potapy Emelianov, but he was the only one who converted to Catholicism, and his “entire parish” was also the only parish. Currently, there is “one Old Ritualist Catholic priest active on Russian soil.” All this is far too marginal from the start to include it in an article, pretending to give information in general, even if Old Ritualist Catholics had anything to do with Old Believers, which is obviously not the case. I understand that Old Ritualist Catholics are of special interest for you, but an article about Old Believers is hardly the appropriate place for expressing this interest.

No, I am not anti-Catholic. Yes, I am concerned with the uniformity and the thematic purity of this article. So I still am very much in favour of deleting this section, which is really off-issue here. I'm going to move this section to the article Edinoverie, where it will be more at its place. I hope I've made clear why Old Ritualist Catholics are out of place in an article about Old Believers and I also hope we're not heading for an edit war.

[1] I listened to a radio translation of an Eastern Catholic service once and, despite all claims being apart from Rome, preserving Eastern Orthodox traditions, etc. the choir sang the Creed with the Filioque. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Edinovertsy in question did the same thing.

Vasilij (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vasilij, thank you for your kind words. Upon reflection, I quite agree that Edinovertsy and the Edinoverie phænomenon are best treated in a separate article, though I should point out that it was not I who added the section.

Perhaps we could use the distinction now usually used in English-language scholarship: Old-Ritualist meaning any who follow the pre-Nikonian rites; and Old Believer meaning those who are either Popovtsy belonging to one of the Old Believer jurisdictions or Bezpopovtsy, where neither the Popovtsy nor the Bezpopovtsy being in communion with the wider communion of Orthodox or Catholics . This of course means that Old-Ritualist is a broader term, and while all Old Believers are Old-Ritualists, not all Old-Ritualists are Old Believers. Edinovertsy therefore are Old-Ritualists who are in communion with either the Russian State Church or some other larger non-Old-Ritualist body.

I understand your hesitation to include Catholic Edinovertsy in the Edinovertsy article, but historically those who belonged to the Catholic Edinovertsy movement saw themselves as Edinovertsy, merely that the 'edin' bit referred not to the Russian State Church, but rather to the Catholic church. The community in St Petersburg referred to themselves as 'Russian Old-Ritualists in communion with the Holy See', hence as Staroobriadtsy. The whole Edinoverie phænomenon is, in some ways, Uniatism, and it works both ways - whether the Edinovertsy are united with the Catholic Church or the Russian State Church. I understand your doubt as to whether the Edinovertsy under the State Church would have regarded those in communion with Rome as fellow Edinovertsy, but to say that one doubts that they are in any way related to the Old Believers is surely pushing it a bit far. Edinovertsy/Staroobriadtsy of both sides are equally related to the Old Believers.

I agree with your having moved the entire section to the Edinoverie article, but I would urge that a sentence be added in the Edinoverie section of this article so that the phænomenon is not entirely omitted here.

Actually, Fr Potapy Emelianov was not the only one who converted, and his parish was not the only parish. There were a number of communities in South America, and at least one in North America (attached to St Procopius Abbey, Lisle, Illinois), but these did not last long, and most either returned to Bezpopovtsy life, joined one of the Old Believer Popovtsy jurisdictions, or went back to the Soviet Union (and we all know what happened to those!).

I have no desire to start an edit war - we are in the Apostles' Fast after all. I would, however, strongly urge a sentence to be included here, and I'll then expand on the section in the Edinoverie article. I agree that an extensive section as KingstonGalway added is quite out of place, but a brief mention is not out of place. After all, in the articles on the Western rites and the Roman liturgical tradition, mention is made of Western-Rite Orthodox communities (who are, in effect, reverse Uniates). I hope that good faith may be seen in the fact that I'm not adding that sentence without having discussed it here on the talk page first.

