Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 22:53:08 GMT
I wrote an article for my blog, analysing the results of the speech of Patriarch Kirill on the 19th of July, 2023. Possibly of interest to some here. All opinions are my own ideas, not a professional academic analysis.
Analysis of the Results of the Speech of Patriarch Kirill at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Held on the 19th of July, 2023.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow giving his address at the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the 19th of July, 2023. Credit: website of the Moscow Patriarchate (patriarchia.ru).
The Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, the 21st Ecumenical Council of the universal Church of Christ, declared for the first time since the tragic schism of 1054 AD that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds a special position amongst the Christian communities separated from communion with the Holy and Apostolic See of Peter at Rome.
Indeed – whilst many Christian communities are not properly called Churches, for they lack all valid sacraments save for baptism and holy matrimony – the Orthodox Churches are recognised as having preserved largely unscathed the Apostolic Catholic faith, despite having been out of communion with Rome since 1054.
Since the Second Vatican Council and the declaration Unitatis redintegratio, passed in 1964, the Catholic Church has pursued the development of positive and constructive relations with the Orthodox Church, in particular with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow. We recognise that although we lack canonical communion with the Orthodox Churches, these Churches are nevertheless sacramental and apostolic Churches, such that in order for communion to established the Catholic Church intends to impose nothing more than the shared statement of faith affirmed by Christians for over 1500 years.
Therefore, the affairs of the Orthodox Church are always of importance to the Catholic Church, for although the Catholic Church as an institution alone represents the fullness and purity of the faith held by the Church of Christ, the Orthodox Churches, lacking nothing but full unity with the See of Peter at Rome, are of deep interest to many Catholics.
In this light, I would like to draw attention to a most topical meeting held by the highest authorities of the Patriarchate of Moscow, that is, the Russian Orthodox Church, to whom over half of the world’s Orthodox Christians belong. Periodically, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) meet in Council in what is known as the Council of Bishops. This is roughly equivalent to meetings of the Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church. The last meeting of the Council of Bishops was held in 2017.
On the 19th of July, 2023, the eighth such Council in the 21st century was held. I shall focus here primarily on the long speech given by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, which comprised the bulk of the discussion at the meeting. The Council was held at the Trinity Sergius Lavra in Sergiev Posad, Moscow Oblast, the centre of Russian monasticism.
Patriarch Kirill began the substantial part of his speech with a rather deep and I think beautiful statement: “Despite the difficult times we are going through, the Church lives by the grace of God; she believes in the promises of her Founder, our Lord Jesus Christ, that the gates of hell will not prevail against her (see Matt. 16:18), and confidently carries out her grace-filled ministry in the world.”
This is exactly the sort of thing that we need to hear right now. That indeed – the Church as the Body of Christ, will prevail against the trials of the age, the passing trials, for indeed, as we say in the Catholic Church: “non praevalebunt” – the Gates of Hell shall not prevail!
He then spoke of the fact that in 2019, the Archdiocese of Western European Parishes of the Russian Tradition – an Orthodox diocese founded by Tsarist emigres – was finally restored to membership in the Moscow Patriarchate. This Russian Orthodox diocese has been very critical of the war in Ukraine; I am glad that Patriarch Kirill recognises that this diocese is still a legitimate and worthy part of the Russian Church.
Kirill then outlined the growth in the number of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is unclear if this includes 12,000 parishes in Ukraine that were part of the Russian Orthodox Church until 2022, but which split from the ROC partly in protest over the invasion of Ukraine. Kirill reported happily that the Church was growing, yet he failed to mention what I believe is for him a great tragedy: that the 50 dioceses and 12,000 parishes in Ukraine feel betrayed by him and have left his jurisdiction.
The Trinity-Sergius Lavra, centre of Russian monasticism, near Moscow, where the Patriarch gave his speech at the meeting of the Council of Bishops.
The Situation in Ukraine as a Clash of Civilisations
The Patriarch then moved directly to discussing the situation in Ukraine. Again, he quoted the holy scriptures in a very appropriate manner, saying:
“Venerable Bishops, we have been living through troubled times for several years now. “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), said the Lord. In the history of the Church there were, of course, even more difficult times than the present, but — according to the promise of the Founder of the Church, our Savior Lord Jesus Christ — the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (cf. Matt. 16:18).”
However, he quickly turned to making specific accusations. He said that some who call themselves servants of God are under the influence of “the spirits of wickedness in high places (cf. Eph. 6:12)”. He then clarified that he is referring to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew.
This accusation against Bartholomew, I believe, is over-the-top, but the basis of it is not necessarily entirely unjust. As Patriarch Kirill said, before 2018 there was only one recognised Orthodox Church in Ukraine, namely the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which was at that point a self-governing branch of the Russian Orthodox Church. In Orthodoxy, each autocephalous Church has its own canonical territory which is considered inviolable. No other Patriarch is permitted to interfere in another Church’s territory. For hundreds of years, every Orthodox Church including that of Patriarch Bartholomew recognised Ukraine as the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.
When in 2018, Bartholomew decided to restore schismatic Orthodox groups in Ukraine to full communion, and then gave them autocephaly and began to label the real Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a group of schismatics, he violated Orthodox canons. The creation by Bartholomew of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) has had tragic consequences for the majority of Orthodox believers who remain loyal to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The UOC is being persecuted unjustly by the Ukrainian government in the name of unifying it with the OCU, which the majority of its members do not want because the OCU was created in violation of canons.
So Patriarch Kirill is not wholly wrong here. His brother Patriarch in Constantinople has not been a saint in the Ukrainian conflict; I view it as a distortion of reality to state otherwise.
Patriarch Kirill then described the clash between Russia and the West over Ukraine as a “conflict of civilisations”. He claimed that this conflict first became evident in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, when the West turned against Orthodox Serbia and unjustly bombed the country. Kirill said that this is evidence of the West’s hatred for Orthodox countries and that this is why the West and Bartholomew created what many view as a faux Orthodox Church in Ukraine, so that they could divide Ukrainian believers against one another and gradually drag Orthodox Ukraine away from Russia and into the arms of the West.
I disagree with Kirill in one point. That is that Bartholomew I do not believe created a Church in Ukraine for the purposes of dividing the country and assisting the West. He did it because he wrongly believed – but with good intentions – that giving the large schismatic movements in Ukraine approved standing in the Orthodox Church would solve the 30 year old “Ukrainian problem” that had caused so much division in Ukraine. In the end Bartholomew ended up creating more division, but I do not believe he had a bad intention.
Kirill’s statement however about the clash of civilisations is partly true. Russia and the West – we can include Ukraine here – stand for opposing ideals at the moment. Many Western authorities support the export of immoral ideologies. I speak in particular of “woke” ideologies: gender ideology, abortion ideology, the fight against religion, etc. There are only two “Western” institutions that actually stand in the way of the globalist agenda, namely the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Western governments have had to cooperate with the Catholic Church and concede that the Catholic Church retains influence over certain Western countries, although they do everything to fight against Catholic morals. The same is with the Orthodox Church. Serbia was indeed bombed in the 1990s. Civilians died at the hands of NATO, the so-called “bearers of freedom”. Indeed – Serbia’s Orthodox faith has always tied it to Russia, which it regards as its closest ally.
Many Western nations do have an irrational hatred of Orthodoxy, particularly Slavic Orthodoxy, because the Greek Churches are more supportive of Western goals and less willing to oppose the moral decline of society. Western countries – particularly the most liberal ones – also hate the Catholic Church, especially in conservative Slavic countries like Poland, where the Catholic Church is still very influential in enforcing its views on morality amongst the population.
