From time to time, I will have an inquiry about why the Old Believers were justified in separating from the Church.
Was it one issue, or all of them put together?
Don’t Old Believers know the teachings and warnings about schism being the gravest of sins?
Rather than rail against the presuppositions embedded in these kinds of questions, I want to explore, as an answer, the very symbol of the Schism itself, and the symbol of Old Belief – the Sign of the Cross.
There are so many issues and perspectives from which one may explain fidelity to Old Belief – but the Sign of the Cross, in its prominence, serves well as a sole focus.
The Small Catechism of 1539, summarizes how the sign is made:
…The index and middle fingers—are stretched out to signify the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both perfect God and perfect man for our salvation.
After joining the fingers, place your hand first on your forehead, confessing that Christ is the one true and eternal Head…
Then place your hand on your stomach, confessing His descent to earth and His conception without seed in the pure womb of the God-bearer…
Then place your hand on your right shoulder, confessing that He sits at the right hand of God the Father, awaiting when His enemies are made His footstool.
Finally, place your hand on your left shoulder, signifying that He will come again to judge the world, granting eternal life to those on His right and eternal punishment to those on His left.
When crossing yourself with the sign of the cross, say this prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner, finishing with Amen, and bowing down to God, asking that He deliver us from the standing on the left and grant us His blessing.1
That the sign is part of Apostolic Tradition – and not simply a pious expression, is made clear by St. Basil the Great:
Canon 91. Of the dogmas and teachings preserved by the Church, some are outlined in the Scriptures, while others are passed down to us from apostolic tradition in secrecy. Both are of equal significance for piety, and no one, even slightly familiar with ecclesiastical rules, will dispute this. Indeed, if we were to reject unwritten customs as insignificant, we would unwittingly distort the Gospel itself and render the preaching void. For example (I will first mention the most ordinary and common), who taught through Scripture that those who place their hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the sign of the cross?2
An important point.
It is an expression of our hope in our Savior Jesus Christ. Christ. The Cross. They are so essentially connected, that it needs no explanation.
As referenced in the Small Catechism, the most significant prayer in the Apostolic faith – apart from the prayer that the Lord taught us directly in calling on our Father – is the prayer to Jesus Christ Himself – the so-called “Jesus Prayer”:
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
This prayer is essentially linked to the sign of the Cross. In Old Belief, one does not make the sign without, at least mentally, having these words in their hearts, and at prayer, one cannot say this prayer aloud without making the sign.
Children are raised learning the dogmas of Christ – the truth of our salvation through Him, with the sign of the Cross.
So connected to the Cross is its sign – that Russia preserved the ancient practice of using a mat for prayer – that when a prostration is made (after making the sign of the Cross), the very fingers connected with that sign will not touch the ground. Behind this piety is the 73rd canon from the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which forbade any crosses from touching the ground.3
But, it is enough about the sign itself – and what it means, – is it ancient?
That this is so, is also so obvious it needs little help in presenting itself.
The well-loved Athonite Nikodemus the Hagiorite – the compiler of the well-known Philokalia, is also known for publishing the “Rudder” – the book of canons and rules. In the introduction, Nikodemus says:
The ancient Christians arranged their fingers differently [from modern Greeks] when making the sign of the cross, using only two fingers—the middle and index fingers—as described by St. Peter of Damascus (Philokalia, p. 642). According to him, the entire hand represents the one hypostasis of Christ, and the two fingers symbolize His two natures.4
The most obvious evidence is clear to the eyes. There is another written legacy of Apostolic Christianity beyond the written word – and this is the iconography of the Church, which from the earliest example, give prominence to the two-finger sign. Among the early icons, many hand gestures were used. These are briefly discussed in my article here.
What is not encountered in any of these signs, however, is the three-finger sign.
With one exception.
The three-finger sign was used, iconographically, as the hand formation of Judas Iscariot, as he reaches for the bread at the Supper – indicating his place as the betrayer. Old Believer polemics have frequently referred to the three-fingered sign as the “pinch of Judas”.
In 1654, Patriarch Nikon condemned the sign of the cross, introducing a heresy of his own, connecting its use and symbolism with the heresy of Nestorius:
If anyone makes the sign of the cross with two extended fingers—the index and middle fingers—and by them seeks to represent the Divinity and Humanity of the Son of God, he is in every way acting improperly and, rather, in opposition to the truth. For he would thereby depict two Sons: one born of the Father, and another born of the Mother, and thus confess two persons, as did Nestorius.5
Thirteen years later – when the representatives from the other Patriarchates arrived in Moscow, and a full council was convened in 1666 and 1667, the two-finger sign of the Cross was again condemned:
And make upon yourselves the sign of the honorable and life-giving Cross with the first three fingers of the right hand… But let the two others, called the little finger and the one next to it, remain bent and idle, according to the ancient tradition of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers.6
The councils confirmed Nikon’s understanding and “corrections”, and added to them the anathemas and eternal curses upon all who continued to use the ancient sign:
But if anyone does not obey what is commanded by us and does not submit to the holy Eastern Church and this holy council, or begins to contradict and oppose us, such an opponent, by the authority given us from the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit – if he be of the sacred order – we depose and strip of all priestly function and subject to anathema; if he be of the lay order, we excommunicate and make him a stranger to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and subject him to curse and anathema as a heretic and disobedient, and cut him off from the Orthodox fellowship and flock and from the Church of God until he come to understanding and return to the truth by repentance.
