Explanation of the curse imposed by the council of 1667

Presented essay by St. Philaret of Moscow (Drozdov) is dedicated to an explanation of the curse proclaimed at the Council of 1667. The council, convened under the chairmanship of Patriarch Nikon, was aimed at approving the reforms introduced in liturgical books and rituals, and at condemning those who rejected these changes, adhering to old printed texts and ancient Russian customs. Saint Philaret, relying on the primary source - the very act of the Council of 1667 - conducts a canonical analysis, demonstrating that the curse was aimed not at rituals, but at disobedience to the Church. He shows that the Council did not condemn the ancient rituals themselves, but only canceled the previously adopted decisions of the Stoglavy Council (1551) as “ignorant” and “unrighteous”, having no basis in the Eastern and Old Slavic traditions. At the same time, the Council did not curse those who preserved these rituals out of ignorance, but only condemned the rebellious, those opposing the Church and denying its authority. The saint emphasizes that the curse of the Council of 1667 is not eternal and unconditional - it is of a repentant and disciplinary nature: “until he comes to his senses, he will return to the truth through repentance.” This means that the curse is lifted upon repentance and restoration of church unity. Thus, the myth of the “terrible and eternal curse” on all Old Believers, including the dead, is debunked. Of particular importance is the argument about the validity of sacraments performed outside of communion with the Orthodox Church. Saint Philaret acknowledges that Baptism performed in the name of the Holy Trinity remains valid - which is confirmed by the practice of the Church: Old Believers who enter into communion with the Orthodox Church are not baptized again. He also points out the impossibility of valid Confirmation among Old Believer priests, who do not have continuous apostolic succession. Saint Philaret offers a lenient and pastoral approach to the deceased Old Believers: if their relatives, who have turned to the Church, ask to remember them in prayer, the Church can, guided by love, allow this, believing that the deceased lived in ignorance, and not in heretical obstinacy. The saint offers a spiritual path of reconciliation - through repentance, condescension and love, and not through condemnation and expulsion. His explanation became the basis for the subsequent policy of the Orthodox Church towards the Old Believers, including the establishment of the Edinoverie movement in the 19th–20th centuries, which made it possible to preserve ancient rites in full church unity. Synodal member, His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, an explanation of the curse imposed by the Council of 1667 Some of those who call themselves Old Believers, knowing that they can, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, receive priests from the diocesan Bishop, with permission to perform Divine services from books printed under the first Russian Patriarchs who presided over Nikon, express doubts about using this, and present the following to justify their doubts: “The archpastors of the Russian Church, having allowed their so-called co-religionists to celebrate Divine services and perform the sacraments according to old printed books, themselves follow the rules set forth at the Council that took place in Moscow in 1667, by which all those who, contrary to that Council, celebrate Divine services according to the ancient orders and rituals of the Holy Church, set out in old printed books, are subject to a terrible curse. This terrible oath is placed not only on the living, but also on the dead, and the sacraments performed by them are declared invalid.” To see whether this doubt is valid, it is best to turn to the very definition of the Council of 1667. It says, among other things, the following: “And the Council that took place under the Pious Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke John Vasilyevich, Autocrat of All Russia, from Macarius Metropolitan of Moscow, and what was written about the sign of the honorable cross, and about the special alleluia, and about other things that were written unreasonably, in simplicity and ignorance, in the book of Stoglav, and an oath that we swore without reasoning and unrighteously: we, the Orthodox Patriarch, Cyrus Paisius, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, and Judge of the Universe, and Cyrus Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, and Cyrus Joasaph, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the entire consecrated Council, take this unrighteous and reckless oath to Macarius, and that Council, we authorize and destroy: and that Council, not a Council: and an oath, not an oath: but we impute nothing, as if it never happened, before that Macarius Metropolitan, and others like him, wise with their ignorance foolishly, as if they wanted it on their own: not agreeing with the Greek and with the ancient charatean, Slovenian books: below I consulted with the Ecumenical Holiness Patriarchs about this, and inquired with them below.” Here you can see with what wise caution and meekness the Council of 1667 acted. He canceled the definitions of the so-called Hundred Glavny Council, as disagreeing with the Greek and ancient Slovenian charatean books; and he allowed and imputed nothing to the oath pronounced by the Hundred Glavny Council, as unreasonable: but he himself did not utter a curse either on the Hundred Glavny Council, or on the teaching of the Hundred Glavny Council about the folding of two fingers for the sign of the cross, and about the special hallelujah, and so on; because it came from simplicity and ignorance, and not from heretical wisdom, and not from opposition to the Orthodox Universal Church. Consequently, both after that time and now, whoever uses the two-fingered sign of the cross, deep hallelujah and the like, but does not have heretical wisdom or opposition to the Orthodox Church: he will not be cursed by the Council of 1667. The Council of 1667 outlined the rituals based on the ancient Greek and Charatean Slovenian books; and he did not approve of the