In the 21st century, Russia – though to be condemned for its immoral invasion of Ukraine – actually stands against many of the false ideologies. Ukraine does as well. Ukraine is a very conservative religious country. The West knows that and they know that Ukraine is to a great extent culturally a Russian country, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. Hence, they supported the actions of Bartholomew in creating the OCU, because they knew the majority of Orthodox Ukrainians would not join it and that it would divide the people against each other.
So, Kirill is not wrong here. To an extent this is a clash of worldviews, and of civilisations. However I would also say that whilst Russia is often right in terms of its views on social morality, it takes an almost mediaeval view when it comes to its approach to other countries and is really no better than the USA. Particularly for post-Soviet countries, Russia’s approach is to make these countries come under its influence and then invade them if they refuse. Ukraine and Georgia are the most prominent examples.
In other words – Kirill’s statement is something of a two-sided coin. He is both right and wrong. His subsequent statement that the “Patriarchate of Constantinople has become one of the weapons of the struggle against Orthodoxy” and that “its leading hierarchs, with the support of political forces outside the Church and at their instigation, prepared to break the unity of Orthodoxy, conducted secret negotiations and wove intrigues” is in my view unjust and incorrect – but I can see why he thinks this and where he is coming from. The Patriarch of Constantinople has unintentionally become implicit in the attempts of the United States and the West to divide the Orthodox against one another.
The Persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
His Holiness then turned to one of the most important issues of our time: the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). For those amongst the readers of the blog who are not familiar with what is happening, I shall explain. The UOC was part of the Russian Orthodox Church (with the status of a self-governing Church under the Moscow Patriarchate) until it declared independence in May of 2022. The Russian Orthodox Church has not officially condemned the UOC for this, even though the UOC openly supports the Ukrainian Army and prays for the victory of Ukraine.
However, since October 2022, the Ukrainian government has engaged in an unjust persecution of the UOC on the false basis that it is pro-Russia. This persecution has reached grave proportions and is reaching the level of persecution levelled against the Orthodox Church by Lenin and Stalin in the early days of the Soviet Union.
Patriarch Kirill was right to condemn this. He noted that as soon as the OCU was created, discriminatory laws began to be passed against the UOC. He also condemned the fact that the Ukrainian government and the OCU are illegally seizing churches of the UOC without justification, and that “The clergy were and are being subjected to brutal pressure through humiliating interrogations by special services, pressure from an exalted crowd, often uniting schismatics with the most exotic pagans and people generally alien to any faith.”
He then emphasised that the persecution has escalated to such an extent that the UOC is basically being slowly liquidated by the authorities. I commend him for bringing this to attention. He also drew attention to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned Metropolitan Pavel, a 62 year old diabetic who is currently in prison in Kyiv on a false accusation of supporting the invasion of Ukraine. Metropolitan Pavel has blessed equipment for the Ukrainian Army; this accusation is nonsense. Patriarch Kirill noted he has sent a letter to the heads of various Christian Churches, asking them to bring attention to this and condemn it. He also questioned why European human rights organisations are not condemning this evil persecution.
Indeed – I will ask the same – why are the Europeans and the Americans not condemning this unjust persecution? Why? Because it is not in their foreign policy interest to do so. The persecuted Christians of Ukraine became the victim of political expediency.
Patriarch Kirill then noted that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has a history of causing some trouble in this regard. For example, when the Soviet government in the 1920s repressed and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church (decreasing the number of parishes from around 50,000 to 150 and the number of active bishops to only 2 or 3), they created the so-called “Renovationist Church”, also known as the Orthodox Church of the USSR. This Church was totally loyal to the Soviet authorities and as such the Soviet government supported it. The Renovationists made a mockery of Christianity. Yet the Patriarch of Constantinople, rather than expressing sympathy for the suffering Orthodox Christians of Russia – as indeed the Pope did – actually supported the Renovationist schism. The Patriarchate of Constantinople also intruded onto the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia, creating a parallel jurisdiction. This was in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the Orthodox in Estonia are ethnic Russians belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Ukrainian Catholics are responsible for the war in Ukraine?
Thus far, much of what Patriarch Kirill has said is either true or, if exaggerated, is understandable given his position.
However, his next comments were utterly ridiculous. Let me first clarify that there are many Catholics in Ukraine – approximately 5 or 6 million of them. They form the majority in Lviv Oblast, Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, and Ternopil Oblast, and form a significant minority in regions such as Transcarpthia. The Catholics of Ukraine are somewhat unique. Few of them are Roman Catholics. The vast majority of them are Greek Catholics who belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) is an autonomous Eastern Catholic Church in communion with Rome. It uses the Byzantine liturgical rites, as does the Orthodox Church. Exteriorly, Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches and liturgies are almost indistinguishable from those of the Orthodox Church. The UGCC is the primary descendant of the Ruthenian Uniat Church, which was founded in 1596 by Orthodox Christians who wanted to maintain communion with Rome and membership in the Catholic Church, but to keep the Orthodox liturgy and rites. This was allowed by Rome and today there are millions of these “Greek Catholics” – “Greek” because they use the “Greek” or “Byzantine” rite that is used by the Orthodox Church.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has always been a minority in Ukrainian lands, but it has been at the forefront of Ukrainian nationalism and the development of Ukrainian national identity, primarily because most Orthodox Ukrainians were under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has usually taught that Ukrainians are a subset of the Russian nation. Hence it is true that the UGCC has an outsized role in the Ukrainian national consciousness.
The Russian Orthodox Church has long demonised the UGCC and its members as “Uniats”, a largely derogatory term used to describe those Catholics who use the Orthodox liturgical rites. Patriarch Kirill spoke of the “Ukrainian Uniats” in the following words:
“It is impossible not to mention the fact that the so-called Greek Catholics, the Uniates, take an active part in inciting and maintaining the persecution of the Orthodox people of Ukraine. Apparently, they are one of the ultimate beneficiaries of the numerous lawless seizures of Orthodox churches on the territory of Ukraine. But the very idea of a union — the subordination of church life to Rome while apparently preserving the Eastern rite — for several centuries, starting from the end of the 16th century, has already brought innumerable suffering to Orthodox Christians on the territory of the Commonwealth, which once included lands inhabited by Russian Orthodox people! Suffice it to recall the forced Polonization and Catholicization of the Russian Orthodox population in Western Russian lands. We also remember the actual defeat of the Orthodox dioceses in western Ukraine by the Uniates in the early 1990s. Finally, It is known that it was the Greek Catholics who actively participated in the events of the coup in Kyiv in 2013-2014. Today, the Uniates have completely identified themselves with the frankly nationalist agenda fostered in Ukraine, have become accomplices of the Ukrainian authorities in the implementation of their discriminatory policy towards the canonical Orthodox Church.”
In other words, he blamed the Greek Catholics for all the tragic events in Ukraine. This is frankly ridiculous. Greek Catholics, it is true, have long supported the idea that Ukraine should basically have nothing to do with Russia, largely because Russia and the Soviet Union always banned or restricted the UGCC in the territories they controlled. Stalin banned the UGCC in 1946 and forced its members to join the Russian Orthodox Church.
However, to say that the UGCC’s support for Ukrainian nationalism is one of the main root causes of the crisis in Ukraine in incorrect. He is right that when the first Uniat Church was founded, some Orthodox were forced to convert to Greek Catholicism. This was unjust. This was immoral and evil. However, we can say the same about the Russian Church’s later complicity with the forced conversion of the Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy in the 1940s. Is that not also unjust, immoral, and evil?
He also refers to the Greek Catholic regions of Western Ukraine as “Western Russian Lands” which have been forcibly Catholicised. This is rather strange. Galicia – the region of Ukraine in which Greek Catholics are the majority – was never part of the Russian Empire. It only ever fell under the rule of “Russia” when it was incorporated into the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. Before the First World War, it had been part of the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire for hundreds of years. The Ukrainians of Galicia, who are mostly Catholic, preserved Ukrainian identity when the Russian Empire was basically suppressing it. The reason why Ukraine exists today is partly because the idea of Ukrainians as a group separate to Russians was preserved only by the Catholic Ukrainians in Austria-Hungary.