And he who does not come to understanding and does not return to the truth by repentance but remains in his obstinacy until his end, let him be excommunicated even after death, and let his portion and his soul be with Judas the betrayer, with the Jews who crucified Christ, with Arius and the other accursed heretics. Let iron, stones, and wood be destroyed and decay, but let him remain unabsolved and undecayed, like a tympanum for ever and ever. Amen.7
The fierce hatred and permanence of these curses, and the fact that they were adopted by representatives from the other patriarchates was a catastrophic event for the faithful.
It meant an apostasy of apocalyptic proportions that demanded extreme interpretations to understand – it is the time of the Antichrist.
That the curse was of no effect was never questioned by Old Believers. But was there any effect beyond this?
In the 12th chapter of his great apologetic work, The Enlightener, St. Joseph of Volotsk, after citing multiple fathers who say the same, says:
God’s judgment does not follow a heretical curse, but the curse of heretics returns upon them. All heretics cursing Christians curse themselves. If anyone curses Abraham, he is cursed, as per the divine voice, “I will curse him that curseth thee” (Genesis 12:3); how much more, then, shall a heretic who rejects Christ, cursing a Christian, himself be cursed? Many heretics have cursed Christians, and God’s judgment did not follow, but they themselves were cursed.8
Even into the 19th century, the notion that two-finger signers would be damned was still firmly entrenched. In one of the lives of Seraphim of Sarov, by Met. Seraphim (Chichagov), we see the interaction of a woman with the elder, inquiring about the state of her ancestors:
“Did any of your departed relatives pray with the two-finger cross?” the elder asked one of his spiritual daughters. The woman replied, “To my sorrow, all of them did.” “Though they may have been virtuous people,” said Fr. Seraphim, “they are bound [in hell -OB]: the holy Orthodox Church does not accept this cross.”9
Like these, there are countless others by the likes of Dimitry of Rostov, Theophan “the Recluse”, John of Kronstadt, and many others, some of such foul hatred that I would feel defiled for repeating them.
The assault on the sign of the Cross was extended in the councils of 1666/1667 by even anathematizing the phrase “Son of God” in the Jesus prayer, insisting that only “our God” is a proper Orthodox statement.10
Fortunately, both this insane condemnation, and the insistence that the two fingers in the three-fingered sign are “idle”, signifying nothing, were soon abandoned and ignored…
I must consider with a heart bent upon forgiveness and understanding that the Greek usage of the two-finger sign faded, for there is no evidence that the change was done either intentionally or with malice for what came before. Couple this with the fact that the representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs who attended the councils of 1666/1667 were the most unscrupulous of characters, denounced even by their own. (A very balanced assessment of these knaves may be read in the book Russia, Ritual, and Reform, by Paul Meyendorff of the Orthodox Church in America.)
But, for those who understood the sign, knew its significance, knew the dogmatic meaning, and lived with the understanding that the sign was itself part of the living, Apostolic Tradition – an outward symbol of the very truths of our faith – it was clear that the new sign was born of the heresy of condemning that very Tradition.
Reconciling with it was out of the question. By its very condemnation of the Apostolic sign as a heresy, Nikon had separated himself from that faith that had blessed his land for centuries, and created a new one – opposed to the piety of his fathers. The acquiescence of the Greeks only made matters more severe.
Indeed – it was never a question of resisting a lawful reform – but rather a question of preserving the faith and piety of our forefathers under the persecution of those who sought to destroy it.
And destroy it they did.
Soon after the disaster of 1667, Peter “the Great”, saw in the new Russian church an object worthy of no respect, and immediately undertook to reform it. The patriarchate was abolished and replaced by what came to be the “Synod”, whose role was subjugated to the state.
Subjugation itself became a theme of primary importance. Patriarch Ioachim of Moscow famously said after the schism:
I know neither the old faith nor the new, but whatever the authorities command, I am ready to do and obey them in all things.11
In modern Orthodox culture – this new emphasis on obedience led to a fundamental change, starting in Optina, to the ancient monastic relationship of the monk and his disciple, expanding it to the unconnected laity.
Today it is not hard to find people who believe they need “blessings” not only for the most mundane of activities, but even for those things they are already required to do as Christians!