rites of the Stoglaniy Council, but he did not curse it either. On whom does the curse of the Council of 1667 fall? To answer this, we must again turn to its definition. It says: “If someone does not listen to those commanded from us, and does not submit to the Holy Eastern Church, and this Consecrated Council, or begins to contradict and resist us, and we will cast out such an enemy by the authority given to us by the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit, if he is from the consecrated rite, we will cast him out, and expose him to all sacred rites, and we will curse him. If we are separated from the worldly rank (it will be), we are excommunicated and alienated from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: we are cursed and anathematized as a heretic, and a disobedient one, and we are cut off from the Orthodox community, and the flock, and from the Church of God, until he comes to his senses, and returns to the truth by repentance.” Here it is clear that the curse was pronounced on the unrepentant Holy Eastern Church and the Consecrated Council, on opponents, such as heretics and disobedients. From an exact comparison of the parts of the definition of the Council of 1667 given here, and from its entire definition, the following is revealed: 1) This council outlined and confirmed the rituals based on the ancient Greek and Slovenian charatean books, which have been contained by the Orthodox Church from ancient times to the present day. 2) He did not approve of the rituals of the so-called Hundred Glavny Council, but he did not curse it either. 3) Therefore, those containing these rituals, for this alone, are not subject to the curse of the Council of 1667. 4) Those who not only contain the rites of the Hundred Main Council, but, on the occasion of these rites, are opponents of the Orthodox Church, are subject to the curse of this Council until they come to their senses. And this condemnation is in accordance with the words of Christ the Savior: if the Church disobeys, you will be like a pagan and a publican (Matthew 18:17). 5) Whoever has come to his senses and ceases to be an opponent of the Holy Church: he must be allowed and free from the curse placed on opponents. From this it follows that those who adhere to the rites of the Hundred Main Council, if they cease to be opponents of the Orthodox Church and enter into reconciliation with it, by the force of the very definition of the Council of 1667, should be, and are indeed, resolved from damnation by the Holy Synod and by the episcopal authority given by God. And that they remain following the rituals of the Council of the Hundred Heads, this should not lead them to doubt, because the Council of 1667 did not place a curse on these rituals, as was proven above; The Holy Synod, by condescension, blesses them to observe these rituals. Verbal Old Believers, trying to justify their doubts, call the curse of the Council of 1667 terrible and terrible. Any curse is terrible for someone who is subject to damnation for non-Orthodox teaching and for opposing the Holy Church: but whoever moves away from non-Orthodox teaching and remains in unity with the Holy Church and in obedience to it, the curse does not threaten him, and therefore is not scary for him. Those who call themselves Old Believers also note as something special that the oath of the Council of 1667 was taken not only on the living, but also on the dead. But there is nothing special about this. For example, when the first Ecumenical Council cursed Arius: is Arius really cursed only for life? Doesn't he remain cursed even after death? This is how any curse works if the person subject to the curse has not repented and has not received permission from the Holy Church. The Council of 1667 clearly depicted its desire that those subject to the curse pronounced by it would not die under this curse, when it limited the continuation of the curse with these words: until they come to their senses. And that the Council of 1667 did not curse those who died before this Council and those who differed from the Eastern Church in rituals out of ignorance: this is shown above from the very definition of this Council. The Orthodox Church is disposed to follow the example of this condescending judgment even now. If one of the so-called Old Believers, having come to reconciliation with the Holy Church, asked: can he remember in his prayers his relatives who died in the so-called Old Believers: the Orthodox Hierarchy will not hesitate to allow him this, according to the following reasoning. The curse of the Council of 1667 fell with all its force on people who deliberately opposed the Church, such as Habakkuk and Nikita, for example. As for your relatives who died outside communion with the Orthodox Church, out of a duty of caution and love for one’s neighbor, which commands one to choose the most lenient side in an unclear matter, we believe that it is most likely that they remained in this position out of ignorance of the truth, and therefore we apply to them the lenient judgment of the Council of 1667 about the followers of the Hundred Main Council. The so-called Old Believers, who are alien to the Orthodox Church, complain that the sacraments performed among them are recognized as invalid. This subject requires a lot of investigation. But, for the sake of brevity, the following appears to an impartial reasoner: 1) The church rules deprive a priest of all power and action of a priest who has departed from his Bishop. 2) Is it possible to recognize as valid the sacrament of confirmation performed by a priest who cannot have true sanctified peace, because he has not received this peace from anywhere for 180 years? 3) That the baptism performed by the so-called Old Believers, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is recognized as valid in the Orthodox Church, it is not difficult to see from the fact that they join the Orthodox Church without repeating baptism. 4) If you come into communion with the Church: you will have undeniably true sacraments; and then the question of the sacraments outside of communion with the Church can be postponed without being curious about its resolution. You might be interested in: