Old Believers and Old Calendarists

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Post Reply
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by Justice »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Maria wrote:

The Russian Orthodox Church has indeed been chrismating Roman Catholics, and even receiving some Catholics, especially those in the Eastern Catholic Churches by Confession of Faith and Communion. I spoke with an archimandrite in the Russian Orthodox Church under the MP back in 1995, and he was receiving Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy through confession. There was no need to deny the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Filioque either. This is Ecumenism.

So, when the ROCOR went under the MP in 2007, lots of red flags were raised.

Are you saying then that Orthodox Church has been in heresy or in communion with heretics for 400+ years? Because that's what it sounds like.

This is off topic a bit, but Patriarch Cyrill V of Constantinople ordered that Roman Catholics and any other Christian who didn't have a full three immersions would have to be re baptized.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by Maria »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Maria wrote:

The Russian Orthodox Church has indeed been chrismating Roman Catholics, and even receiving some Catholics, especially those in the Eastern Catholic Churches by Confession of Faith and Communion. I spoke with an archimandrite in the Russian Orthodox Church under the MP back in 1995, and he was receiving Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy through confession. There was no need to deny the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Filioque either. This is Ecumenism.

So, when the ROCOR went under the MP in 2007, lots of red flags were raised.

Are you saying then that Orthodox Church has been in heresy or in communion with heretics for 400+ years? Because that's what it sounds like.

The Russian Orthodox Church had been invaded and infiltrated by Jesuits who have taught in their universities since the 1600s. Read their theological manuals. When I was in the OCA, the priests whom I knew were pushing for unity with Rome. And the documents recently issued by the Pope and the MP have given many cause for concern.

The Antiochians in the Holy Land, in Syria, and in Lebanon were also invaded and infiltrated by Jesuits and Franciscans who taught in their schools. The Melkites were a huge group of Eastern Catholics who split from Antioch with Rome's blessing and help.

Even the Greek Orthodox Church has suffered as Bartholomew and many other Greek priests and bishops have been trained in several of Rome's theological universities staffed by Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans. St. Nectarios of Aegina who died in 1920 warned about this lust for theological degrees from universities in the West among the Greek priests and bishops. The acceptance of the Papal Calendar by the EP and the Greeks was no surprise as it stemmed from Ecumenism and for the desire to hasten unity with the West. St. Nectarios wrote and preached against the innovations of the West including the Papal calendar.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Maria wrote:
NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Maria wrote:

The Russian Orthodox Church has indeed been chrismating Roman Catholics, and even receiving some Catholics, especially those in the Eastern Catholic Churches by Confession of Faith and Communion. I spoke with an archimandrite in the Russian Orthodox Church under the MP back in 1995, and he was receiving Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy through confession. There was no need to deny the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Filioque either. This is Ecumenism.

So, when the ROCOR went under the MP in 2007, lots of red flags were raised.

Are you saying then that Orthodox Church has been in heresy or in communion with heretics for 400+ years? Because that's what it sounds like.

The Russian Orthodox Church had been invaded and infiltrated by Jesuits who have taught in their universities since the 1600s. Read their theological manuals. When I was in the OCA, the priests whom I knew were pushing for unity with Rome. And the documents recently issued by the Pope and the MP have given many cause for concern.

The Antiochians in the Holy Land, in Syria, and in Lebanon were also invaded and infiltrated by Jesuits and Franciscans who taught in their schools. The Melkites were a huge group of Eastern Catholics who split from Antioch with Rome's blessing and help.

Even the Greek Orthodox Church has suffered as Bartholomew and many other Greek priests and bishops have been trained in several of Rome's theological universities staffed by Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans. St. Nectarios of Aegina who died in 1920 warned about this lust for theological degrees from universities in the West among the Greek priests and bishops. The acceptance of the Papal Calendar by the EP and the Greeks was no surprise as it stemmed from Ecumenism and for the desire to hasten unity with the West. St. Nectarios wrote and preached against the innovations of the West including the Papal calendar.

If this is indeed your belief, then it would make much more sense for you to be an Old Believer than an Old Calendarist. Because according to your own logic, if Russia was engaging in ecumenism and if ecumnistis are heretics without grace, then according to that logic you are a part of a sect that has been without grace for 400+ years and only recently "recovered" that grace - which, I hope you will agree, is an impossibility.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:
NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Maria wrote:

The Russian Orthodox Church has indeed been chrismating Roman Catholics, and even receiving some Catholics, especially those in the Eastern Catholic Churches by Confession of Faith and Communion. I spoke with an archimandrite in the Russian Orthodox Church under the MP back in 1995, and he was receiving Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy through confession. There was no need to deny the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, or the Filioque either. This is Ecumenism.

So, when the ROCOR went under the MP in 2007, lots of red flags were raised.

Are you saying then that Orthodox Church has been in heresy or in communion with heretics for 400+ years? Because that's what it sounds like.

This is off topic a bit, but Patriarch Cyrill V of Constantinople ordered that Roman Catholics and any other Christian who didn't have a full three immersions would have to be re baptized.