Thus to refer to Galicia as historical Russian land is a claim with little historical merit. Does the fact it was part of the USSR for 45 years make it historical Russian land? Of course, it cannot be so, otherwise we would have to say that Armenia is a “southern Russian land” or that Kazakhstan is an “eastern Russian land”.
I would also question how much influence the Greek Catholics had on the events of 2013-2014 in Ukraine. True – Greek Catholics supported the pro-Western Revolution. However, Greek Catholics are only 1% of Kyiv’s population. The majority of the participants of the Revolution in Ukraine were Orthodox Christians.
Furthermore, I concede that tragically, the UGCC has supported in some way the persecution of the “canonical Orthodox Church” (meaning the persecuted UOC). This is really sad, although the UGCC’s participation in the persecution is minor compared to the role of the Ukrainian government, the OCU, and various nationalist groups.
Then we come to his comment about the UGCC “defeating” the Orthodox dioceses in western Ukraine in the 1990s. It is important to understand what happened. Western Ukraine has never had more than a minority Orthodox population. The majority are and have long been Greek Catholics. The Soviets forcibly made the region Orthodox in the 1940s, and transferred all of the Greek Catholic churches in western Ukraine to the Russian Orthodox Church. In the 1980s, there were around 7,500 Russian Orthodox churches legally functioning on the territory of the USSR. Around 1,500 of these churches were located in the Lviv Oblast of far-western Ukraine, where the Orthodox are a minority. This is because these 1,500 churches were mostly Catholic churches which the Soviets had confiscated and given to the Russian Orthodox. Whilst most other Orthodox parishes in the USSR were well-attended, few attended the 1,500 Orthodox parishes in Lviv because most people worshipped in the underground Greek Catholic Church.
In the 1990s, after the independence of Ukraine was declared, the Greek Catholic Church, recently unbanned, come out of the underground and re-established itself. Most of the Orthodox parishes in western Ukraine – which actually comprised a huge proportion of the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole – were taken back by Catholics from the Orthodox Church. I have to say firstly that I believe these churches rightly belonged to the Catholic Church because few Orthodox live in these regions and the only reason why there were so many Orthodox churches in western Ukraine was because the Soviets wanted to destroy the Greek Catholic Church and believed that giving their churches to the Russian Orthodox Church would help to destroy the Greek Catholic Church. This is why around ⅓ of the total number of Orthodox parishes in the USSR were located in Catholic regions where there were very few Orthodox.
Unfortunately, the Greek Catholics often took back these churches violently in the 1990s, evicting the Orthodox parishioners and sometimes committing tragic acts of violence. This is immoral and wrong, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should acknowledge this. However, the Russian Orthodox dioceses in the Catholic regions of Ukraine remained until the Ukrainian government began the unjust persecution of the UOC in 2022.
Therefore – whilst at least some of the blame for the destruction of the Orthodox Church in western Ukraine lies with over-zealous Catholic lay people – we need to bear in mind that from their perspective they were merely regaining what they regarded as theirs because it had been unjustly taken from them by the Soviets with the complicity of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Patriarch Kirill on the split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Russian Orthodox Church
Patriarch Kirill meeting with Orthodox seminarians studying in Kyiv, Ukraine, on the 29th of January 2020. Credit: patriarchia.ru.
Patriarch Kirill then moved on to the practical issues of the split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Russian Orthodox Church, which was announced by the UOC in May of 2022. I state again that this split has not been accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church, but neither has it been condemned.
One of the consequences of this split is that Patriarch Kirill’s name is no longer mentioned during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in churches of the UOC.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians have an ancient practice of naming during the Mass or Divine Liturgy (i.e. the Eucharistic service) the name of the local bishop of the diocese and the pope (for Catholics) or the patriarch (for Orthodox). This is a symbol of unity with the higher authorities of the Church.
In the Roman Canon used in the Catholic Church, the prayer reads as follows:
“Be pleased to grant her [the Church] peace,
to guard, unite and govern her
throughout the whole world,
together with your servant N. our Pope
and N. our Bishop,*
and all those who, holding to the truth,
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.”
In the Orthodox Church the practice is different. Traditionally, during parish liturgies only the bishop is commemorated. The bishop of the diocese in turn commemorates the metropolitan and the metropolitan commemorates the Patriarch.
In the Russian Orthodox Church – of which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was a part of until last year – the practice has been different. In the ROC, the Patriarch of Moscow is prayed for by name multiple times at every Divine Liturgy. He is prayed for in the following words:
“For Our Great Lord and Father Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia”.
In Ukraine, however, the commemoration of the Patriarch has long been a cause for division in some areas due to his closeness to the Russian government. For this reason, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, who led the Russian Orthodox Church from 1990-2008, blessed the Ukrainian Church in 1990 not to commemorate his name if it should be a cause for division. Hence, it has been acceptable since 1990 from the perspective of the Moscow Patriarchate for the name of the Patriarch of Moscow not to be commemorated in Ukraine. In 2022, when the UOC split from the ROC, the official position of the UOC changed from “the Patriarch of Moscow should be commemorated unless it is a major cause of division” to “the Patriarch of Moscow should not be commemorated unless it would divide the community if he is not commemorated”. Since then, most UOC parishes have not commemorated the Patriarch of Moscow and in fact the only Ukrainian priest who must commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow is now Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv, who names Kirill at every liturgy in the way it is done in most of the rest of the Orthodox Church. Some priests choose to continue to commemorate the name the Moscow Patriarch, and some Ukrainians believe it should still be this way on the basis that Church canons are outside of politics – but most are understandably against it.
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, who allowed the non-commemoration of the Patriarch in Ukraine. credit: patriarchia.ru
This is because Patriarch Kirill appears to support the war in Ukraine – it is hard to name somebody as your “Great Lord and Father” when the troops he praises are killing your sons, fathers, and brothers at the front.
Yet Patriarch Kirill doubled-down on asserting the traditional Russian practice. Contradicting Alexy II, he said that every priest in Ukraine must commemorate his name during the liturgy and that priests who do not do so “lack courage or conscience” or are “victims of blackmail” and are committing a sin. Patriarch Kirill said that Ukrainians can still attend churches where his name is not commemorated, unless they have the opportunity to attend a church where he is commemorated. I understand there are a couple of such churches in Kyiv, for instance.
Patriarch Kirill justified his insensitive and contradictory statement by saying that it is not he himself – Kirill – who is commemorated – but rather it is whoever holds the office of Patriarch of Moscow who is commemorated. He said that commemoration of the Patriarch is outside of politics and is exclusively the domain of Church canons. This may be so. I do not disagree. During the Second World War, Catholics in Germany, in Poland, in the USA, and every other country prayed for Pope Pius XII during Mass. However the difference here is that Kirill is not a neutral party in this conflict. He actively supports one side. His commemoration in Ukraine is usually a cause for division, not unity, and this was understood by Patriarch Alexy even in the 1990s, when relations between Russia and Ukraine were fairly good.
For Patriarch Kirill to say that in this era, when he appears to tacitly support the brutal war of Russia against Ukraine, that all priests in Ukraine must mention him and pray for him as “Great Lord and Father”, is completely insensitive and frankly ridiculous. How does it make sense for a priest whose church is being shelled by Russian troops to pray for the Patriarch of Moscow who tacitly supports them? Church canons are important, but I do not believe it violates Orthodox canons not to name the Patriarch in such a circumstance.
