On March 13, 2022, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, scholars, clergy, and laity of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University and the Volos Academy of Theological Research published “A Declaration on the ‘Russian World’ (Russkii Mir) Teaching” through Public Orthodoxy.
The gist of the declaration is that the Moscow Patriarchate (or at least the leading figures of the Moscow Patriarchate) have used heretical ideas to justify and support the Russian Government in their deplorable actions in the world, not for the benefit of Orthodoxy, but for the benefit of Russia in particular. These heretical ideas culminate in the teaching of the “Russian World” which, in totality, can be considered its own heresy worthy of universal Orthodox condemnation.
The declaration defines “Russian World” as such:
“The teaching states that there is a transnational Russian sphere or civilization, called Holy Russia or Holy Rus’, which includes Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (and sometimes Moldova and Kazakhstan), as well as ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people throughout the world. It holds that this “Russian world” has a common political centre (Moscow), a common spiritual centre (Kyiv as the “mother of all Rus’’), a common language (Russian), a common church (the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate), and a common patriarch (the Patriarch of Moscow), who works in ‘symphony’ with a common president/national leader (Putin) to govern this Russian world, as well as upholding a common distinctive spirituality, morality, and culture.”
Their primary argument against the “Russian World” is that it qualifies as ethnophyletism which was condemned in the 1872 Council of Constantinople, or rather, that ethnophyletism forms the basis of the teaching. Thus, the declaration makes the following points against the teaching:
- God’s Kingdom is not of this world. More specifically, “There is no separate source of revelation, no basis for community, society, state, law, personal identity and teaching, for Orthodoxy as the Body of the Living Christ than that which is revealed in, by, and through our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God.” Any teaching that seeks to replace the Kingdom of God with a kingdom of the world is to be condemned.
- Earthly Rulers and Spiritual Leaders have different roles and they should neither be mixed nor should the Church be subordinated to the state. Furthermore, any teaching which replaces obedience to God with obedience to a false claimant as God’s anointed is to be condemned.
- No division of humanity, whether it be racial, religious, linguistic, ethnic, or any other mode of division, is superior to another. We are all equal in Christ, and any teaching which asserts special sacredness or purity to any particular division is to be condemned.
- “The making of war is the ultimate failure of Christ’s law of love.” “Any teaching that encourages division, mistrust, hatred, and violence among peoples, religions, confessions, nations, or states” is to be condemned. “It is particularly wicked to condemn other nations through special liturgical petitions of the Church, elevating the members of the Orthodox Church and its cultures as spiritually sanctified in comparison to the fleshly, secular ‘Heterodox’.”
- Those who promote the idea that we should be spiritually “quiet,” in that they refuse to assist the poor, homeless, refugees, migrants, sick, or suffering, are to be condemned.
- “Any teaching or action which refuses to speak the truth, or actively suppresses the truth about evils that are perpetrated against the Gospel of Christ in Ukraine” and “all talk of “fratricidal war”, “repetition of the sin of Cain, who killed his own brother out of envy” if it does not explicitly acknowledge the murderous intent and culpability of one party over another (Revelation 3:15–16)” are to be condemned.
We must analyze the exact nature of this definition and then understand if anyone in the Moscow Patriarchate is guilty of it.
Before I begin, I find it notable that not a single quote is provided by any cleric of the MP, and certainly not Patriarch Kirill, professing anything close to what is defined in this article. (OR Staff: This article has actual quotes from Patriarch Kirill on the Russian World teaching as he explains it.) In fact, they don’t cite any quotes by any Russian cleric at all. One of the first things done in this article is to accuse Patriarch Kirill of invoking and developing the “Russian World” teaching over the last 20 years. Rather than provide examples of this, they simply make the claim. One could say it was slander. I have so far seen zero statements from Patriarch Kirill or the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate justifying the war, supporting the war, or professing something similar to the “Russian World” teaching. This is not because I haven’t looked. I have seen every synodal statement since February 24, 2022 and newsworthy homilies of Patriarch Kirill and have not located a single instance of support for the invasion of Ukraine. I’d like to make this request to those who wrote the Declaration: What has Patriarch Kirill or any Russian hierarch said in support of the war in Ukraine or of the “Russian World Teaching.”
As a result of lack of evidence, the rest of this article will assume that no Russian Hierarch has professed the “Russian World” teaching.
Is the “Russian World” teaching a heresy? The 6 Points against it have tangential relation to the posited definition. Is it heretical to believe that there is “a transnational Russian sphere or civilization, called Holy Russia or Holy Rus’, which includes Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (and sometimes Moldova and Kazakhstan)?” I suppose it could be if the belief was that it is impossible for these areas to be separated from Russia or the Russian Church. However, that can’t be assumed and it is not included in the definition. Is it any more heretical to believe some countries belong to a Russian civilizations than it is to believe Constantinople belongs to Greek Civilization?
This transnational sphere also includes “ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people throughout the world.” Again, this only could be heretical if it taught that it was a necessity for all Russians and Russian speakers to be of one Church. That would be the 6th type of phyletism. What is done by this Declaration is that it vaguely mixes in actually heretical ideas with a bunch of fluff so that they can condemn people who believe in the fluff as heretics even if they don’t profess the actual heresy.
Is it heretical to believe this Russian world has a common political center?
No. This is not a matter of doctrine or spiritual life and therefore cannot be a heresy.
Is it heretical to believe this Russian world has a common spiritual center?
The example given for this is Kiev as the “mother of all Rus’.” This is not heretical because it is not a matter of doctrine or spiritual life, but it is also not heretical because it is plainly a historical fact. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine all came from the Kievan Rus, and they all received their Orthodoxy at the same time when Saint Vladimir the Great was baptized. This is commemorated as “The Baptism of the Rus” in Russia, Ukraine, and in Belarus. So I wonder how this would be a facet of some heresy. The Declaration makes a distinction between this and having a common Church, so I wonder what they think it means to believe these countries have a common spiritual center. Believing Kiev is the mother of all Rus is a matter of fact. Disbelief in this would require denial of history.