The emphasis on Freedom, in some ways a reaction, is one of the greatest Old Believer legacies! But today, one can see among certain Old Believer groups that a jealousy of this kind of spiritual power is being felt.
After the Councils, persecutions, imprisonments, tortures, executions, tongue and finger removals, forced-feeding of their sacraments, and more were imposed upon the faithful of the old ways. Obedience would be enforced with devilish cruelty.
The use of prayer rugs ceased almost immediately. With the connection to the Cross gone, what did it matter? In place of the rug, the practice arose of intentionally touching the very fingers used to make the sign of the Cross to the ground!
It remains to this day an ironic fact that this act of enhanced piety has embedded within it the mockery of the older piety and veneration of the Cross itself.
A constant reminder of a fall.
Instead of its natural connection to the Jesus Prayer, the sign of the Cross lost its Christological mate. Then began the practice wherein the only statements requiring the sign of the Cross was a trinitarian invocation. This also remains true today.
While I do not know of anyone who believes that the Holy Trinity died upon the Cross – to link so inseparably the two looks like a sad statement of theological sloppiness and carelessness. The Cross is a Christological symbol – not a Trinitarian one.
The apparent indifference to the sign’s meaning is also seen today in its use among clergy and hierarchs of the reformed Church – priests and bishops whose hands seem to get unbelievably heavy in making the sign so that their fingers never make it to their left shoulder. Indeed many do not even try, making quick gestures before their chest. As if the sign has gone beyond insignificance to actual annoyance.
Even in using the sign as a blessing – one sees the degradation of piety.
Lost are the actual words of blessing, (the very point). Lost is the act of tracing the sign upon the person asking for the blessing, often replaced by a quick swatting motion. Lost even is the very desire by the faithful for the actual blessing (prayer), who never receive it. But retained is the kissing of the hand! It has become a dead shell – a rite whose purpose and end is the rite itself.
While these offenses remain, there are some, yes, who strive for care. May God preserve them! But these are the exception, from my observations.
Further, it must be stated that today, the roots of the Orthodox reformation are almost completely unknown. Even among many priests of the Russian tradition are those who admittedly know nothing about the Schism, but could speak at length upon the most obscure theological disruptions in the first millennium whose relevance has been lost for over a thousand years, like the filioque.
I can say confidently, that many of the faithful today in the Nikonian church are a testament to the power and universal love and providence of God, who calls and blesses all who seek Him, wherever they are.
Those that burn with love for Christ, and seek to obey His commandments, are like our brothers, wherever they are!
We enjoy a perspective today that those in the past did not have – an appreciation of local differences that arose not out of denial or rejection, but naturally over time.
Indeed, the Western liturgical tradition had established itself as a completely unique system long before any schisms occurred and allow those of us from the Eastern tradition to look at their worship with a kind of admiration that our forefathers did not have the perspective (or the sources) to be able to do.
But, sad is the knowledge that one tradition was born, not out of an organic local difference, from the sincere love of Christ, but rather a spiteful, mean-spirited, and destructive rejection of a local faith – the Muscovite one.
I cannot look upon this benevolently, but must keep separated from it.
For this reason, while I cannot judge those who choose it, I personally cannot accept the path of the Edinoverie, those who are “permitted” to continue with the old ways under the new bosses.
While it was a welcome sign, and certainly positive, the lifting of the curses by Moscow in the 1970s was neither here nor there, for by the original act, Nikon and the councils bombed their bridge to the past and built a new path forward – one that in Russia led to an immediate overhaul of Muscovite piety, the Westernization of its hierarchy, its architecture, and its iconography.
The holy martyr Avvakum commented with his typical folksy bluntness on the new style of iconography, which was introduced with striking speed. He connected it with a coinciding loss of asceticism in the piety of the priesthood.
Speaking to an apparently bloated Nikonian priest (obesity is still a problem today that plagues the hierarchs and priests, of Old Believers in some cases also, – a problem that could not exist if the established rules of eating and fasting were observed), Avvakum said:
Look at that face, that belly, you cursed Nikonian—you’re so fat! How do you expect to fit through the heavenly gate?
Narrow is the way and strait, full of sorrow, that leads to life. The Kingdom of Heaven is for those who strive, not for the fat-bellied.
Look at the holy icons and see how the saints who pleased God are depicted by skilled iconographers: their faces, hands, feet, and all their features are thin and emaciated from fasting, labor, and all kinds of afflictions. But you have changed their likeness, painting them as you are yourselves: fat-bellied, fat-faced, with legs and arms like chair legs. And for every saint—God save you—you’ve smoothed out their wrinkles, the poor things. They didn’t think to do that in their lifetime, as you’ve made them!
Clever ones! You’re cunning with the devil!