Patriarch Kirill’s Support for Russian Soldiers Fighting on the Territory of Ukraine
The most controversial aspect of Patriarch Kirill’s ministry is his tacit support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He has never said “I support the war in Ukraine” but has alluded to his support for it many times and has framed it as a holy war against Western decadence and corruption. I think we need to understand that Patriarch Kirill, as the primary religious leader in Russia, could hardly act otherwise and get away with it. This does not justify it, but it does put it into perspective. The Russian Orthodox Church knows no other way of existence except that of dependence on the state.
Patriarch Kirill grew up in the Soviet era. From 1917 until the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, the Soviet government brutally persecuted the Russian Orthodox Church. However, in 1941 this changed and in 1943 Stalin made a sort of informal pact with the Church. Basically, the Russian Orthodox Church would be allowed to open 25,000 parishes, a few monasteries, and the major seminaries. It would be allowed to restore its structure and elect a new Patriarch to succeed Patriarch Tikhon, who had died in 1925. However, the conditions of this were complete and total support of Soviet state policies. This agreement was honoured by every Soviet leader from Stalin to Gorbachev, with the exception of Nikita Khrushchev, who closed thousands of parishes and persecuted believers. When Leonid Brezhnev came to power in 1964 he stopped the persecution and throughout his 18 year tenure as Soviet leader (1964-1982), he protected the Russian Orthodox Church whilst defining its space in society strictly to purely religious acts.
The Russian Church as it was under Brezhnev is the Church that Patriarch Kirill was ordained a priest in in 1969 and a bishop in in 1976. This defined his view of the relationship between the Church and the state.
Patriarch Pimen of Moscow (second from right), the future Patriarch Alexy II (second from left), and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (far-left) celebrating the 60th anniversary of the October Revolution in 1977.
This is not to excuse his attitude – however, putting his views into the framework of the Church he began his ministry in and the circumstances that had created that situation are important when speaking of his attitude to the current Russian state under President V. V. Putin.
In this particular speech, he expressed “gratitude” to priests who help soldiers. He never specifies that he is referring to “Russian soldiers”, and I believe that is deliberate, but he strongly implies this and there is really no other possible interpretation. He also said that soldiers at the front need even more than most people the sacraments of the Church. That is not in dispute, although I would say that in order to receive communion worthily – in order not to eat and drink condemnation unto oneself, as St Paul said – you cannot come to another land and kill others without justification.
He asked that the “warriors” at the front be “blessed by God”.
He then spoke of the evils of war and how tragic it is that the war has caused so much suffering and pain. This is normal for Kirill. He contrasts support for Russian “warriors” with lamentations of the terrible consequences of war, thus showing that part of him really feels the pain that this has caused and is not indifferent to the suffering of the people of Ukraine. He noted that cities and entire regions have been destroyed and that civilians have been killed.
I commend Patriarch Kirill for then proceeding to offer a special prayer for those killed, for those suffering in Ukraine, and for those made homeless by the war.
An Orthodox church in eastern Ukraine, destroyed by Russian shelling.
However, he swiftly moved on. He encouraged the Russian people to unite together against a common threat. As is typical for Patriarch Kirill, who often juxtaposes strange ultra-nationalist statements with beautiful analyses of the scriptures and Christian teaching, he then said:
“Whatever the changing agenda may be, the focus of our preaching should be that which always remains the same. We Christians are called to testify that we are the happiest and freest people, because the truth about what a person should be and can become is revealed to us in Christ. The last destinies of the world are also revealed to us, today restless and tormented in sinful blindness, but looking forward to meeting with their Creator and Redeemer in the Second Coming. Therefore, our words should reveal to people the saving truth about the condescension of God into the world of people until death on the Cross and victory over death in the Resurrection. We are called to speak about the possibility of communion with God and liberation from sinful slavery that opens up in the service of the Church founded by Christ. Our deeds must testify to contempt for the idols of modernity.”
He also defined beautifully the role of the bishop in the life of the Church:
“The bishop, that is, the primate of the local Church, as defined by the Charter of the diocese, is responsible for church life in the area entrusted to him. At the same time, it is important to remember that the work of a bishop is not “reigning” over people, but serving the great economy of God. This is all the more important in the current conditions, when many people are faced with grief and endure deprivation. I call on all of you, dear brethren, not to rule over the inheritance of God(cf. 1 Pet. 5:3), but in evangelical simplicity to set an example and inspire the flock to be followers of the Lord Jesus, to set an appropriate example for the world. This also means that we should cherish every person. Only three years ago we were reminded of this duty of ours by a long time spent in closed churches, where the parishioners had no access. Reminds of this and the subsequent decrease in the number of people participating in worship. This decline was initially caused by a threat to public health and widespread fear in society, and then was due to the loss of some people’s good habit of participating in worship. This sad phenomenon is being overcome, but experience has shown that the path to a full return to participation in church life is difficult. So it’s not worth it observing individual missionary successes, to be in euphoria from them or to be in serene confidence that our labours, if not already completed, then at least their result is such that it is possible to reduce their intensity. This is wrong. It is necessary to work in the field of Christ today, and henceforth, and until the very last day of our life.
It is important to remember that every person who enters under the vaults of the temple of God must be met with attention and Christian disposition, he must see in us a readiness to share the richness of life in Christ and for Christ. Therefore, each bishop is called to be an example to the clergy and laity – an example of prayer, active love, compassion and zeal for the glory of God.”
He then spent the rest of his speech on purely administrative matters that are hardly appropriate for detailed analysis. He concluded his speech with the words of God in the 43rd chapter of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah:
“Now this is what the Lord says: <…> Do not be afraid, for I have redeemed you <…> Will you cross the waters, I am with you, or cross the rivers, they will not drown you; if you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, and the flame will not scorch you, for I am the Lord your God <…> your Saviour. <…> You are dear in My eyes, valuable, and I have loved you. <…> Do not be afraid.“
Conclusions
The speech of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill given on the 19th of July, 2023, is undoubtedly one of the most significant of his Patriarchal ministry. Indeed, it is the first long wartime speech given by a Russian Patriarch since the Second World War.
What I have long observed about Kirill is that he is a bundle of contradictions. In the West he is assessed as nothing more than Putin’s priest, a Rasputin-like figure who provides spiritual backing for an unjust war. Yet he is far more complicated than that. He is – as his speech confirms – a man of deep faith, who loves Christ and the Church. He also believes that Russia is under an existential threat to its existence, and that the defeat of pro-Western forces in Ukraine – whom Kirill associates with immorality and decadence – must be defeated if Holy Russia is to survive. Kirill’s view is simplistic and lacks a real intellectual foundation.
Patriarch Kirill is characterised both by fervent faith, deep understanding of scripture and Church doctrine, but also by an attitude towards his country and its traditions that is quite reminiscent of many nationalist Christian leaders in the 20th century, such as those who justified the unjust wars waged in Europe so many times.
I believe it to be deeply unfair to paint Kirill as an evil accomplice to the crimes committed in Ukraine. No other Christian leader is in as difficult a position as he – except perhaps for his Orthodox counterpart in Ukraine, Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv. Whatever his personal views are, Kirill knows that he will never be allowed to get away with anything short of open support for the government of the Russian Federation and its policies.
Kirill obviously believes that this is the only way the Russian Church can succeed. The Russian Orthodox Church is the only institution in Russia that has survived the tumultuous history of that country, in large part because it has been able to serve and support the Russian state in whatever form it takes. The problem here is that if the Church uncritically supports the state, then we contradict the message of our Saviour – that we Christians must be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Christianity is always meant to be radical. We cannot give this up for the sake of earthly powers.
This speech reflects very much Kirill’s view of Christianity, of Russia, and the current crisis in the world today. History I suspect will treat Kirill as a contradictory figure – just as this speech shows him to be so. In the West he is not seen as a sympathetic figure, but I think we need to look deeper into the past and the events that have formed his perception. When we do so, we see that he is far from the evil man he is made out to be. He has been convinced by his own life and his understanding of Russian history that his Church has only one way to survive. This defines his actions in the current crisis. We should do well to remember that.