Yes, it is true that Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople did that, but nevertheless he remained in communion with those who received Roman Catholics and Protestants via chrismation. Additionally, the Patriarch at the time sold indulgences, so it's not as though he was free from the influence of Latin theology.

Edit: I contacted an Old Calendarist regarding how he would view the issue of baptism, and he basically said that he would not condemn the Russian Church during the time when they received converts via chrismation, nor would he spend time worrying whether or not various Orthodox saints or significant individuals were truly Orthodox. Rather, the practice of receiving converts via baptism should be prefered because it is the more ancient practice and because it doing so gives someone a baptism done in the right "form". Thought that would be worth sharing because it seems relevant to what you were talking about.

(Also, on a side note, he corrected me regarding my timeline. While Patriarch Nikon did put through a lot of reforms, he was not the one responsible for instituting the practice of receiving converts via chrismation. Peter "the Great" is the one responsible for that change).

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by Justice »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Justice wrote:
NotChrysostomYet wrote:

Are you saying then that Orthodox Church has been in heresy or in communion with heretics for 400+ years? Because that's what it sounds like.

This is off topic a bit, but Patriarch Cyrill V of Constantinople ordered that Roman Catholics and any other Christian who didn't have a full three immersions would have to be re baptized.

Yes, it is true that Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople did that, but nevertheless he remained in communion with those who received Roman Catholics and Protestants via chrismation. Additionally, the Patriarch at the time sold indulgences, so it's not as though he was free from the influence of Latin theology.

Edit: I contacted an Old Calendarist regarding how he would view the issue of baptism, and he basically said that he would not condemn the Russian Church during the time when they received converts via chrismation, nor would he spend time worrying whether or not various Orthodox saints or significant individuals were truly Orthodox. Rather, the practice of receiving converts via baptism should be prefered because it is the more ancient practice and because it doing so gives someone a baptism done in the right "form". Thought that would be worth sharing because it seems relevant to what you were talking about.

(Also, on a side note, he corrected me regarding my timeline. While Patriarch Nikon did put through a lot of reforms, he was not the one responsible for instituting the practice of receiving converts via chrismation. Peter "the Great" is the one responsible for that change).

Glad you got that cleared up. I'm thinking on this matter of no re-baptism just chrismation ordeal it just doesn't seem right to me. Peter the Great truly screwed everything up.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:
NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Justice wrote:

This is off topic a bit, but Patriarch Cyrill V of Constantinople ordered that Roman Catholics and any other Christian who didn't have a full three immersions would have to be re baptized.

Yes, it is true that Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople did that, but nevertheless he remained in communion with those who received Roman Catholics and Protestants via chrismation. Additionally, the Patriarch at the time sold indulgences, so it's not as though he was free from the influence of Latin theology.

Edit: I contacted an Old Calendarist regarding how he would view the issue of baptism, and he basically said that he would not condemn the Russian Church during the time when they received converts via chrismation, nor would he spend time worrying whether or not various Orthodox saints or significant individuals were truly Orthodox. Rather, the practice of receiving converts via baptism should be prefered because it is the more ancient practice and because it doing so gives someone a baptism done in the right "form". Thought that would be worth sharing because it seems relevant to what you were talking about.

(Also, on a side note, he corrected me regarding my timeline. While Patriarch Nikon did put through a lot of reforms, he was not the one responsible for instituting the practice of receiving converts via chrismation. Peter "the Great" is the one responsible for that change).

Glad you got that cleared up. I'm thinking on this matter of no re-baptism just chrismation ordeal it just doesn't seem right to me. Peter the Great truly screwed everything up.

Right. Some of the things I read on here and on other places regarding the chrismation vs. baptism argument made it seem like Old Calendarists took a hard-line stance on this issue, which I am happy to discover is not the case.

Patriarch Nikon is, in a way, still responsible since he inadvertently prepared the way for Tsar Peter to do the things he did. But yeah, on this specific issue the change came later and the Old Believers continued with the previous practice.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Old Believers and Old Calendarists

Post by d9popov »

The issue of heterodox influence on some Eastern bishops and theologians over the last 800 years (since the fourth crusade conquered Constantinople) is an extremely important topic. Despite this influence, the Russian Church and the Greek churches spent many centuries (not necessarily the same centuries) receiving Roman Catholic converts by Orthodox baptism. Also, if one reads the conversion service for Roman Catholics in Hapgood, it is very clear that the convert is renouncing heresy and joining the one and only true Orthodox Catholic Church. So, despite heterodox influence and serious errors (like indulgences), no one should speak about a loss of grace (through ecumenism) before the 1920s. The 1920 pro-ecumenist encyclical was truly a revolution, as was the calendar change in 1924. Even more serious was the lifting of the anathemas in 1965 and Athenagoras's and Demetrius's official preaching of the Branch Theory Heresy and the Heterodox Mysteries Heresy. These are the two specific heresies that were anathematized by Saint Philaret, ROCOR, and the various TOCs worldwide. It is the official adoption of heresy that leads to the loss of sacramental grace. The Greek

Post Reply