This ties in neatly with your point about having heard an Eastern Catholic service with the Filioque in the Creed - it was never mandated, but some over-enthusiastic bishops of some Eastern Catholic Churches decided to add the illegal interpolation during a time of strong Latinising influence. It is rather like the Western-Rite Orthodox, who in many places were (and some still are) forced to include an Epiclesis into the Anaphora of their liturgies, despite the fact that the pre-Schism Western tradition did not have an Epiclesis. Not all Eastern Catholics used the Filioque, and today all are encouraged to have it removed, to be true to their traditions. It is a matter of historical fact that the Russian Catholics never had the Filioque, and changed nothing in their services - the Catholic Edinovertsy likewise. InfernoXV (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you in return for your interesting and elaborate response. Although I still consider Old Ritualists in communion with the Rome really a marginal phænomenon, I am not opposed mentioning about them in the Edinoversty section. As a matter of fact, I’ve already added the very one sentence you’ve asked for. I consider we’ve sorted this out.

As to distinguish “Old Ritualists” vs. “Old Believers things may be rather tricky and complicate. First of all, I tend to agree with the distinction mentioned by you and which, as I learned from you, is now usually used in English-language scholarship. On the other hand, when dealing with Old Believers proper, this distinction may still be quite confusing. To me, both ‘Old Believers’ and ‘Old Ritualists’ are translations of the Russian «староверы» and «старообрядцы». Within the context of Russian history and culture, both «староверы» and «старообрядцы» relate to those who one apparently is the call in English only “Old Believers.” In Russia the term «старообрядцы» is sometimes being used to refer to any traditionalist group, but the first association will be with Old Believers. As you will know, the Church of the Byelokrinitskaya Hierarchy calls itself, translated from Russian, ‘Old Ritualist.’ Even in languages which offer both ‘Old Believers’ and ‘Old Ritualist’l, e.g. German (‘Altgläubige’ and ‘Altritualiste’) this Church prefers the latter variant. To make things even more complicate, the Bespopovtsy call themselves only «староверы», whereas they reserve «старообрядцы» for the Popovtsy. (The Bespopovtsy claim they are the only ones who have preserved the Old Faith, and by calling Popovtsy ‘Old Ritualists’ they point out that the Popovtsy would only have preserved the old rituals, not the Old Faith.) The Popovtsy, in their turn, use both names, although ‘Old Ritualists’ clearly prevails over ‘Old Believers’. As you can see, things are quite complicate and, I’m afraid, will remain so in the future.

I’ve written: “let alone that one could maintain they [Edinovertsy in communion with Rome] are closely related to the Old Believers” (“in any way related” was an earlier version of my statement). I agree this may be exaggerated and historically and liturgically spoken you are right. However, to what extent they are (closely) related in a psychological and spiritual sense remains open to debate. (Allow me not to extend on this, it’s too much off-issue!) Vasilij (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Decree, Zone and four pendant stripes

“(…) such as the decree mandating that the Zone (liturgical belt) worn by Old Believer priests were to have four pendant strips, two on each hip, so as to differentiate Old Believer priests from those of the State Church.”

I’m awfully curious about the source where you’ve found this! To be frank I was utterly astonished when I read this, this story really seems highly unlikely. No one I asked ever heard of such a decree issued – by whom, when, where?

As it happens, I am in the fortune position knowing quite a few studied and well-read Old Believers and I just started dialing their telephone numbers. Here are the results of my hasty and provisional enquiries:

Fist of all, there’s the decree. No one here in Moscow has ever heard of such a decree. It was strictly forbidden for OB priests to show themselves in liturgical vestments in public – if they were allowed to perform worship at all. If they would walk about in liturgical vestments, they’d be arrested immediately. The OB priests were constantly hiding, they performed worship in utmost secrecy, so no one could have taken OB priests for State Church priests. In short, there was no necessity for such a decree.

Then there is the Zone itself. OB call what either the source or you call “pendant stripes” not stripes but «источники» (источник – spring, well, source, fountain) and, as far as I know, they symbolize the four Evangelists. Most likely, these istochniki go back to an Old Russian church tradition, according to which bishops were given so-called «сулки» («сулокъ» - a decorative piece of cloth, used to decorate crosiers) as a sign of esteem or for special merits. Later pieces of cloth were sewed on liturgical vestments, also as a sign of esteem or in token of certain merits, besides, not only to vestments of bishops, but of priests as well. There may not always have been four pieces of cloth attached to the Zone, but after some time attaching four pieces became a habit. These itochniki are most likely such “sulki”. Later on they were no longer regarded as decorations (distinctions), but as standard parts of liturgical vestments.