Analysis of the Results of the Speech of Patriarch Kirill at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Held on the 19th of July, 2023.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow giving his address at the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the 19th of July, 2023. Credit: website of the Moscow Patriarchate (patriarchia.ru).
The Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, the 21st Ecumenical Council of the universal Church of Christ, declared for the first time since the tragic schism of 1054 AD that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds a special position amongst the Christian communities separated from communion with the Holy and Apostolic See of Peter at Rome.
Indeed – whilst many Christian communities are not properly called Churches, for they lack all valid sacraments save for baptism and holy matrimony – the Orthodox Churches are recognised as having preserved largely unscathed the Apostolic Catholic faith, despite having been out of communion with Rome since 1054.
Since the Second Vatican Council and the declaration Unitatis redintegratio, passed in 1964, the Catholic Church has pursued the development of positive and constructive relations with the Orthodox Church, in particular with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow. We recognise that although we lack canonical communion with the Orthodox Churches, these Churches are nevertheless sacramental and apostolic Churches, such that in order for communion to established the Catholic Church intends to impose nothing more than the shared statement of faith affirmed by Christians for over 1500 years.
Therefore, the affairs of the Orthodox Church are always of importance to the Catholic Church, for although the Catholic Church as an institution alone represents the fullness and purity of the faith held by the Church of Christ, the Orthodox Churches, lacking nothing but full unity with the See of Peter at Rome, are of deep interest to many Catholics.
In this light, I would like to draw attention to a most topical meeting held by the highest authorities of the Patriarchate of Moscow, that is, the Russian Orthodox Church, to whom over half of the world’s Orthodox Christians belong. Periodically, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) meet in Council in what is known as the Council of Bishops. This is roughly equivalent to meetings of the Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church. The last meeting of the Council of Bishops was held in 2017.
On the 19th of July, 2023, the eighth such Council in the 21st century was held. I shall focus here primarily on the long speech given by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, which comprised the bulk of the discussion at the meeting. The Council was held at the Trinity Sergius Lavra in Sergiev Posad, Moscow Oblast, the centre of Russian monasticism.
Patriarch Kirill began the substantial part of his speech with a rather deep and I think beautiful statement: “Despite the difficult times we are going through, the Church lives by the grace of God; she believes in the promises of her Founder, our Lord Jesus Christ, that the gates of hell will not prevail against her (see Matt. 16:18), and confidently carries out her grace-filled ministry in the world.”
This is exactly the sort of thing that we need to hear right now. That indeed – the Church as the Body of Christ, will prevail against the trials of the age, the passing trials, for indeed, as we say in the Catholic Church: “non praevalebunt” – the Gates of Hell shall not prevail!
He then spoke of the fact that in 2019, the Archdiocese of Western European Parishes of the Russian Tradition – an Orthodox diocese founded by Tsarist emigres – was finally restored to membership in the Moscow Patriarchate. This Russian Orthodox diocese has been very critical of the war in Ukraine; I am glad that Patriarch Kirill recognises that this diocese is still a legitimate and worthy part of the Russian Church.
Kirill then outlined the growth in the number of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is unclear if this includes 12,000 parishes in Ukraine that were part of the Russian Orthodox Church until 2022, but which split from the ROC partly in protest over the invasion of Ukraine. Kirill reported happily that the Church was growing, yet he failed to mention what I believe is for him a great tragedy: that the 50 dioceses and 12,000 parishes in Ukraine feel betrayed by him and have left his jurisdiction.
The Trinity-Sergius Lavra, centre of Russian monasticism, near Moscow, where the Patriarch gave his speech at the meeting of the Council of Bishops.
The Situation in Ukraine as a Clash of Civilisations
The Patriarch then moved directly to discussing the situation in Ukraine. Again, he quoted the holy scriptures in a very appropriate manner, saying:
“Venerable Bishops, we have been living through troubled times for several years now. “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), said the Lord. In the history of the Church there were, of course, even more difficult times than the present, but — according to the promise of the Founder of the Church, our Savior Lord Jesus Christ — the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (cf. Matt. 16:18).”
However, he quickly turned to making specific accusations. He said that some who call themselves servants of God are under the influence of “the spirits of wickedness in high places (cf. Eph. 6:12)”. He then clarified that he is referring to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew.
This accusation against Bartholomew, I believe, is over-the-top, but the basis of it is not necessarily entirely unjust. As Patriarch Kirill said, before 2018 there was only one recognised Orthodox Church in Ukraine, namely the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which was at that point a self-governing branch of the Russian Orthodox Church. In Orthodoxy, each autocephalous Church has its own canonical territory which is considered inviolable. No other Patriarch is permitted to interfere in another Church’s territory. For hundreds of years, every Orthodox Church including that of Patriarch Bartholomew recognised Ukraine as the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.
When in 2018, Bartholomew decided to restore schismatic Orthodox groups in Ukraine to full communion, and then gave them autocephaly and began to label the real Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a group of schismatics, he violated Orthodox canons. The creation by Bartholomew of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) has had tragic consequences for the majority of Orthodox believers who remain loyal to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The UOC is being persecuted unjustly by the Ukrainian government in the name of unifying it with the OCU, which the majority of its members do not want because the OCU was created in violation of canons.
So Patriarch Kirill is not wholly wrong here. His brother Patriarch in Constantinople has not been a saint in the Ukrainian conflict; I view it as a distortion of reality to state otherwise.
Patriarch Kirill then described the clash between Russia and the West over Ukraine as a “conflict of civilisations”. He claimed that this conflict first became evident in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, when the West turned against Orthodox Serbia and unjustly bombed the country. Kirill said that this is evidence of the West’s hatred for Orthodox countries and that this is why the West and Bartholomew created what many view as a faux Orthodox Church in Ukraine, so that they could divide Ukrainian believers against one another and gradually drag Orthodox Ukraine away from Russia and into the arms of the West.
I disagree with Kirill in one point. That is that Bartholomew I do not believe created a Church in Ukraine for the purposes of dividing the country and assisting the West. He did it because he wrongly believed – but with good intentions – that giving the large schismatic movements in Ukraine approved standing in the Orthodox Church would solve the 30 year old “Ukrainian problem” that had caused so much division in Ukraine. In the end Bartholomew ended up creating more division, but I do not believe he had a bad intention.
Kirill’s statement however about the clash of civilisations is partly true. Russia and the West – we can include Ukraine here – stand for opposing ideals at the moment. Many Western authorities support the export of immoral ideologies. I speak in particular of “woke” ideologies: gender ideology, abortion ideology, the fight against religion, etc. There are only two “Western” institutions that actually stand in the way of the globalist agenda, namely the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Western governments have had to cooperate with the Catholic Church and concede that the Catholic Church retains influence over certain Western countries, although they do everything to fight against Catholic morals. The same is with the Orthodox Church. Serbia was indeed bombed in the 1990s. Civilians died at the hands of NATO, the so-called “bearers of freedom”. Indeed – Serbia’s Orthodox faith has always tied it to Russia, which it regards as its closest ally.
Many Western nations do have an irrational hatred of Orthodoxy, particularly Slavic Orthodoxy, because the Greek Churches are more supportive of Western goals and less willing to oppose the moral decline of society. Western countries – particularly the most liberal ones – also hate the Catholic Church, especially in conservative Slavic countries like Poland, where the Catholic Church is still very influential in enforcing its views on morality amongst the population.
In the 21st century, Russia – though to be condemned for its immoral invasion of Ukraine – actually stands against many of the false ideologies. Ukraine does as well. Ukraine is a very conservative religious country. The West knows that and they know that Ukraine is to a great extent culturally a Russian country, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. Hence, they supported the actions of Bartholomew in creating the OCU, because they knew the majority of Orthodox Ukrainians would not join it and that it would divide the people against each other.