Is it heretical to believe this Russian world has a common Church and common Patriarch?
It depends. Is the belief that they must necessarily and always have a common Church and Patriarch? That would be heretical. At present, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus actually do have a common Church and has a common Patriarch. Professing that to be true wouldn’t be a heresy, but saying they must always have a common Church and Patriarch would be phyletism as it draws on ethnicity being a marker of where to draw the borders of a Church’s jurisdiction. Believing that all Russians and Russian speakers in this world must have a common Church and Patriarch is a heresy. It’s the 1st type of phyletism which seeks overlapping jurisdictions for the sake of having some ethnicities be in one Church and some in another. The Russian Church, however, does not profess this idea and neither does the Patriarch.
Is it heretical to believe that there is a Patriarch works in ‘symphony’ with a common national leader?
No. This is how almost all Orthodox royals interacted with the Church from the beginning up until now. Notable examples include Saint Justinian, Saint Constantine the Great, Saint Sergius II the Patriarch, Saint David the Builder of Georgia, Tsar Saint Boris of Bulgaria, Saint Sava of Serbia, and so on and so forth. This contrasts with caesaropapism where the state controls the Church. The Declaration includes “symphony” in quotes. The meaning of this decision is unknown. It could be that the Declaration would like to explain the way in which the Church interacts with the state in a way the reader could understand. It could also be that the writers of the Declaration do not believe that adherents of the “Russian World” teaching believe in symphonia, but rather they suppose that its adherents really believe in caesaropapism which is condemned. I’d like to request those who wrote the Declaration clarify what is the meaning of this.
The above demonstrates that the definition of the “Russian World” barely qualifies as a heresy if at all, and if it does, it is only under specific conditions which are not spelled out by the definition itself. Much of the definition does not qualify as heresy at all because it concerns things which are not doctrinal.
Scroll Down to Continue
Now that the definition has been sorted, we have to see if the 6 Points against the “Russian World” teaching.
Point 1: God’s Kingdom is not of this world. More specifically, “There is no separate source of revelation, no basis for community, society, state, law, personal identity and teaching, for Orthodoxy as the Body of the Living Christ than that which is revealed in, by, and through our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God.” Any teaching that seeks to replace the Kingdom of God with a kingdom of the world is to be condemned.
Nothing about this point is false. It is fully Orthodox. The problem here is that they attribute the accusation to the Russian Orthodox Church or to Patriarch Kirill as if they profess it when they do not. Furthermore, I am confused as to why this point is included in this declaration when it has very little to do with the given definition of the “Russian World” teaching.
Point 2: Earthly Rulers and Spiritual Leaders have different roles and they should neither be mixed nor should the Church be subordinated to the state. Furthermore, any teaching which replaces obedience to God with obedience to a false claimant as God’s anointed is to be condemned.
Again, this point is fully Orthodox. In fact it specifically rebukes caesaropapism. The problem is that they attribute the accusation to the Russian Orthodox Church or to Patriarch Kirill as if they profess it when they do not. Furthermore, this point, while true, has absolutely nothing to do with the given definition of the teaching. It condemns caesaropapism, but the definition talks about symphonia. This point would seem to indicate that the writers either believe symphonia and caesaropapism to be the same, or that proponents of the teaching lying about what they really believe. Clarification is required.
Point 3: No division of humanity, whether it be racial, religious, linguistic, ethnic, or any other mode of division, is superior to another. We are all equal in Christ, and any teaching which asserts special sacredness or purity to any particular division is to be condemned.
Once again, the point is completely true. The issues are the same the last two: Neither the Church or Patriarch profess these beliefs, and it has very little to do with the definition of the teaching. The teaching does not speak of superiority or inferiority. In fact the Russian Church already condemns this idea in their social ethos. In the document called Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, it reads:
“Being universal by nature, the Church is at the same time one organism, one body (1 Cor. 12:12). She is the community of the children of God, “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. . . which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God” (1 Pet. 2:9–10). The unity of these new people is secured not by its ethnic, cultural or linguistic community, but by their common faith in Christ and Baptism. The new people of God “have no continuing city here, but seek one to come” (Heb. 13:14). The spiritual homeland of all Christians is not earthly Jerusalem but Jerusalem “which is above” (Gal. 4:26). The gospel of Christ is preached not in the sacred language understandable to one people, but in all tongues (Acts. 2:3–11). The gospel is not preached for one chosen people to preserve the true faith, but so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11).”
Here we see a blatant condemnation of ethnophyletism and the declaration of the Church, yes even the Russian Church, as universal. So the question remains as to who this Declaration is condemning if the Russian Church is not professing what it is being accused of professing.
Point 4: “The making of war is the ultimate failure of Christ’s law of love.” “Any teaching that encourages division, mistrust, hatred, and violence among peoples, religions, confessions, nations, or states” is to be condemned. “It is particularly wicked to condemn other nations through special liturgical petitions of the Church, elevating the members of the Orthodox Church and its cultures as spiritually sanctified in comparison to the fleshly, secular ‘Heterodox’.”
This point is where false ideas leak in. The Declaration engages in “sandwiching” where they start off with Orthodox statements and quietly include false statements in the middle in the hopes that you will not notice.
It starts by declaring war to be a failure of Christ’s law of love. They make a patristic citation which says nothing about war. The quote is from Saint Siluoan and says “The grace of God is not in the man who does not love his enemies.” It is such a short and unrelated quote that we wonder why it was even included. The writers of the Declaration seems to think that this is a condemnation of war because they write “As such, the making of war…” as if they think it is common sense that war is contrary to love. In fact, war has the potential to be a manifestation of love if it is done in defense of your own people or the Church. I am speaking in general about war, not about any specific war.
