Is there a Catholic equivalent to the Old Believers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pilgrim_Wanderer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pilgrim_Wanderer

Guest
Hi all,

I come from a Pomortsy/Pomorian Old Believer Family. The Old Believers-who are sometimes referred to as Ol Ritualists/Starovery-split from the “mainstream” Russian Orthodox Church in 1666-7 over the forced changes in Liturgical Practices introduced by Patriarch Nikon & the Tsar to bring the practices of the Russian Church more in line with the Greek Church by means of a great deal of pressure & a Church Council

Major Changes included the number of Prosphora used in the Liturgy (7 in older Russian Practice, 5 in Greek/New Russian Practice), the method of making the sign of the Cross, the abbreviation of Services & simplification of Rubrics.

The leader of the Old Believer resistance, Fr Avvakum, was eventually burned at the stake and there was much persecution by the State & Religious authorities, leading to many Old Believer Communities fleeing to countries like Romania, Brazil, Chile (where my family settled) & the USA (Especially NJ, Alaska, Oregon & Pennsylvania).

The major Old Believer groups split between “Priested” & “Priestless” communities (my community is in the latter category) since there was a dispute over the hierarchy maintained by some Old Believers resulting from the rule that Bishops consecrated by less than 3 other Bishops are regarded as doubtfully consecrated at best & the fact that newly adopted forms of Liturgy & Mysteries (Sacraments) are/were viewed as invalid.

Old Believer communities of both branches became rather like “Orthodox Amish” in that they are often very reclusive & distrustful of the outside world.

Are there any similar/equivalent groups within the Catholic Church or is this a peculiarly Russian phenomenon?

Peace & Blessings to all
 
Pilgrim_Wanderer said:
Are there any similar/equivalent groups within the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
We have various groups that splintered off from the Catholic Church for one reason or another, but nothing that strikes me as analogous to the Old Believers.

To the extent we have some very conservative Catholic traditionalist communities, some of which do live sort of like the Amish, they tend to be a recent phenomenon that sprang up after Vatican II, and nobody is persecuting them or trying to burn them at the stake. At most, they get excommunicated for disobedience to the bishop or Pope.
 
Interesting, thanks for the information.

There was even a “beard tax” introduced by the State at one stage, because a hallmark of the Old Believers is our historic insistence on long beards (even though beards have long been traditional again in the wider Orthodox world).

Some Old Believer communities both in Russia & the diaspora have now returned to the Mainstream ROC, while being allowed to keep their Liturgical Traditions (especially the Tradition of Znamenny Chant & some other variations in the Liturgy) & elect their own Candidates for the Priesthood & Diaconate from within their communities-a longstanding tradition before the changes.

One of the the most famous examples is the Church of the Nativity in Erie, PA which “switched” in the 1980’s after both the Moscow Patriarchate & Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) rescinded the anathemas against them (in 1970 & 1974 respectively i think).

Vatican II introduced changes to the Sacraments of the Church, if I understand correctly, by inference. Is that right?

Peace & Blessings to all!
 
Pilgrim_Wanderer said:
Vatican II introduced changes to the Sacraments of the Church, if I understand correctly, by inference. Is that right?
Click to expand...
No, Vatican II did not change the Sacraments of the Church. The biggest and most visible change of Vatican II was that it changed the usual rite of Mass from the Tridentine Form in Latin, which had been used for several hundred years, to a form in the vernacular that included more participation by the congregation, a different Scripture reading cycle, and the priest facing the people instead of facing away from them towards the altar. There was also an increased emphasis on ecumenism and improving Catholic relations with Protestants and Jewish people. Religious orders were also encouraged to make adaptations to the modern world. However, the Sacraments stayed pretty much the same.

Here is a summary of Vatican II changes:

 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information! Sorry if my wording isn’t always accurate & is often clumsy, I really don’t know much about the Catholic Church (but am trying to learn) and, although I’m now fairly fluent in English, its definitely not my 1st language. I don’t mean to offend or accuse with my phrasing & I apologise if I sometimes come across as doing either or-God Forbid-both!!

I look forward very much to reviewing the link you provided! Thanks again!

Peace & Blessings to all!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
No one disputes that the Catholic faith remained what it has always been.
Click to expand...
I would dispute that with reference to the conditions required for a marriage annulment. In 1929, there were about 10 marriage annulments in the USA for that year. After Vatican II, the number of marriage annulments increased exponentially to more than 20,000 per year. Some will say that the increase was due to the changes in the conditions required for a marriage to be annulled.
 
The quote you are (mis)attributing to me is actually from the beginning of the Catholic Register article. It is the opinion of the article author, not myself. Kindly don’t misattribute quotes.

I posted the article because it contains a summary of the changes of Vatican II, not because of the opening paragraph (which I didn’t even read).

I’m not sure how your comment has anything to do with the questions asked by the OP, but I’ll leave that to you. I answered the person’s question so I’ll be leaving the thread, and I’m not going to argue about a statement that I didn’t even make.
 