So, Kirill is not wrong here. To an extent this is a clash of worldviews, and of civilisations. However I would also say that whilst Russia is often right in terms of its views on social morality, it takes an almost mediaeval view when it comes to its approach to other countries and is really no better than the USA. Particularly for post-Soviet countries, Russia’s approach is to make these countries come under its influence and then invade them if they refuse. Ukraine and Georgia are the most prominent examples.
In other words – Kirill’s statement is something of a two-sided coin. He is both right and wrong. His subsequent statement that the “Patriarchate of Constantinople has become one of the weapons of the struggle against Orthodoxy” and that “its leading hierarchs, with the support of political forces outside the Church and at their instigation, prepared to break the unity of Orthodoxy, conducted secret negotiations and wove intrigues” is in my view unjust and incorrect – but I can see why he thinks this and where he is coming from. The Patriarch of Constantinople has unintentionally become implicit in the attempts of the United States and the West to divide the Orthodox against one another.
The Persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
His Holiness then turned to one of the most important issues of our time: the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). For those amongst the readers of the blog who are not familiar with what is happening, I shall explain. The UOC was part of the Russian Orthodox Church (with the status of a self-governing Church under the Moscow Patriarchate) until it declared independence in May of 2022. The Russian Orthodox Church has not officially condemned the UOC for this, even though the UOC openly supports the Ukrainian Army and prays for the victory of Ukraine.
However, since October 2022, the Ukrainian government has engaged in an unjust persecution of the UOC on the false basis that it is pro-Russia. This persecution has reached grave proportions and is reaching the level of persecution levelled against the Orthodox Church by Lenin and Stalin in the early days of the Soviet Union.
Patriarch Kirill was right to condemn this. He noted that as soon as the OCU was created, discriminatory laws began to be passed against the UOC. He also condemned the fact that the Ukrainian government and the OCU are illegally seizing churches of the UOC without justification, and that “The clergy were and are being subjected to brutal pressure through humiliating interrogations by special services, pressure from an exalted crowd, often uniting schismatics with the most exotic pagans and people generally alien to any faith.”
He then emphasised that the persecution has escalated to such an extent that the UOC is basically being slowly liquidated by the authorities. I commend him for bringing this to attention. He also drew attention to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned Metropolitan Pavel, a 62 year old diabetic who is currently in prison in Kyiv on a false accusation of supporting the invasion of Ukraine. Metropolitan Pavel has blessed equipment for the Ukrainian Army; this accusation is nonsense. Patriarch Kirill noted he has sent a letter to the heads of various Christian Churches, asking them to bring attention to this and condemn it. He also questioned why European human rights organisations are not condemning this evil persecution.
Indeed – I will ask the same – why are the Europeans and the Americans not condemning this unjust persecution? Why? Because it is not in their foreign policy interest to do so. The persecuted Christians of Ukraine became the victim of political expediency.
Patriarch Kirill then noted that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has a history of causing some trouble in this regard. For example, when the Soviet government in the 1920s repressed and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church (decreasing the number of parishes from around 50,000 to 150 and the number of active bishops to only 2 or 3), they created the so-called “Renovationist Church”, also known as the Orthodox Church of the USSR. This Church was totally loyal to the Soviet authorities and as such the Soviet government supported it. The Renovationists made a mockery of Christianity. Yet the Patriarch of Constantinople, rather than expressing sympathy for the suffering Orthodox Christians of Russia – as indeed the Pope did – actually supported the Renovationist schism. The Patriarchate of Constantinople also intruded onto the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia, creating a parallel jurisdiction. This was in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the Orthodox in Estonia are ethnic Russians belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Ukrainian Catholics are responsible for the war in Ukraine?
Thus far, much of what Patriarch Kirill has said is either true or, if exaggerated, is understandable given his position.
However, his next comments were utterly ridiculous. Let me first clarify that there are many Catholics in Ukraine – approximately 5 or 6 million of them. They form the majority in Lviv Oblast, Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, and Ternopil Oblast, and form a significant minority in regions such as Transcarpthia. The Catholics of Ukraine are somewhat unique. Few of them are Roman Catholics. The vast majority of them are Greek Catholics who belong to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) is an autonomous Eastern Catholic Church in communion with Rome. It uses the Byzantine liturgical rites, as does the Orthodox Church. Exteriorly, Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches and liturgies are almost indistinguishable from those of the Orthodox Church. The UGCC is the primary descendant of the Ruthenian Uniat Church, which was founded in 1596 by Orthodox Christians who wanted to maintain communion with Rome and membership in the Catholic Church, but to keep the Orthodox liturgy and rites. This was allowed by Rome and today there are millions of these “Greek Catholics” – “Greek” because they use the “Greek” or “Byzantine” rite that is used by the Orthodox Church.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has always been a minority in Ukrainian lands, but it has been at the forefront of Ukrainian nationalism and the development of Ukrainian national identity, primarily because most Orthodox Ukrainians were under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has usually taught that Ukrainians are a subset of the Russian nation. Hence it is true that the UGCC has an outsized role in the Ukrainian national consciousness.
The Russian Orthodox Church has long demonised the UGCC and its members as “Uniats”, a largely derogatory term used to describe those Catholics who use the Orthodox liturgical rites. Patriarch Kirill spoke of the “Ukrainian Uniats” in the following words:
“It is impossible not to mention the fact that the so-called Greek Catholics, the Uniates, take an active part in inciting and maintaining the persecution of the Orthodox people of Ukraine. Apparently, they are one of the ultimate beneficiaries of the numerous lawless seizures of Orthodox churches on the territory of Ukraine. But the very idea of a union — the subordination of church life to Rome while apparently preserving the Eastern rite — for several centuries, starting from the end of the 16th century, has already brought innumerable suffering to Orthodox Christians on the territory of the Commonwealth, which once included lands inhabited by Russian Orthodox people! Suffice it to recall the forced Polonization and Catholicization of the Russian Orthodox population in Western Russian lands. We also remember the actual defeat of the Orthodox dioceses in western Ukraine by the Uniates in the early 1990s. Finally, It is known that it was the Greek Catholics who actively participated in the events of the coup in Kyiv in 2013-2014. Today, the Uniates have completely identified themselves with the frankly nationalist agenda fostered in Ukraine, have become accomplices of the Ukrainian authorities in the implementation of their discriminatory policy towards the canonical Orthodox Church.”
In other words, he blamed the Greek Catholics for all the tragic events in Ukraine. This is frankly ridiculous. Greek Catholics, it is true, have long supported the idea that Ukraine should basically have nothing to do with Russia, largely because Russia and the Soviet Union always banned or restricted the UGCC in the territories they controlled. Stalin banned the UGCC in 1946 and forced its members to join the Russian Orthodox Church.
However, to say that the UGCC’s support for Ukrainian nationalism is one of the main root causes of the crisis in Ukraine in incorrect. He is right that when the first Uniat Church was founded, some Orthodox were forced to convert to Greek Catholicism. This was unjust. This was immoral and evil. However, we can say the same about the Russian Church’s later complicity with the forced conversion of the Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy in the 1940s. Is that not also unjust, immoral, and evil?
He also refers to the Greek Catholic regions of Western Ukraine as “Western Russian Lands” which have been forcibly Catholicised. This is rather strange. Galicia – the region of Ukraine in which Greek Catholics are the majority – was never part of the Russian Empire. It only ever fell under the rule of “Russia” when it was incorporated into the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. Before the First World War, it had been part of the Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire for hundreds of years. The Ukrainians of Galicia, who are mostly Catholic, preserved Ukrainian identity when the Russian Empire was basically suppressing it. The reason why Ukraine exists today is partly because the idea of Ukrainians as a group separate to Russians was preserved only by the Catholic Ukrainians in Austria-Hungary.