Ecclesiastes 3:8 – “A time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.”
Saint Athanasius the Great says, “The killing of the enemy in time of war is both a lawful & praiseworthy thing. This is why we consider individuals who have distinguished themselves in war as being worthy of great honors, and indeed public monuments are set up to celebrate their achievements.”
Canon 13 of Saint Basil says, “Our Fathers did not consider the killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean-handed.”
(Note that this Canon was received dogmatically by Canon 2 of Trullo, and is referenced in Canon 1 of Chalcedon and Canon 1 of Nicaea II)
Saint Constantine XI Palaiologos said, “Let us die for our faith in Christ and for our fatherland!”
Speaking specifically to the call to love our enemies which is discussed by Saint Siluoan, Saint Philaret of Moscow says, “Love your personal enemies, hate the enemies of Christ, destroy the enemies of the Fatherland.”
War here is sanctioned if it is necessary, and it not called a failure of love. It is a facet of love if done for one’s faith and one’s country.
Metropolitan Dionysius of Warsaw called on the Orthodox Poles to “defend the Fatherland from the Germans.”
So to call war a failure of love is a blatant falsehood.
Saint Nicholas of Japan pastored his Orthodox Japanese flock during the Russo-Japanese war telling them that it was good and praiseworthy to enter the war in favor of Japan against the Orthodox nation of Russia. Did he fail to love them? Tsar Saint Nicholas did not think so, as he wrote to Saint Nicholas of Japan saying, “You have shown before all that the Orthodox Church of Christ is foreign to worldly dominion and every tribal hatred, and embraces all tribes and languages with her love. In the difficult time of the war, when the weapons of battle destroy peaceful relations between peoples and rulers, you, in accordance with the command of Christ, did not leave the flock entrusted to you, and the grace of love and faith gave you strength to endure the fiery trial and amidst the hostility of war to keep the peace of faith and love in the Church created by your labours…”
Saint Nicholas of Japan was praised for his pastorship during war despite having his flock fight an Orthodox nation. Loving your nation involves fighting in its wars. If invading another nation is your contention, then you are left to wonder what lesson is learn by the lives of Saint Justinian, Saint Constantine, Tsar Saint Boris of Bulgaria, Saint David the Builder, Saint Nikephoros Phokas, Saint John Vatatzes, Tsar Saint Nicholas, Saint Stefan Nemanja, and Saint Elesbaan of Ethiopia, all of whom declared wars invading other nations (some of those other nations being Orthodox).
Then the point condemns the encouragement of “division, mistrust, hatred, and violence,” which is acceptable. Then it says “It is particularly wicked to condemn other nations through special liturgical petitions of the Church.” I am confused as to how this made it into the declaration given that this does not occur anywhere. Russian Churches do have a special petition which reads: “For the much suffering Russian Land and its Orthodox people both in the homeland and in the diaspora, and for their salvation, let us pray to the Lord.” This is not a petition in condemnation of anyone. In the Western American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the following special petition is added: “Furthermore, we pray to the Lord our God that he will cover with His Divine wings the Holy City of Jerusalem and all our brethren and sisters abiding in the Holy Land, in the province of Kosovo, the country of Syria, throughout the Near East and the Ukrainian lands; that their holy places and homes may be preserved from destruction and defilement; and that He may grant to His faithful children a tranquil and peaceful life in all piety and purity.” That’s a prayer specifically FOR Ukraine among others, not against them. In the Eastern American Diocese, there are multiple special petitions for Ukraine. So what is this condemnation referring to? Is it purely hypothetical?
Clarification is required here.
The last thing condemned by Point 4 is “elevating the members of the Orthodox Church and its cultures as spiritually sanctified in comparison to the fleshly, secular ‘Heterodox’.”
This condemnation is a false one. It is a matter of fact that Orthodox Christians are more spiritually sanctified than the non-Orthodox. Although this should not be a source of pride or belittling against the heterodox, it still remains true. It is true because of our baptism and communion which unites us to Christ while the non-Orthodox are separate from Him.
Point 5: Those who promote the idea that we should be spiritually “quiet,” in that they refuse to assist the poor, homeless, refugees, migrants, sick, or suffering, are to be condemned.
Point 5 is correct. The reasoning for why it is included in the Declaration is because they want Patriarch Kirill to speak directly in condemnation of Putin for the war (because, according to them, he is being spiritually quiet if he does not).
Point 6: “Any teaching or action which refuses to speak the truth, or actively suppresses the truth about evils that are perpetrated against the Gospel of Christ in Ukraine” and “all talk of “fratricidal war”, “repetition of the sin of Cain, who killed his own brother out of envy” if it does not explicitly acknowledge the murderous intent and culpability of one party over another (Revelation 3:15–16)” are to be condemned.
Point 6 is interesting because it poses a seeming contradiction to the definition. Point 6 condemns referring to Russia and Ukraine as brothers -if- it does not acknowledge the guilty party in the war. However, that implies referring to Ukraine and Russia as brothers is acceptable if it does acknowledge the guilty party in the war. That would contradict what was written before as the Declaration condemned the belief that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have “a common spiritual centre (Kyiv as the “mother of all Rus’’).” So is this belief wrong? Is it heretical? Is it only circumstantially wrong? The writers of the Declaration are unclear.
Point 6 is the point most directly aimed at Patriarch Kirill. Both Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Onufriy of Kiev have called the war “fratricidal” and a war between brothers, but only Metropolitan Onufriy has said that Russia started the war and is guilty for it. Point 6 condemns Patriarch Kirill for not doing that. Only Metropolitan Onufriy has said the war is a “repetition of the sin of Cain, who killed his own brother out of envy.” It appears that the writers are using him as an example to condemn Patriarch Kirill.