Last edited:
Pilgrim_Wanderer said:
…
Click to expand...
If you are looking for a Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Church, there are several, but the most numerous:

Constantinople Tradition, Slavic:
  • Russian Catholic Church
  • Belarusian Catholic Church
  • Ukrainian Catholic Church
  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church
  • Slovak Catholic Church
  • Bulgarian Catholic Church
  • Križevci Catholic Church
  • Macedonian Catholic Church
Constantinople Tradition, Non-Slavic:
  • Hungarian Catholic Church
  • Romanian Catholic Church
  • Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
  • Albanian Catholic Church
  • Greek Catholic Church
  • Melkite Catholic Church
 
Last edited:
Thank you, it’s very interesting to know about the presence of Divine Liturgies in the Catholic Church. I’m very broadly aware of the Byzantine Rite Churches (“Uniates” as I’ve seen them referred to occasionally) but it’s not something I know a great deal about-I’ve seen them referred to in a few places as “Rome’s best kept secret”.

Either way, I’m sorry if my post here has caused friction or misunderstanding and I look forward to learning & researching further. Thank you all for your help!

Peace & Blessings to all!!
 
The Old Catholic Church was quite big in the nineteenth century, but in recent years it has been fading away. The first Vatican Council, which proclaimed papal infallibility in 1870, seems to have been the event that triggered its rapid growth.

 
Intriguing! I wasn’t aware of the OCC, I’ll look into them with interest. Many thanks!

Peace & Blessings to all!
 
This was from an article posted by BartholomewB.
BartholomewB said:
Member churches of the Union of Utrecht of the Old Catholic Churches (UU) are in full communion with the Anglican Communion
Click to expand...
Does that present a problem with apostolic succession? The OCC have it, but the Anglicans do not? But suppose that the Anglicans use an OCC bishop to ordain one of their bishops?
 
I remember being told by an Anglican priest that they do have apostolic succession, but that was a long time ago and I don’t know whether they still make the same claim today. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize their apostolic succession, of course, but maybe the OCC does.
 
I don’t know for sure, but I’d imagine that in order for them to enter into full communion, they’d have to recognise each other’s apostolic succession. It would seem to make sense, but perhaps not…

Peace & Blessings to All
 
Regardless of what they may say, any denomination that originally was part of one of the original Patriarchies (Roman/Latin, Greek [Constantinople], Alexandrian [Coptic], etc.) and has declared themselves separate from that Patriarchate have severed their ties to any claim of apostolic succession.

So despite what some Anglicans may claim, they no longer partake in apostolic succession. One proof of this is how over time these denominations drift away from orthodox Catholic teachings, i.e., the Anglican Communion permitting married couples to practice contraception in the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
 
Muzhik said:
Regardless of what they may say, any denomination that originally was part of one of the original Patriarchies (Roman/Latin, Greek [Constantinople], Alexandrian [Coptic], etc.) and has declared themselves separate from that Patriarchate have severed their ties to any claim of apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
What’s the authority on this?
 
on_the_hill said:
What’s the authority on this?
Click to expand...
I don’t recall the specific authority; just something I was taught years ago. Yet we can work out for ourselves why this is true.

Apostolic Succession is not just about tracing your denomination’s family tree back to one of the apostles. It’s also a declaration about the transfer of authority. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and later the disciples and gave them the authority to forgive sins and to consecrate the bread and wine to be His Body and Blood. The Apostles were the first bishops and so also recv’d the authority to ordain new bishops and priests; the disciples became what we call today priests. With Apostolic Succession, the apostles (and later the bishops) would breath on the candidates, which was a Rabbinical tradition for passing on authority. By doing so, Apostolic Authority would be transferred to the new bishops.

This authority is a gift from G_D, a charism. As such, it can only be passed on with correct intent. If you have a bishop who has either declared his separation from the Church or who has been declared by the Church to have been separated through his action, any attempt by him to ordain new bishops will be flawed and invalid. Since his intent is NOT to ordain a new bishop who will owe loyalty to the Pope, this ordination is invalid and thus ineffective. By being ineffective, the Apostolic Succession has been severed.
 
Last edited:
Muzhik said:
Since his intent is NOT to ordain a new bishop who will owe loyalty to the Pope, this ordination is invalid and thus ineffective
Click to expand...
What about Eastern Orthodox Bishops? I tought they were valid.
 
There are a few holes in this theory. For the current discussion, Old Catholics would not have a valid apostolic succession, which would trivialize the questions about their relation to Anglicans.

Old Catholics do (or did) have a valid Apostolic Succession. Some Anglicans would arrange for an Old Catholic bishop to participate in their consecration as bishop. This might have the effect of making their orders valid in the eyes of Catholics, but the reason was the traditional use of 3 or more bishops consecrating as a sign of Church unity. It came out of a mutual recognition of Succession, not as an Anglican seeking valid Succession, which is how it comes across on some Catholic discussions.

Some Orthodox Churches have also recognized Anglican Orders, though I am not sure any still do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top