Thus to refer to Galicia as historical Russian land is a claim with little historical merit. Does the fact it was part of the USSR for 45 years make it historical Russian land? Of course, it cannot be so, otherwise we would have to say that Armenia is a “southern Russian land” or that Kazakhstan is an “eastern Russian land”.
I would also question how much influence the Greek Catholics had on the events of 2013-2014 in Ukraine. True – Greek Catholics supported the pro-Western Revolution. However, Greek Catholics are only 1% of Kyiv’s population. The majority of the participants of the Revolution in Ukraine were Orthodox Christians.
Furthermore, I concede that tragically, the UGCC has supported in some way the persecution of the “canonical Orthodox Church” (meaning the persecuted UOC). This is really sad, although the UGCC’s participation in the persecution is minor compared to the role of the Ukrainian government, the OCU, and various nationalist groups.
Then we come to his comment about the UGCC “defeating” the Orthodox dioceses in western Ukraine in the 1990s. It is important to understand what happened. Western Ukraine has never had more than a minority Orthodox population. The majority are and have long been Greek Catholics. The Soviets forcibly made the region Orthodox in the 1940s, and transferred all of the Greek Catholic churches in western Ukraine to the Russian Orthodox Church. In the 1980s, there were around 7,500 Russian Orthodox churches legally functioning on the territory of the USSR. Around 1,500 of these churches were located in the Lviv Oblast of far-western Ukraine, where the Orthodox are a minority. This is because these 1,500 churches were mostly Catholic churches which the Soviets had confiscated and given to the Russian Orthodox. Whilst most other Orthodox parishes in the USSR were well-attended, few attended the 1,500 Orthodox parishes in Lviv because most people worshipped in the underground Greek Catholic Church.
In the 1990s, after the independence of Ukraine was declared, the Greek Catholic Church, recently unbanned, come out of the underground and re-established itself. Most of the Orthodox parishes in western Ukraine – which actually comprised a huge proportion of the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole – were taken back by Catholics from the Orthodox Church. I have to say firstly that I believe these churches rightly belonged to the Catholic Church because few Orthodox live in these regions and the only reason why there were so many Orthodox churches in western Ukraine was because the Soviets wanted to destroy the Greek Catholic Church and believed that giving their churches to the Russian Orthodox Church would help to destroy the Greek Catholic Church. This is why around ⅓ of the total number of Orthodox parishes in the USSR were located in Catholic regions where there were very few Orthodox.
Unfortunately, the Greek Catholics often took back these churches violently in the 1990s, evicting the Orthodox parishioners and sometimes committing tragic acts of violence. This is immoral and wrong, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church should acknowledge this. However, the Russian Orthodox dioceses in the Catholic regions of Ukraine remained until the Ukrainian government began the unjust persecution of the UOC in 2022.
Therefore – whilst at least some of the blame for the destruction of the Orthodox Church in western Ukraine lies with over-zealous Catholic lay people – we need to bear in mind that from their perspective they were merely regaining what they regarded as theirs because it had been unjustly taken from them by the Soviets with the complicity of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Patriarch Kirill on the split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Russian Orthodox Church
Patriarch Kirill meeting with Orthodox seminarians studying in Kyiv, Ukraine, on the 29th of January 2020. Credit: patriarchia.ru.
Patriarch Kirill then moved on to the practical issues of the split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Russian Orthodox Church, which was announced by the UOC in May of 2022. I state again that this split has not been accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church, but neither has it been condemned.
One of the consequences of this split is that Patriarch Kirill’s name is no longer mentioned during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in churches of the UOC.
Catholic and Orthodox Christians have an ancient practice of naming during the Mass or Divine Liturgy (i.e. the Eucharistic service) the name of the local bishop of the diocese and the pope (for Catholics) or the patriarch (for Orthodox). This is a symbol of unity with the higher authorities of the Church.
In the Roman Canon used in the Catholic Church, the prayer reads as follows:
“Be pleased to grant her [the Church] peace,
to guard, unite and govern her
throughout the whole world,
together with your servant N. our Pope
and N. our Bishop,*
and all those who, holding to the truth,
hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.”
In the Orthodox Church the practice is different. Traditionally, during parish liturgies only the bishop is commemorated. The bishop of the diocese in turn commemorates the metropolitan and the metropolitan commemorates the Patriarch.
In the Russian Orthodox Church – of which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was a part of until last year – the practice has been different. In the ROC, the Patriarch of Moscow is prayed for by name multiple times at every Divine Liturgy. He is prayed for in the following words:
“For Our Great Lord and Father Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia”.
In Ukraine, however, the commemoration of the Patriarch has long been a cause for division in some areas due to his closeness to the Russian government. For this reason, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, who led the Russian Orthodox Church from 1990-2008, blessed the Ukrainian Church in 1990 not to commemorate his name if it should be a cause for division. Hence, it has been acceptable since 1990 from the perspective of the Moscow Patriarchate for the name of the Patriarch of Moscow not to be commemorated in Ukraine. In 2022, when the UOC split from the ROC, the official position of the UOC changed from “the Patriarch of Moscow should be commemorated unless it is a major cause of division” to “the Patriarch of Moscow should not be commemorated unless it would divide the community if he is not commemorated”. Since then, most UOC parishes have not commemorated the Patriarch of Moscow and in fact the only Ukrainian priest who must commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow is now Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv, who names Kirill at every liturgy in the way it is done in most of the rest of the Orthodox Church. Some priests choose to continue to commemorate the name the Moscow Patriarch, and some Ukrainians believe it should still be this way on the basis that Church canons are outside of politics – but most are understandably against it.
Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, who allowed the non-commemoration of the Patriarch in Ukraine. credit: patriarchia.ru
This is because Patriarch Kirill appears to support the war in Ukraine – it is hard to name somebody as your “Great Lord and Father” when the troops he praises are killing your sons, fathers, and brothers at the front.
Yet Patriarch Kirill doubled-down on asserting the traditional Russian practice. Contradicting Alexy II, he said that every priest in Ukraine must commemorate his name during the liturgy and that priests who do not do so “lack courage or conscience” or are “victims of blackmail” and are committing a sin. Patriarch Kirill said that Ukrainians can still attend churches where his name is not commemorated, unless they have the opportunity to attend a church where he is commemorated. I understand there are a couple of such churches in Kyiv, for instance.
Patriarch Kirill justified his insensitive and contradictory statement by saying that it is not he himself – Kirill – who is commemorated – but rather it is whoever holds the office of Patriarch of Moscow who is commemorated. He said that commemoration of the Patriarch is outside of politics and is exclusively the domain of Church canons. This may be so. I do not disagree. During the Second World War, Catholics in Germany, in Poland, in the USA, and every other country prayed for Pope Pius XII during Mass. However the difference here is that Kirill is not a neutral party in this conflict. He actively supports one side. His commemoration in Ukraine is usually a cause for division, not unity, and this was understood by Patriarch Alexy even in the 1990s, when relations between Russia and Ukraine were fairly good.
For Patriarch Kirill to say that in this era, when he appears to tacitly support the brutal war of Russia against Ukraine, that all priests in Ukraine must mention him and pray for him as “Great Lord and Father”, is completely insensitive and frankly ridiculous. How does it make sense for a priest whose church is being shelled by Russian troops to pray for the Patriarch of Moscow who tacitly supports them? Church canons are important, but I do not believe it violates Orthodox canons not to name the Patriarch in such a circumstance.
Patriarch Kirill’s Support for Russian Soldiers Fighting on the Territory of Ukraine
The most controversial aspect of Patriarch Kirill’s ministry is his tacit support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He has never said “I support the war in Ukraine” but has alluded to his support for it many times and has framed it as a holy war against Western decadence and corruption. I think we need to understand that Patriarch Kirill, as the primary religious leader in Russia, could hardly act otherwise and get away with it. This does not justify it, but it does put it into perspective. The Russian Orthodox Church knows no other way of existence except that of dependence on the state.