This ends the points of condemnation against the “Russian World” teaching.
I am not the only one critical of the Declaration. Andrey Shishkov, a regular writer at Public Orthodoxy, also wrote criticizing it. The main point of my article was to discuss that it was not a heresy and that the Russian Church is not guilty of it. Shishkov wrote condemning it as evil, but also stated that it was not a heresy. It is a political ideology which doesn’t have origins in Church circles.
Patriarch Kirill has spoken about an ideology which is called the Russian World. What he says about it does not correlate at all to what the Declaration against the Russian World teaching speaks about. According to Patriarch Kirill, the Russian World refers to the common Orthodox Culture of the Kievan Rus’ which includes Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Carpatho-Rus. The Carpatho-Rus are not all under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, but are of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. This would seem to indicate that he does not view a common Church jurisdiction as being a mark of necessity for the so-called Russian world. He says the Russian world is not defined by political boundaries or the rebuilding of any empire, nor does it refer to anything ethnic/racial, but cultural. He also does not speak of this culture as superior to others, but worth preserving. The Declaration has nothing to do with what Patriarch Kirill actually professes and believes. It’s no wonder why they refused to cite a single quote from him.
Ultimately, what we have here is indeed a Declaration, but not one declaring truth. It falsely condemns Patriarch Kirill and the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of a mythical heresy, of words they did not confess to believe in. This Declaration is little more than propaganda seeking to sow discord in the Church of Jesus Christ.
God be with ye.
Kaleb of Atlanta – I am an Orthodox Christian under the spiritual care of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). My intent is to spread the Orthodox Faith to African Americans.
Originally posted on Kaleb’s blog.
“War here is sanctioned if it is necessary, and it not called a failure of love. It is a facet of love if done for one’s faith and one’s country . . . ..So to call war a failure of love is a blatant falsehood. . . . Loving your nation involves fighting in its wars.”
No, none of the above quotations are correct. War is a failure of love towards our enemies. You do not love your enemy when you kill him and remove any further ordinary possibility of eternal salvation. Saints are far greater in holiness than I. But saints are neither sinless nor infallible. For example, St. Augustine committed sins & made errors. By way of contrast, Christ’s words, commands, and example are absolutely free from sin & error.
The Apostle Peter raised his sword to defend his Lord from being arrested, tortured & murdered (and to defend himself as well). Defending the incarnate God-man was the most sacred, honorable, and important cause in the universe for all time, far more important than defending one’s loved ones, one’s church, one’s country, or oneself. And yet Jesus commanded Peter, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt. 26:52.) Jesus thereby declared that the use of deadly force could never, never, never be justified by any of His disciples for any reason or under any circumstances whatsoever.
.In John 18:36, Jesus answered Pontius Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” “If you are Jesus’s servant, YOU. DON’T. FIGHT. PERIOD. If you fight, at best, you are a rebellious servant of Jesus’s. At worst, you’re kidding yourself and you really belong to a kingdom other than Jesus’s.
The Apostle Paul wrote that “. . . .[T]he weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds . . . .” (2 Cor. 10:4.) Paul states, “Put on the whole armor of God . . . . (Eph. 6:11.) The only offensive weapon we are given is “the sword OF THE SPIRIT [emphasis added], which is the word of God . . . .” Not carnal weapons! Not a carnal sword! (Or gun. Or bomber. Or whatever.)
Jesus commanded His disciples us to put down our sword (see above) and also said, “. . . If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matt. 16:24-25.) The cross is not an instrument with which we may defend others or ourselves from our enemies. The cross is the instrument by means of which our enemies murder us. We are called, not to kill our enemies, but to follow Christ’s example, take up our cross, and allow our enemies to kill us, without intervening with deadly force or carnal weapons.
We have a choice. We can defy Christ, and put down our cross, and take up our sword, and kill our enemies. Or, we can obey Christ, and put down our sword, take up our cross, and, out of love towards our enemies, allowing them to survive to a time when they might yet repent and be saved, allow our enemies to crucify us.
The Article above states:
“Canon 13 of Saint Basil says, “Our Fathers did not consider the killings committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though, it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not clean-handed.”
(Note that this Canon was received dogmatically by Canon 2 of Trullo, and is referenced in Canon 1 of Chalcedon and Canon 1 of Nicaea II).”
You are deprived of communion for three years, and accused of having unclean hands, because you have sinned and done wrong by killing a fellow human being, even in self-defense in wartime. You are NOT deprived of communion for three years, and accused of having unclean hands, because you have done something that is right, noble, and loving.
Thanks for your article which helped me to think through these concerns some more and for allowing me to share.
Yours in Christ,
Ross S. Heckmann, Member
St Anne’s Orthodox Church, ROEA, OCA, Pomona, Los Angeles County, California
You seem to fall into a mistake that is much more common with Protestants than the Orthodox. We have had 2,000 years of history, including over a millennium of Orthodox Empires and Kingdoms. Is taking the words of Christ out of historical context and applying them to today, with no regard for how actual Orthodox Christians have governed and fought in the intervening centuries, really appropriate?
Peace is normative in the Orthodox World, which is why even the Eastern Roman Empire was often criticized for lacking “martial valor”. Most emperors had a decided preference for negotiation over outright war. But the military was always there to defend the border if negotiations failed. Which they often did.
You are correct that Saints can be wrong. But in Orthodox States, priests attend the armies. In 1821 it was monks who kicked off the Greek Revolution. Priests bless weapons, and recognize the value of self-sacrifice. We have many stories of saints praying for victory over an attacking enemy. Then there is this famous story:
In 626, when the Emperor Heraclius of Constantinople was away with the majority of his army fighting the Persians, the Khan sent forces to attack the Imperial City by land and by sea. Patriarch Sergius urged the people not to lose heart, but to trust in God. They made a procession around the city with the Cross of the Lord, the robe of the Virgin, the Icon of the Savior “not made by hands,” and the Hodigitria (“She who shows the Way”) Icon of the Mother of God. The Patriarch dipped the Virgin’s robe in the sea, and the city’s defenders beat back the Khan’s forces. The sea became very rough and many boats sank. The invaders retreated and the people of Constantinople gave thanks to God and to His Most-pure Mother.
