Once again, the thought for the day is this: Eastern Orthodoxy is not the Church of Rome. There is no pope at the top of a unified Orthodox ecclesiastical structure that speaks for everyone.
I’m talking, of course, about the most recent controversial — to say the least — comments by the patriarch of Moscow. As one reader asked: “I'm interested to know what the buzz is in the Orthodox world about Patriarch Kirill's recent statements in support of Russia's mobilization. I'm sure you've seen it 100 times.”
I saw it 100 times. But I’ve been traveling for nearly a week, so I apologize for the delay in this post.
What’s up? There was this headline at Reuters, which was typical of several reports: “Orthodox Church leader says Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine will be cleansed of sin.” Here is the top of that:
The head of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that Russian soldiers who die in the war against Ukraine will be cleansed of all their sins, days after President Vladimir Putin ordered the country's first mobilisation since World War Two.
Patriarch Kirill is a key Putin ally and backer of the invasion. He has previously criticised those who oppose the war and called on Russians to rally round the Kremlin.
"Many are dying on the fields of internecine warfare," Kirill, 75, said in his first Sunday address since the mobilisation order. "The Church prays that this battle will end as soon as possible, so that as few brothers as possible will kill each other in this fratricidal war."
"But at the same time, the Church realises that if somebody, driven by a sense of duty and the need to fulfil their oath ... goes to do what their duty calls of them, and if a person dies in the performance of this duty, then they have undoubtedly committed an act equivalent to sacrifice. They will have sacrificed themselves for others. And therefore, we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins that a person has committed."
Yes, Patriarch Kirill speaks for Patriarch Kirill and does not speak for all of Eastern Orthodoxy (and may not be speaking for all of his own synod). Meanwhile, the “first among equals” Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul does not speak for all Orthodox leaders, even if — at times — it appears that he thinks that he has that authority (such as his intervention in decades of Orthodox divisions in Ukraine).
Will Orthodox leaders speak out against the remarks by Kirill?
We will see. Orthodox leaders move slowly. In particular, I would look for statements from the leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox body with long historical and canonical ties (currently evolving, to say the least) to the Moscow Patriarchate. From the start, this church has opposed the Russian invasion. Remember these statements (drawn from one of my “On Religion” columns)?
"Defending the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine, we appeal to the President of Russia and ask him to immediately stop the fratricidal war," said Metropolitan Onuphry, primate of Kiev and all Ukraine. "The Ukrainian and Russian peoples came out of the Dnieper Baptismal font, and the war between these peoples is a repetition of the sin of Cain, who killed his own brother out of envy. Such a war has no justification either from God or from people."
Metropolitan Onuphry, a native of Western Ukraine, added: "I call you, above all, to intensified penitential prayer for Ukraine, for our army, and our people, and I entreat you to lay aside mutual strife and misunderstandings and unite in love for God and our motherland."
The key, in this case, is that the Moscow patriarch made a theological statement that certainly appears to have been made for political reasons (or perhaps even his own mortal survival) in Vladimir Putin’s version of Russia.
In that case, journalists really need to find out if what Kirill said is consistent with centuries of Orthodox theology. Here is some strong material from a post — “Bishops Behaving Badly” — by Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher. The key: Is Kirill supporting “indulgences” that automatically yield the forgiveness of sins? This is long, but helpful:
This concept is alien to Orthodox Christianity. … People in the West who falsely assume that Orthodoxy is simply a Byzantine form of Catholicism can mistakenly analogize Patriarch Kyrill to one of the Crusader-era warrior popes. I want to be careful here, because I am no theologian, but I can't see how the Russian patriarch can make this statement except based on some concept of indulgences. He's smart enough to know that that won't fly theologically within Orthodoxy, which is why, I think, he reasons crudely from a concept of martyrdom.
And it could hardly be cruder. Kyrill says that the sacrifice of a soldier who dies fulfilling his duty has all his sins wiped away. Where is Jesus in this? By the patriarch's reasoning, an atheist soldier who nevertheless goes into Ukraine in fulfillment of his duty, and dies, can go to heaven. I would not want to rely on that rationale before the judgment seat of Christ.
There’s more, including some helpful material from an American source that journalists may want to explore:
By Kyrill's reasoning, Ukrainian Orthodox soldiers shooting at Russian Orthodox ones are equally able to have their sins washed away if they make the ultimate sacrifice.
One can't realistically expect the Moscow patriarch to take sides against the Tsar's war, but it is not too much to expect him to refrain from imitating a Crusader pope, and baptizing it as a holy war, which is what he has done, in effect. …
In fact, the Orthodox Church requires soldiers who return from war -- even a just war! -- to go to confession and repent. From the Orthodox Church in America website: “When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality. Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military conscription when the state is evil. But when doing so they must not yield to anarchy, but must submit to whatever punishment is given so that their witness will be fruitful.”
My point is that journalists will not have any trouble finding — if they attempt to do so — mainstream Orthodox sources who can offer critiques of Patriarch Kirill’s statements on grounds that are theological, instead of merely political.
This Associated Press story (“Moscow patriarch: Russian war dead have their sins forgiven”) did include remarks from an Orthodox activist.
Kirill replaced the Christian concept of martyrdom “with the idea of religious terrorism,” said the Rev. Cyril Hovorun, an Orthodox priest, native of Ukraine and professor of ecclesiology, international relations and ecumenism at University College Stockholm. …
The patriarch is speaking to an audience of one, Hovorun said.
“I don’t know whom can he convince, because the Russians are listening to him less and less,” Hovorun said. “However, I think the main addressee of Kirill’s messages is Putin. Kirill, through these messages, communicates to Putin: I am with you.”
Stockholm? OK, that’s interesting.
Let me stress that activists and academics of this kind are valid sources. However, I think that it’s crucial to discover if Orthodox leaders who have long opposed the Russian invasion — including consistent, doctrinal conservatives — are willing to tackle this topic.
Remember: Patriarch Kirill speaks for Patriarch Kirill and, to some degree, his own national church. Look for follow-up statements from the synod in Russia, as well as other Orthodox churches with long histories of close communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.
FIRST IMAGE: Screenshot from a video of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, during a liturgy.