Patriarch Kirill grew up in the Soviet era. From 1917 until the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, the Soviet government brutally persecuted the Russian Orthodox Church. However, in 1941 this changed and in 1943 Stalin made a sort of informal pact with the Church. Basically, the Russian Orthodox Church would be allowed to open 25,000 parishes, a few monasteries, and the major seminaries. It would be allowed to restore its structure and elect a new Patriarch to succeed Patriarch Tikhon, who had died in 1925. However, the conditions of this were complete and total support of Soviet state policies. This agreement was honoured by every Soviet leader from Stalin to Gorbachev, with the exception of Nikita Khrushchev, who closed thousands of parishes and persecuted believers. When Leonid Brezhnev came to power in 1964 he stopped the persecution and throughout his 18 year tenure as Soviet leader (1964-1982), he protected the Russian Orthodox Church whilst defining its space in society strictly to purely religious acts.
The Russian Church as it was under Brezhnev is the Church that Patriarch Kirill was ordained a priest in in 1969 and a bishop in in 1976. This defined his view of the relationship between the Church and the state.
Patriarch Pimen of Moscow (second from right), the future Patriarch Alexy II (second from left), and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (far-left) celebrating the 60th anniversary of the October Revolution in 1977.
This is not to excuse his attitude – however, putting his views into the framework of the Church he began his ministry in and the circumstances that had created that situation are important when speaking of his attitude to the current Russian state under President V. V. Putin.
In this particular speech, he expressed “gratitude” to priests who help soldiers. He never specifies that he is referring to “Russian soldiers”, and I believe that is deliberate, but he strongly implies this and there is really no other possible interpretation. He also said that soldiers at the front need even more than most people the sacraments of the Church. That is not in dispute, although I would say that in order to receive communion worthily – in order not to eat and drink condemnation unto oneself, as St Paul said – you cannot come to another land and kill others without justification.
He asked that the “warriors” at the front be “blessed by God”.
He then spoke of the evils of war and how tragic it is that the war has caused so much suffering and pain. This is normal for Kirill. He contrasts support for Russian “warriors” with lamentations of the terrible consequences of war, thus showing that part of him really feels the pain that this has caused and is not indifferent to the suffering of the people of Ukraine. He noted that cities and entire regions have been destroyed and that civilians have been killed.
I commend Patriarch Kirill for then proceeding to offer a special prayer for those killed, for those suffering in Ukraine, and for those made homeless by the war.
An Orthodox church in eastern Ukraine, destroyed by Russian shelling.
However, he swiftly moved on. He encouraged the Russian people to unite together against a common threat. As is typical for Patriarch Kirill, who often juxtaposes strange ultra-nationalist statements with beautiful analyses of the scriptures and Christian teaching, he then said:
“Whatever the changing agenda may be, the focus of our preaching should be that which always remains the same. We Christians are called to testify that we are the happiest and freest people, because the truth about what a person should be and can become is revealed to us in Christ. The last destinies of the world are also revealed to us, today restless and tormented in sinful blindness, but looking forward to meeting with their Creator and Redeemer in the Second Coming. Therefore, our words should reveal to people the saving truth about the condescension of God into the world of people until death on the Cross and victory over death in the Resurrection. We are called to speak about the possibility of communion with God and liberation from sinful slavery that opens up in the service of the Church founded by Christ. Our deeds must testify to contempt for the idols of modernity.”
He also defined beautifully the role of the bishop in the life of the Church:
“The bishop, that is, the primate of the local Church, as defined by the Charter of the diocese, is responsible for church life in the area entrusted to him. At the same time, it is important to remember that the work of a bishop is not “reigning” over people, but serving the great economy of God. This is all the more important in the current conditions, when many people are faced with grief and endure deprivation. I call on all of you, dear brethren, not to rule over the inheritance of God(cf. 1 Pet. 5:3), but in evangelical simplicity to set an example and inspire the flock to be followers of the Lord Jesus, to set an appropriate example for the world. This also means that we should cherish every person. Only three years ago we were reminded of this duty of ours by a long time spent in closed churches, where the parishioners had no access. Reminds of this and the subsequent decrease in the number of people participating in worship. This decline was initially caused by a threat to public health and widespread fear in society, and then was due to the loss of some people’s good habit of participating in worship. This sad phenomenon is being overcome, but experience has shown that the path to a full return to participation in church life is difficult. So it’s not worth it observing individual missionary successes, to be in euphoria from them or to be in serene confidence that our labours, if not already completed, then at least their result is such that it is possible to reduce their intensity. This is wrong. It is necessary to work in the field of Christ today, and henceforth, and until the very last day of our life.
It is important to remember that every person who enters under the vaults of the temple of God must be met with attention and Christian disposition, he must see in us a readiness to share the richness of life in Christ and for Christ. Therefore, each bishop is called to be an example to the clergy and laity – an example of prayer, active love, compassion and zeal for the glory of God.”
He then spent the rest of his speech on purely administrative matters that are hardly appropriate for detailed analysis. He concluded his speech with the words of God in the 43rd chapter of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah:
“Now this is what the Lord says: <…> Do not be afraid, for I have redeemed you <…> Will you cross the waters, I am with you, or cross the rivers, they will not drown you; if you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, and the flame will not scorch you, for I am the Lord your God <…> your Saviour. <…> You are dear in My eyes, valuable, and I have loved you. <…> Do not be afraid.“
Conclusions
The speech of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill given on the 19th of July, 2023, is undoubtedly one of the most significant of his Patriarchal ministry. Indeed, it is the first long wartime speech given by a Russian Patriarch since the Second World War.
What I have long observed about Kirill is that he is a bundle of contradictions. In the West he is assessed as nothing more than Putin’s priest, a Rasputin-like figure who provides spiritual backing for an unjust war. Yet he is far more complicated than that. He is – as his speech confirms – a man of deep faith, who loves Christ and the Church. He also believes that Russia is under an existential threat to its existence, and that the defeat of pro-Western forces in Ukraine – whom Kirill associates with immorality and decadence – must be defeated if Holy Russia is to survive. Kirill’s view is simplistic and lacks a real intellectual foundation.
Patriarch Kirill is characterised both by fervent faith, deep understanding of scripture and Church doctrine, but also by an attitude towards his country and its traditions that is quite reminiscent of many nationalist Christian leaders in the 20th century, such as those who justified the unjust wars waged in Europe so many times.
I believe it to be deeply unfair to paint Kirill as an evil accomplice to the crimes committed in Ukraine. No other Christian leader is in as difficult a position as he – except perhaps for his Orthodox counterpart in Ukraine, Metropolitan Onufriy of Kyiv. Whatever his personal views are, Kirill knows that he will never be allowed to get away with anything short of open support for the government of the Russian Federation and its policies.
Kirill obviously believes that this is the only way the Russian Church can succeed. The Russian Orthodox Church is the only institution in Russia that has survived the tumultuous history of that country, in large part because it has been able to serve and support the Russian state in whatever form it takes. The problem here is that if the Church uncritically supports the state, then we contradict the message of our Saviour – that we Christians must be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Christianity is always meant to be radical. We cannot give this up for the sake of earthly powers.
This speech reflects very much Kirill’s view of Christianity, of Russia, and the current crisis in the world today. History I suspect will treat Kirill as a contradictory figure – just as this speech shows him to be so. In the West he is not seen as a sympathetic figure, but I think we need to look deeper into the past and the events that have formed his perception. When we do so, we see that he is far from the evil man he is made out to be. He has been convinced by his own life and his understanding of Russian history that his Church has only one way to survive. This defines his actions in the current crisis. We should do well to remember that.