Should the city’s defenders surrendered and allowed all to be slaughtered, as happened in 1204 and again in 1453? Was the preceding, just one example of many and one that is memorialized in hymns, wrong?
In the current Ukrainian War, the Russian Government tried hard to avoid fighting through both Minsk I and Minsk II. Here is exactly how we got here:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/is-russia-really-fighting-a-holy-war-in-ukraine/
In February 2022, the Ukrainian Govt, backed by NATO, was preparing a final, massive assault on the Donbas that would have been a bloodbath for the Russians. Now, you may be a principled enough pacifist that you would have let that happen. That is totally fine, but that is not the only opinion that is valid. Russia went in, but as you notice from what happened, it was a limited incursion designed to force negotiations.
Only when negotiations failed due to NATO interference, did Russia feel the need to fully mobilize. Since then, as you are aware, Russia has conducted a very “clean” war, especially by comparison to what you see in Gaza, or what you saw in Iraq and Libya when the US just bombed the hell out of everyone. Kiev is still standing. So is Lwow.
If only pure Christian pacifism will suffice for you, then that is your opinion, and one that has some Patristic support. It is true that America is run by a war mongering class of grifters, and a healthy dose of pacifism and humility would make the world a much, much better place, if only followed by our ruling class.
However, the Orthodox Church actually celebrates military victories and also warrior saints on her calendar. So while Patriarch Kirill is not always the most eloquent, there is a path for Orthodox Christians that lies between surrender to any aggressor and turning into ruthless killers.
It is a strange time in the world. Our biggest enemy is actually ourselves at the moment, not a foreign power. The two other major world powers, Russian and China, have made it clear they want to make money not war. We are the dangerous ones. But even so, there will always be a need to have a group of men willing to defend their civilization and the innocent (actually defend, not pretend it is defensive while you travel 10k miles to kill people who are no threat to you).
If you don’t agree, then we will simply all have to disagree. But there will still be Orthodox chaplains in all 3 major branches of the armed forces. And not one of those chaplains would counsel a soldier to ignore orders, unless the situation was seriously dire.
And, the concept of “Russian World” is not a justification for war, it is a reason why those sharing common descent from the Kievan Rus should live in peaceful co-operation.
Often, the most profound truth is in the minutest details. Knowing this makes me a “factoid freak.” Being puzzled by so much focus on Ukraine—why does the enemy expend so much of his limited resources on that nation—my mind naturally snags anything on the radar related. As always my explanations take the colorful scenic route. Please excuse my indulgence with extraneous babble.
By now you know I have left the big city, and returned to the land of my forefathers—Kansas—(can anything good come out of Kansas? I went there to find out.) Being raised in Colorado, Kansas is about flat—flat-flat. No used to flat. Even the sense of humor is flat (no body puts up with crap), nothing creative, the streets run east and west/ north and south and the only street on a 45 is called Angle street—go figure. The street that leads to the river is called—(drum roll please)—River street. The High School is on “College Street”, ok, that’s a bit of a stretch, but again, not much creative originality there.
My ancestors were Germans that immigrated first into Russian under the invitation of Catherine to modernize the vastness of Russia. Learning the ways of dry land farming, then they immigrated to western Kansas. (And what’s your story?)
Just the other day, visiting with my cousin who farms—among other things—dry land winter wheat (which will be planted in just two weeks), he was explaining to me, the organic winter wheat he grows is an ancient strain (I forget the name, red something) that came out of Ukraine (his words), brought over here by German and Russian Immigrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat
Wiki has one big error: it’s not Russian—why do we keep making this mistake?—it came from Ukraine. And, actually, if Russian Orthodoxy got started in Ukraine, then, I guess, Ukraine is Russia’s mom, perhaps why they treat her with a defensive posture. (please correct me if I am wrong here, I ramble on things beyond my experience).
My cousin also explains—to my amazement—wheat has a genome 3 or 4 times more complicated than the human genome (that got my attention). With that, it is one of the few crops the US government will not allow to be genetically modified (like the shots do to you), because messing with the complexity is a nightmare in result, nobody can sort it. One company tried it anyway and it all was just an explosion of weirdness nobody understood or could control. Conversely, corn is almost all GMO, unless you get “organic non-GMO” which my cousin grows, the purple kind for purple corn chips (when you toot our own horn, its more sanitary).
Bottom line here—prepare to be astonished!—, every time you think prosphora, every time you think Eucharist Bread, or think (forgot the name) soaked wheat berries with sugar on top, thank…….Ukraine. And your kid’s pancakes, and grandma’s cookies, and turkey stuffing. My mom made the best bread on the planet and we ate it fresh out of the oven tearing off big chunks, then soaked in melting butter. You have not lived until you have done bread that way. All of a sudden my mouth is watering rite about now. (sorry for the rabbit trail, got carried away)
Ukraine is the bread basket of the world, the mother of all wheat farming. Think about that, now, then go read the Didache and you know why God preserves the Ukrainian wheat Genome even more than the human. There is a piece of the soul of Ukraine in every Lamb on the patten, and all of us on the patten. What else about Ukraine motivates Satan with such malice?
Furthermore: think perfect uncrackable perfect genome as in Ukraine winter wheat. If truth is parallel, maybe Ukraine is the “master” (not talkin’ like that Jewish mut) race, possibly the lost 10 tribes of Israel? The Nazis were sure obsessed with Ukraine for some reason. Ok, I just made a lot of friends from Ukraine; please no applause, just send money (actually, just send some home cooked, uncut bread, my paleo diet just got flushed).
