4 ms·

One of my key takeaways from this story was just how "minor" the schism that produced this appears to me. I am a Christian and take doctrine very seriously but

One of my key takeaways from this story was just how "minor" the schism that produced this appears to me. I am a Christian and take doctrine very seriously but I find the issues that the Old Believers [0] were concerned about utterly baffling. In the linked article, the table of the "main" differences are shockingly trivial from my perspective and include: 1) How "Jesus" is spelled 2) How to hold your fingers when making the sign of the cross 3) Procession direction (CW vs CCW) 4) etc. That either side was willing to kill or die over these things is something I simply can't understand. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers

deepsun 6y ago
Well, I think those are just markers. I think the real issue began with mass murdering of Old Believers during Nikon reforms, which were mainly about power (to separate from Constantinople).
- int_19h 6y ago
  By the time Nikon reforms happen, the Russian Orthodox Church already had its own independent patriarch. And in fact, the reforms were about making things more like what the Greek church was doing at the time. Russian traditions, meanwhile, were based on old Greek ones, and basically better conserved. It went above and beyond matters of dogma and ritual, even down to stuff like clothing and hairstyles. Tsar Aleksei was also a Grecophile, and to him this was less abstract than just church issues - he was seriously eyeing Constantinople as a potential "Orthodox Reconquista", with himself as the new Constantine -the emperor of the Orthodox faithful. Military feasibility aside, this all is a lot easier if tsar's take on Orthodoxy itself is more consistent with what the Greeks see as such.
xornox 6y ago
All religious differences are that kind of trivial... It is just difficult to see in own case.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  This is false. I suspect hated of religion may have blinded you, making you ignorant of facts. For example in the Koran believers are told, in unabrogated verses, to kill anyone who isn't Muslim (paraphrasing: 'strike down non-believers wherever you find them'). In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. Buddhism seems to me to be most pacifist of the major World religions. In contrast Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism all have warring as central elements of their doctrine; modern followers may have 'workarounds' for those. These are not trivial differences.
  - D-Coder 6y ago
    >In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. But also: >34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Yes, do you have anything that suggests it's not figurative? All the NT reports are of Jesus being entirely pacifist. In the NT "the sword" is the Holy Spirit, like "the son of man" is Jesus. There is an incidence of sword use by a disciple, cutting the ear of a Roman soldier at Jesus arrest; Jesus berates the disciple and heals the soldier; though IIRC Jesus tells them to bring a sword if they have one. To remain consistent to the message of the text it seems Jesus must have been speaking figuratively in your quote and I don't think any stretch is needed there? His immediate disciples appear to have acted consistent with that after his death. In contrast, but with similar consistency, when Mohammed says strike down unbelievers, that is also what he did - he was a successful warlord who besieged and put to the sword entire cities (according to Islamic sources: Koran and Hadith). IMO his transition to allowing opposing fighters to live, if they convert; then allowing Christians and Jews to live if they pay jizya; were the principle elements that allowed early growth - he turned cities in to golden geese, rather than razing them to the ground. His immediate followers of course also killed non-believers (and all the rest that we associate with mediaeval war). It's worth noting that where I am in the UK, there are many Muslims and quite a few are amongst my friends; none of them appear to follow Mohammed or the Koran in this aspect. People are not religions. There are examples of Buddhists being extremely violent for example, that doesn't mean Buddhism is bad; adherents who act malevolently didn't negate the worth of a particular doctrine. And vice versa: doctrine that is malevolent doesn't negate the worth of supposed proponents.
ed_balls 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...
int_19h 6y ago
Most of those are proxies for the underlying theological differences, though. For example, with the fingers, the original two-finger crossing gesture was said to represent the dual but inseparable nature of Christ. This is particularly important for Christianity, because of the heavy debates on christology in the early centuries of the Church resulting in several major schisms. I mean, even the Nicene creed - which is still the standard creed for most major Christian denominations - specifically addresses it. (And since the Oriental Orthodox churches produced by those schisms never went away, neither did the importance of emphasizing the theological differences with them. So the accusation of monophysitism was still a serious business especially in the wider Orthodox community.) The official explanation was that three fingers stood for the Trinity - but non-trinitarian Christian denominations were already so obscure at that point, it was seen kinda like declaring that water is wet, i.e. not controversial at all. Thus, doing away with two fingers and replacing it with three, sounded to many believers like the Church leaders were suddenly reluctant to criticize monophysitism. From which there's an obvious step to believing that the Church leaders are secretly harboring that heresy themselves.