Some else said that the istochniki are not related to this Old Russian tradition, but that they go straight back to the Old Testament, i.e. to ancient Jewish traditions. In this case, the prototype of these istochniki are the so-called tzitzit. As a matter of fact, they do remind of the istochniki (see illustration), even when these tzitzit are made of tied threads and the istochniki are just stripes, but that's a matter of evolution. And guess how many tzitzit there are? Exactly four pieces. This theory seems quite plausible, since many Jewish traditions were adopted by Christianity.

File:RainbowTzitzit.JPG

A pair of rainbow colored tzitzit.

At any rate, it seems to me that all the above-mentioned is closer to the truth than this decree story no one has ever heard of. (Ironically, in the 19th century the OB became more orientated towards the traditions of the State Church and their liturgical vestments showed more and more resemblance to those of the State Church. Unfortunately, OB liturgical vestments are not Old Russian vestments any more, although their still differ from the Russian Orthodox Church’s vestments.)

Unless you provide some irrefutable information, I suggest we revert this decree and Zone story, because it looks very strange to me and to everybody I've discussed it with.Vasilij (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. That was a bit of information I got from some Old Believer friends - I must check with them and their sources. I'll remove it and won't put it back in until I've found some reliable information that's referenced and verified. Yes, quite right, they're called istochniki, but I hesitated to put that word into the article, it not being in English. I highly doubt the Tsitzit origin - nobody else in the Byzantine or Eastern Christian world seems to have such a thing, and it's unique to the Old Ritualists. InfernoXV (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In Christian liturgy, the stole and other vestments worn by priests and bishops traditionally have fringes on the edge, in remembrance of the Old Testament prescriptions.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, when the priest or bishop puts on his stole he reads a prayer taken from the Psalms of Degrees: "Blessed is God Who poureth out His grace upon His priests, like unto the precious ointment on the head, which runneth down upon the beard, even the beard of Aaron, which runneth down upon the fringe of his raiment. (Cf. Psalm 133). (Excerpt from the article Christianity and fringed garments)

The wearing of istochniki may very well be a sole Old Russian tradition. One should find out wether the istochniki are unique to the Old Believers or to Old Russian church practice in general. Vasilij (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the abbreviation c. for?

The Introductory summary of origins section includes this wording:

These traditionalists endured a severe persecution in 18–19 c.

Does "18–19 c." refer to some time period? The lead says the schism happened about 1666, so it can't mean something like 1618–1619; is this some alternative church calendar or something? Apologies for my ignorance; I happened here randomly. But that passage is opaque to me. Ntsimp (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

More information about Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa in this article

Four reasons why the section Introduction from the article Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa should not be merged into this article or section.

1. The user who has suggested to merge the introduction of Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa in this article seems to ignore that Saint Ambrosii is mentioned in the article, that some facts about him are being mentioned and that there is a link to the article about him, telling in detail who Saint Ambrosii was.

2. The introduction of Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa contains many facts which are already mentioned in this article. These facts should not be repeated in another section. This is absolutely superfluous and it makes the article look as if it has been poorly edited.

3. The introduction of Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa is extremely detailed, as the whole article is. The current article tries to tell something about Old Believers, a very complicated subject with many aspects. The aim of the article is to tell as much as possible in brief, giving the most relevant information enabling the reader to get an idea about who the Old Believers are. Therefore, any more detailed information should be avoided at all cost.

4. All OB denominations have got their own founder or leader. In this respect, Saint Ambrosii is just one of these leaders/founders. Why then elaborate on Saint Ambrosii? Then we should write about all of them. But again, the article is complicated and big enough as it is.

I strongly suggest not to add more information than necessary. Vasilij (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)