The Germans were obsessed because Hitler was a quack economist who was starving his own people, and needed farmland.
Hitler adopted his “autarky” policies in the early 30’s, and was rapidly running out of food by the end of the decade, as Germany was unable to feed itself. The massive flaws in his economic policies would have come to light had he not embarked on a course that ended up in WWII. Ukraine, as the best farmland in the world, played a major role in his thinking.
Ummmm, no. Ukraine, Russia, Belorussia and some other ethnicities are the modern descendants of the Kievan Rus’, which is something of a misnomer because there were many affiliated cities at that time under related rulers, such as Novgorod, and during its existence it was called “Rus’ land” with the “Kievan Rus'” appellation not coined to the 19th Century. Another example of modern peoples descended from a common ancestry would be the US / Canada / England (prior to mass immigration for all 3), and Germany / Austria. Who is more Anglo-Saxon? Well, the Anglo Saxon Kingdom hasn’t existed since 1066, but are not all three nations related by common language (though not exactly the one in 1066),a common basis for law, a common history up till various points of separation? Geographically, England still has the original land area that was the Anglo Saxon kingdom prior to Norman conquest, but does that make modern England the same as “Anglia”? Does that mean that America as a whole, and individual Americans of English descent, don’t have a historical claim to the English patrimony? Comparing Austria and Germany, they arose from the same historical people. Which is the real German state and inheritor of historic “Germanness” – Austria or the Germany stitched together out of 30 independent states after the Franco-Prussian War?
So which is the real successor to the “Rus’ Lands”? All of them.
What we currently think of as “Ukrainian nationalism” is of relatively recent vintage. The Poles played a part by creating the Uniate Church, introducing religious differences where there previously had not been. The Austrians played a part, mostly as a way to give Imperial Russia a black eye. Lenin did his part by adding territory, as did Stalin by killing so many living in the Ukrainian SSR, Bandera and his pro-Nazi thugs, Stalin expanding Ukrainian territory further West, Khrushchev giving up Crimea, and finally now the US and the West have been stoking nationalistic fires for decades.
What happens after the complete defeat of Ukraine is acknowledged remains to be seen. We can only pray it is peaceful.
Ok, ok, we’re all sons of Adam and Noah, I get it, the Russian Revolution trashed everything; paramount was the bringing to an abrupt end the Orthodox evangilization of the United States by eastern European missionaries. That was lose-lose for everyone, and the Russians let it happen—not the Ukrainians— and the mea culpa is the “Basic Social Construct (what-cha-ma-call it), Moscow came out with in 1990 there abouts.
Here is my point, and my purpose is not merely regurgitating history, that often is pointless.
In a previous comment, look it up, I reiterated thinking in the who and not the what. Ukraine is not a what, it’s a who. They are struggling to not be redefined by outside forces which sometimes are Russian. That they could be divided by the USSR, is proof their tribes had at some point diverged, like a son leaving home, something changed. They may be cousins or brothers in one house, but never trans-persons as one people.
When God calls a man out of darkness, He calls him by name. “Adam, where are you?” Likewise the priest communes each by name. And, each of us—if we endure—will have a name known only between God and us. Furthermore, Orthodox Trinitarian theology starts with distinctions of Persons, then moves to unifactions, not the other way around, like modelism. To God, and the Church, everything is personal. Ukraine is a who, not a what.
I did not get that from reading a history book (The Word became flesh, and I have not seen where He became book again). I got it from a Ukrainian (flesh and blood). When I met a Ukrainian couple (very handsome stately almost middle aged and well dressed), I (a salesman) mentioned some connection between Ukrainian with Russian—just like you now did but without the syntax, trying to make cordial conversation– as if they were one and the same, and he ripped me for at least 20 minutes, in front of other customers. So harsh was the episode it still smarts, decades later. The only thing that exceeds this level of insult is talking to the ghetto dwelling black man about his momma. After you pick your teeth off the ground…..you apologize. If he bears “witness” to his people, I’ll just go ahead and take his word for it. If you know what is good for your, don’t confuse Ukraine with Russia, I learned the hard way.
Every wound is a portal to either heaven or hell, depending on the porter. If you want to heal a people, you must first get into their boat to calm the storm. The first step in doing that is first acknowledging who they are rite now, not yesterday. As soon as you say, “oh, you are one of ‘them’”, you’ve lost them and an opportunity to be Christ in somebody’s storm tossed boat. A little more Jesus and less Josephus, is in order, don’t you think? Reciting facts of history is like explaining the meteorology of the storm to those despairing in the sinking ship. Just get in the boat, look them in the face and say, we’re with you even if Putin is not. If you throw them a life line, it must be something they can identify with themselves.
Bottom line: every single tribe, people, community has by God’s loving designs a redeeming quality that sets it apart from every other people on earth. For the Greeks, it’s the language our forefathers wrote in (of course, pass the gyros). For England, it was a literate world, and the ferocity of a navy. For Germany it’s about high engineering. And America—God bless America—is the microcosm of the Whole (and of course American football [I share a weight room with an American high school football team], fut bol is booooooring).
When you locate that collective identity, that common grace, and you restore it in the context of God’s creation and redemptive designs, you bring them out of despair into their unique metanarrative purpose that transcends generation after generation (like the book of Ruth).
Ok, here is my penance for OR staff: go watch “Lion King” (Disney cartoon movie) five times or until you figure it out, your kids will love it: the essence of identity is the essence of everything. Without an identity, the who becomes a what and is now disposable with all the other Amazon packaging we stuff our landfills with.