deepsun 6y ago

Well, I think those are just markers. I think the real issue began with mass murdering of Old Believers during Nikon reforms, which were mainly about power (to separate from Constantinople).

int_19h 6y ago
By the time Nikon reforms happen, the Russian Orthodox Church already had its own independent patriarch. And in fact, the reforms were about making things more like what the Greek church was doing at the time. Russian traditions, meanwhile, were based on old Greek ones, and basically better conserved. It went above and beyond matters of dogma and ritual, even down to stuff like clothing and hairstyles. Tsar Aleksei was also a Grecophile, and to him this was less abstract than just church issues - he was seriously eyeing Constantinople as a potential "Orthodox Reconquista", with himself as the new Constantine -the emperor of the Orthodox faithful. Military feasibility aside, this all is a lot easier if tsar's take on Orthodoxy itself is more consistent with what the Greeks see as such.

xornox 6y ago

All religious differences are that kind of trivial... It is just difficult to see in own case.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
This is false. I suspect hated of religion may have blinded you, making you ignorant of facts. For example in the Koran believers are told, in unabrogated verses, to kill anyone who isn't Muslim (paraphrasing: 'strike down non-believers wherever you find them'). In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. Buddhism seems to me to be most pacifist of the major World religions. In contrast Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism all have warring as central elements of their doctrine; modern followers may have 'workarounds' for those. These are not trivial differences.
- D-Coder 6y ago
  >In the New Testament believers are told to love everyone, including foreigners and non-believers and are given a specific edict to pray for their enemies. But also: >34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Yes, do you have anything that suggests it's not figurative? All the NT reports are of Jesus being entirely pacifist. In the NT "the sword" is the Holy Spirit, like "the son of man" is Jesus. There is an incidence of sword use by a disciple, cutting the ear of a Roman soldier at Jesus arrest; Jesus berates the disciple and heals the soldier; though IIRC Jesus tells them to bring a sword if they have one. To remain consistent to the message of the text it seems Jesus must have been speaking figuratively in your quote and I don't think any stretch is needed there? His immediate disciples appear to have acted consistent with that after his death. In contrast, but with similar consistency, when Mohammed says strike down unbelievers, that is also what he did - he was a successful warlord who besieged and put to the sword entire cities (according to Islamic sources: Koran and Hadith). IMO his transition to allowing opposing fighters to live, if they convert; then allowing Christians and Jews to live if they pay jizya; were the principle elements that allowed early growth - he turned cities in to golden geese, rather than razing them to the ground. His immediate followers of course also killed non-believers (and all the rest that we associate with mediaeval war). It's worth noting that where I am in the UK, there are many Muslims and quite a few are amongst my friends; none of them appear to follow Mohammed or the Koran in this aspect. People are not religions. There are examples of Buddhists being extremely violent for example, that doesn't mean Buddhism is bad; adherents who act malevolently didn't negate the worth of a particular doctrine. And vice versa: doctrine that is malevolent doesn't negate the worth of supposed proponents.

ed_balls 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...

int_19h 6y ago

Most of those are proxies for the underlying theological differences, though. For example, with the fingers, the original two-finger crossing gesture was said to represent the dual but inseparable nature of Christ. This is particularly important for Christianity, because of the heavy debates on christology in the early centuries of the Church resulting in several major schisms. I mean, even the Nicene creed - which is still the standard creed for most major Christian denominations - specifically addresses it. (And since the Oriental Orthodox churches produced by those schisms never went away, neither did the importance of emphasizing the theological differences with them. So the accusation of monophysitism was still a serious business especially in the wider Orthodox community.) The official explanation was that three fingers stood for the Trinity - but non-trinitarian Christian denominations were already so obscure at that point, it was seen kinda like declaring that water is wet, i.e. not controversial at all. Thus, doing away with two fingers and replacing it with three, sounded to many believers like the Church leaders were suddenly reluctant to criticize monophysitism. From which there's an obvious step to believing that the Church leaders are secretly harboring that heresy themselves.