Old Beleivers and Orthodox on the Conception of Our Lady

[Cluny]

oldbelievers.wetpaint.com/page/Old+Believers+and+the+Immaculate+Conception

 

[Cluny]

I have since revisited this site, and an introduction has been added, totally repudiating this doctrine.

Then why did one of their links quote the Old Belivers as accepting it?

 

[Alexius]

I didn’t think that the most strict Old Believers were priestless. This seems to totally contradict orthodoxy. Obviously there were priestless sects, but the ones which retained priests seems to be the mark of orthodoxy. Anyway, I have heard that many Old Believers accepted a concept very similar to the Immaculate Conception, but then there is always someone today who disagrees. I have to say, the whole “Augustine corrupted the concept of original sin” is started to become tiresome. Perhaps I personally don’t agree with everything he wrote on the subject, but he certainly was not the first to write such things. Whether they accepted the IC or not matters little to the integrity of orthodoxy since there is no dogmatic statement either way. I respect this person’s opinion, but it just seems too dismissive.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[John_Alden]

Greetings Alexius,

You wrote:

I didn’t think that the most strict Old Believers were priestless. This seems to totally contradict orthodoxy. Obviously there were priestless sects, but the ones which retained priests seems to be the mark of orthodoxy. Anyway, I have heard that many Old Believers accepted a concept very similar to the Immaculate Conception, but then there is always someone today who disagrees. I have to say, the whole “Augustine corrupted the concept of original sin” is started to become tiresome. Perhaps I personally don’t agree with everything he wrote on the subject, but he certainly was not the first to write such things. Whether they accepted the IC or not matters little to the integrity of orthodoxy since there is no dogmatic statement either way. I respect this person’s opinion, but it just seems too dismissive.

I noticed this thread and thought to comment. In 1995 I first began to learn about the Old Believers and have been ever drawn towards them since.

I can tell you that all Old Believers did indeed lose their earthly clergy, but the term “priestless” is a misnomer, for they understand Christ Himself has their Heavenly Archpastor. He fulfills anything which might appear lacking by those looking at them from the outside. There is no contradiction here of Orthodoxy, for Daniel foretold of a desolate earthly sanctuary and Fathers such as Chrysostom likewise confirmed this idea many centuries ago. I have found many Orthodox references for this sound position.

The term “retained” is also somewhat of a misnomer, for there has not been any such retaining. Some (a relative few) Old Believers did accept New-Rite clergy, but those which began walking down this new road did not have the acceptance of a bishop. There was no retaining. So today, those Old Believers with earthly clergy are unorthodox to say the least. I could write a book about exactly why and how this is, but I do not think I will try to do it here in this forum. I hope you can understand.

There are indeed similarities among differing things, and perhaps this can even be said of the Immaculate Conception. This should not be surprising to anyone. Things have always been mixed up since the serpent tempted Eve.

Not trying to be dull, but I believe Augustine to have indeed started many unique teachings. Though he did teach many things rightly he did not accept the good corrections from his peers.

There are of course many Orthodox dogmatic statements against Western teachings, as you might be able to find in things like the Stoglav Council of 1551. Therefore it would not be too dismissive, particularly from an Old Believer position, to say that such dogma’s as the Immaculate Conception have long been disapproved of.

There is no accurate translation of any Old Believer ever accepting the Immaculate Conception, those things which supposedly quote such are most likely misquotations at best. Having said that, it would not be surprising to me if one of the New-Rite influenced Old Believer clergy spoke in a positive manner of the Immaculate Conception. The great majority of Old Believers (who are far more strict that those with earthly clergy), would never follow such an idea. Especially if the implications implied by a thread on this forum were explained to them.

Forgive, John Alden

 

[Diak]

I know sedevacantists who essentially believe the papacy and the Magisterium to be no longer present. Actually some of the bezpopopovtsy (priestless) Old Believers have maintained some customs more strictly than the priestly Old Believers/Old Ritualists.

It doesn’t go against Orthodoxy when you think your group is the last remnant of Orthodoxy.

 

[John_Alden]

I know sedevacantists who essentially believe the papacy and the Magisterium to be no longer present. Actually some of the bezpopopovtsy (priestless) Old Believers have maintained some customs more strictly than the priestly Old Believers/Old Ritualists.

It doesn’t go against Orthodoxy when you think your group is the last remnant of Orthodoxy.

We all should know that those who contradict orthodox faith and practice are not orthodox.

Forgive, John Alden