BTW: “You are a baboon and I am not” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deEJLVFnWXQ
Ok, now, what about Ukraine can we all celebrate with them in this trying hour? What in their identity can we all give honor to where honor is due? What has Ukraine—without Russia—ever done for the world that no other people can ritely claim? Look no further than your next loaf of prospera. Its, the wheat. I got in on good authority—flesh and blood oral tradition; 4th generation (actually now 5th) wheat farmers.
Speaking of Ukraine, perhaps a/some young families would like to move here where I have settled in. With a lot of organic wheat grown nearby, they could make this the prospera capital of the world. Although only with 1200 population, one privately owned company that ships worldwide already exists here (Callicrate “banders”; it’s how some bishops “fix” their priests mercifully painless; lockdowns 2.0 just around the corner?), besides the worldwide shipping of agribusiness, mostly family owned.
I actually may have just the place to get it started, possibly. With a depressed economy, the town is about half its glory days, and properties are cheap, most need work. My neighbor will sell me his house for 30k, make a nice church with some tender loving care. Many vacant buildings; the commercial property on the corner with garage went for 30k on the main drag. A fully remodeled–new everything–went for 135. I should have jumped, but have something already in the works. The gutted house I am about to put in order has room for a gigungous kitchen, large dinning room, and could possibly house three families that are not too particular about personal space–3 bath, when finished. The lot is a third acre, with an additional efficiency apartment/shop (that I now live in now). Just throwing that out there to see if anything gels. And kids? If any are toe-heads, they’ll fit right in with the Germans. What are the possibilities? Just a thought? Sorry if I offending anyone (well, not everyone).
Not really.
History is very much with us. Ukraine is a multi-ethnic state, courtesy of the way the borders were fixed. Right now, there is a good chunk of the people who self-identify as Ukrainians, speak a language with dialects that was originally crafted by 18th & 19th century romantic poets, and quite a few of whom are virulently anti-Russian. That is not much basis for a heavy form of nationalism. There is another group who self-identify as Ukrainian, speak Ukrainian, but don’t get hung up about the whole thing. Many of these people still belong to the UOC, and just want to get on with their lives. They are easy going. Then there are the remnants of the 23% to 25% of the pre-war population who are actually ethnic Russians who speak Russian and, while Ukrainian citizens, think of themselves as Russian. They are concentrated in the East, which are the territories now claimed by Russia, but do live elsewhere. These are the people that the first group, probably represented by the couple you met, have been ethnically persecuting for years, including shelling them, oppressing their language, and stripping their rights.
We can skip the Romanians, Hungarians, etc. for now. So there is no “who” in Ukraine. There are multiple of those. So what will happen after the war, when the ethnic Russian areas are stripped away and are securely part of Russia? That is an open debate and could be the subject of the next war if we are not careful as Western neighbors have dreams. Can what is left of Ukraine develop a healthy economy, a healthy mindset, or will it continue to be dominated by anti-Russian hate more than anything positive? No clue, but since there are over 14 million Ukrainian citizens of all ethnicities already abroad, we will end up seeing them everywhere, maybe even in our wheat fields.
Good assessments, Thanks
I guess that’s the defect of multiculturalism, a house divided cannot stand. The poor Ukrainian chap that branded me with his nationalism was fresh off the fall of the Iron Curtain. Yeah, I’m that old.
I’m still a bit puzzled as to why the west is so obsessed with torching any semblance of normalcy there. Is it purely its proximity to Russia? What is the end game?
As for Putin, while I would like to think of him as wearing a white hat, his connections with the cabal are unmistakable through strange bedfellows, and other things. It all appears like theater where all the players are staged and Putin–like all the rest–is just reading somebody else’s script, just like Republicans and Democrats, they all are compromised under the influence of the world bankers.
Isn’t that the big question – why does America and the West have to be neck deep in Ukraine? No easy answer. The MIC needs an enemy, or else why spend $1 trillion a year on Defense and intelligence? Crooked politicians need someplace to launder money. Rapacious vulture capitalists are looking for assets to pilfer. Wokesters hate Russia, and see Ukraine as a way to give it a bloody nose. Unreconstructed Cold War Hawks can never get over the Communist past. True believers in American exceptionalism won’t tolerate a potential great power rival.
You could write books on this topic, and never provide a satisfactory answer. What is so revealing, however, is that the entire field for the GOP nomination is, to varying degrees, in favor of an aggressive US foreign policy and this war in Ukraine. The field with a shot at winning the nomination, that is. While the polls tell us that the vast majority of rank-and-file GOP voters want out of Ukraine, yesterday. Once again, Democracy is more of an illusion than a reality.
America is horribly schizoid. So many good things can be said, of which is huge a better standard of living and—at least some concept of personal freedoms. That so many came here, says whatever was left behind was well worth the change. We can criticize government without threat and pretty much anything else—that’s part of our ethos, we can speak our minds (for now)—yet, in the last few decades, America has not been herself; not the America I grew up in—actually it was just my perceptions.
It’s like we are looking at two different things at the same time. I’m still coming to grips with the co-habitation between good and evil—especially disturbing when seeing in the Orthodox Church. But it’s for real. Its easier to deal with corruption in a non-denominational church because of the limit associations—if it is corrupt, it stands alone in our minds. While corruption in the Orthodox Church jars the mind, because of all the connections across the board and through history, it’s hard for me to grasp.
But, this is all foretold in Scripture, even in Abraham’s progeny duplicity was there. Rebecca birthed two different “nations/peoples/ethos”; even the physical appearances were very different. While this duplicity runs through all of us, in Christ the “body of sin becomes disengaged (unemployed). And in death, it receives a final stroke.
When we look at the good in America, its as if (was) nothing else existed. No nation in the history of Man has done so much to feed the poor, express decency in modeling a people friendly government, and promote Christian values. At the same time, another America has always been as well. We have had no decent president since JFK (a democrat of all things), and he was assassinated after publically denouncing “secret societies.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhcUV7lOq04
That Orthodox clergy are infected with this other worldly virus is a hard pill to swallow as I thought the praxis would inoculate against apostasy. It does not, yet, so many benefit from being Orthodox.