There’s nothing to discuss. A good person has nothing to hear from you: all you talk about is how to sell, how to buy, how to eat, how to drink, how to fornicate with women, how to grab children in the altar by their backsides. And I’m ashamed to mention the other things you do: I know all your evil cunning, you dogs, you harlots, you metropolitans, archbishops, Nikonians, you thieves, betrayers, new Russo-Germans!12
But all of this led – almost without anyone noticing, to a loss of respect from the top to the bottom of Russian society for its Church.
Gone were the days of Holy Russia. Forever.
The scar of this loss, more than anything else, made it possible for the horrors of the atheistic communist reign of terror in the 20th century, as Solzhenitsyn frequently pointed out.
But this wound was not only self-inflicted – it was intentional.
What Nikon and even more so, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, managed to achieve with their reforms, was to grasp the piety of their fathers, boulders before their paths to consolidated power over the Church, and to steal it away.
Pinch of Judas indeed.
It must be stated that much of what is said above, though it can be seen in its effects today, is impossible to lay at the feet of those in the reformed, modern Orthodox Church.
They know nothing about it! They bear none of the guilt.
Beyond this, it is not my place to judge anyone who is trying to follow Christ. It is more than enough to judge myself, and my own lacking, my own impiety, and my own ignorance.
In the vast majority of its prayers, liturgics, and doctrines, the Old Believers and the Nikonians are very close. But, among so many issues – the departure from the Old Faith involved a conscious denial of it.
Today, I have only focused on one element – the sign of the Cross, because it is the most prominent. While there are elements here that are polemical, I say them with humility and admitting I am no Christian example. I speak hypocritically.
And this is why I need the old faith.
The ire of Old Believer polemics, it is true, is focused almost entirely against that religion that is closest to it.
Quite distinct from the polemics in modern Orthodoxy, one must search for anti-Catholic polemics among Old Believers (though they certainly do exist – they are almost always confined to the issue of “pouring baptism”). This must be excused, for the Catholics did not curse our faith as a heresy – they did not damn us to hell for preserving it. They never said, through their proclamations and violence against our piety, “we hate your ways and have no part in them”.
This itself is the great heresy of the Nikonian origins!
Can anyone seriously say that the condemnation of the pious act of icon veneration (iconoclasm) was in any way worse or different in kind than the condemnation of the true sign of the cross? Iconoclasts at least had one of the Ten Commandments to cite in their defense, despite being wrong. All defenses of the three-finger sign, being of Apostolic origin, have long since been laughed off. You will not find a historian of the subject in the last 150 years who supports the assertions of Nikon and his councils.
While the Western Christians of Catholicism seem bound in the very essence of their faith to the seat of papal authority – for the old faith, it is not so.
You can destroy our churches, our altars. You can our destroy monasteries, our books. You can even destroy our priesthood, our hierarchies.
But to confess the true faith, and to follow the commandments of God, through the ways and traditions of our forefathers, is the responsibility of every individual.
My faith cannot fall with the betrayal of any or all of the bishops. Neither will the correct faith of a hierarchy save me if I am devoid of faith.
We will only answer for ourselves on doomsday.
Old Belief is a path of conscious preservation of a lived faith, passed on from the Byzantine fathers of old and preserved through Muscovite piety. By its continuity and antiquity, its validity and needful value is confirmed.
Old Belief is the faith of Holy Russia, not the faith of “enlightened” Russia.
It is not the Old Believers who broke away.
They remained…
This is why I cannot be anything but an Old Believer.
- pp. 41-42 ↩︎
- https://agioskanon.starove.ru/otci/015.htm ↩︎
- Canon 73. Since the life-giving Cross has shown us salvation, we ought to exercise every care that due honor be rendered to that through which we were saved from the ancient fall. Therefore, offering veneration to it in thought, word, and feeling, we command that the figure of the Cross, which some have placed on the ground, be completely erased, so that the sign of our victory may not be dishonored by the trampling of those who walk upon it. Thus, from now on, we decree that those who place the figure of the Cross on the ground be excommunicated. ↩︎
- Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Pedalion: The Canons of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 4, Yekaterinburg, 2019, pp. 188, 194 ↩︎
- https://rpsc.ru/publications/bogoslovie/borba_s_dvoeperstiem/ ↩︎
- ibid. ↩︎
- https://theoldbelievers.com/old-believer-work/history-of-old-belief/#Chapter_XII_The_Councils_of_1666_and_1667 ↩︎
- p. 275 ↩︎
- https://rpsc.ru/publications/bogoslovie/borba_s_dvoeperstiem/ ↩︎
- https://protopop-avvakum.ru/k-ya-kozhurin-czerkovnye-sobory-1666-1667-gg-kak-vodorazdel-russkoj-istorii/ ↩︎
- https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/bogoslovie/skrizhal-akty-soborov-1654-1655-1656-godov/9 ↩︎
- ibid. ↩︎