Among other things, JFK was about to shut down American involvement in Viet Nam. And, even Ronald Regan was an advocate of the one world government. And, Trump is the “father” of the Frankenshot; which has now been declared in the state of Florida as a bioweapon.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FhVrKRTAijmR/
This major blow to the globalists was pretty much done by one woman: Karen Kingston—a Christian who actually worked for big Pharma but became whistle blower.
As for me, I do the deep dive in most any rabbit hole. This creates a conflict in me that I see so much that is coming and most are clueless. How do I slap some sense into their brains before they get the battery of 70 vaccines for their children? At some point, you just give up, sit with people where they sit, and let their choices take their course.
Bottom line: corruption nearly always flows top-down, and spiritual preservation, invigoration, and virtuousness, grows from the roots up.
.
Ukraine, Russia and Belarus indeed have a common church, but it isn’t the only church. The autocephalous OCU, which regardless of Kirill’s protests has patriarchal backing, is not under his jurisdiction.
In regard to Kirill declaring that on some level doing one’s duty and dying in military service (in Ukraine), it seems at least a couple of things are being suggested:
1) killing/fighting (doing one’s duty in the military)
2) for Russia (I doubt he’s including Ukrainians or, for example, American volunteers)
The focus on Russia and Patriarch Kirill is misplaced. The UOC is headed by Metropolitan Onuphry. It is a Ukrainian Church for Ukrainians, and cut ties with Moscow in May 2022. What Constantinople did in creating the OCU was a betrayal of Orthodoxy for political gain. The US wanted the move to shore up Poroshenko, which didn’t work, but directly led to the persecution the UOC is suffering today. This is not about Russia or Kirill’s feelings or his protests. This is about the Ukrainian Govt religiously persecuting its own citizens.
https://orthodoxreflections.com/how-will-the-martyrdom-of-the-ukrainian-orthodox-church-impact-the-world/
As for Kirill’s comments on military service, as none of us are under Patriarch Kirill, and as he is one hierarch with no authority to define or change doctrine, we really are not under any obligation to defend them, explain them, or analyze them. If it matters to you, Fr. John Whiteford did a very good job of analyzing them at the beginning of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9zmSLzYDIg
It is definitely heretical for Patriarch Kirill to declare in his recent war sermon that “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.”
Only the sacrifice of Jesus washes away sins. If our own sacrifice could wash away our own sins we would have no need for a Saviour.
The only part of that quote that goes too far is the last sentence. The Patriarch should not have phrased it that way. Even if one dies an actual Martyr’s death, that does not guarantee you the Kingdom nor does it guarantee the washing away of all your sins. So clearly, dying in a war is not a guarantee.
But one thing we will point out, is that this quote has been widely misconstrued and misrepresented. The Patriarch is not talking about killing, which he actually says we need to limit in the first sentence, but to self-sacrifice of an individual. It is the laying down of one’s life that is admirable, not the killing in the war. This was a mistake at best, indication of a heretical belief at worst.
We do not need something like this to backhandedly become Orthodox “practical” dogma.
Lol are people seriously publishing articles by an extremist teenager convert??? WOW
You mean publishing articles from an African American National Guardsman college student? Sure, proud to publish his work. Twice. His take on this topic is quite well done, and matches up with what others have written, including other authors here, Metropolitan Jonah, and multiple priests. Do you have a comment concerning the topic, or is this the best you can do?
“Loving your nation involves fighting in its wars.”
No, it doesn’t. It depends on the war.
There might be circumstances under which loving one’s nation might require the exact opposite: to refrain from fighting its wars, or even support the opposing forces.
“If invading another nation is your contention, then you are left to wonder what lesson is learn by the lives of Saint Justinian, Saint Constantine, Tsar Saint Boris of Bulgaria, Saint David the Builder, Saint Nikephoros Phokas, Saint John Vatatzes, Tsar Saint Nicholas, Saint Stefan Nemanja, and Saint Elesbaan of Ethiopia, all of whom declared wars invading other nations (some of those other nations being Orthodox).”
— Indeed. I am not familiar with the particular wars of those Saints; would their wars be considered lawful under international law today?
Good point. The young man who wrote the article is a soldier and quite young. He might have gotten ahead of himself here.
On the invasion point, the primary idea would be that things are more complicated than certain Orthodox commentators want to make them. Saint Justinian was a Roman Emperor in the East. He dreamed of reconquering the lands in the West lost to the Barbarian invasions. These territories (including the city of Rome) had been Roman for hundreds of years (or more). The average people at the time were still, on the whole, Latin speaking who were ruled by the invaders. Justinian was the Roman emperor, so was he justified in militarily driving out the Germanic tribes and re-establishing the Western Empire?
Well, that opens up a debate doesn’t it? It was an invasion, as the Western lands were not under Roman control at the time. Was it justified because those had been Roman lands, in some cases just a few decades before? Was it a failure of the Christian Faith because St. Justinian went to war, or was it in defense of the Christian Faith in the West that was threatened by having been overrun by the Pagans? As for lawfulness of his invasion under modern international law, who can say? International law largely seems like a Western construct that is used to excuse whatever Western powers do, while condemning what anyone else does. There seems to be no even-handedness in its application at all.
Now if we look at what happened in reality, the reconquest of the West was a disaster. A total, unmitigated disaster. So whatever its merits, the Eastern Empire would have been much better off had St. Justinian stayed home. Rather than go into all the other specifics saints and their wars, we’ll just say that in Orthodoxy the emphasis is on peace. War and even aggressive war has been seen as moral, under certain circumstances, so easy answers are not forthcoming. Like most things in the Christian life, discernment is required.