Reading history is an exercise is balancing pessimism and optimism. The long history of the Orthodox Church is full of depressing chapters in which every turn of the page induces sighing and cringing. Yet all these centuries later, here we are. I think there are parallels in any tradition. So, I’d say Kirill is our generation’s regrettable episode, but God is greater than Kirill and the Faith has been through worse.
The larger conversations about nationalism, Modernity, and so on are all necessary—and underway. The outcome remains to be determined, but nothing in Orthodoxy moves swiftly.
I'm not 100% sure what the right take is here, but I'm cautious to point the finger at orthodoxy. Church attendence in russia is around 5-8% compared to nearly 30% in Ukraine meaning Ukraine is a much better picture of orthodoxy then russia on that count alone. Additionally, the soviets committed a widespread genocide against russian orthodox and people that worked for the kgb (the organization performing the genocide) seemed to control who went up the roc ranks, the last patriach was basically confirmed kgb. It feels cruel in that context to point the finger at orthodoxy
"the rest of the Orthodox World represented by the bishop of Constantinople patriarch Bartholomew" is not really Orthodox ecclesiology. HAH Bart isn't the Orthodox pope pitted against Kirill, the Russian anti-Pope.
Being tied in to Orthodox institutions, I don't think it's fair to say Orthodoxy is refusing to meet the challenges of modernity. It's seeking to do so head-on in most places. Second in size to Russia's Church is the church of Romania (with much higher Church attendance, I might add)—maybe pick up the recent book of translated essays by Patriarch Daniel (Patriarch Daniel: Rebuilding Orthodoxy in Romania, SVS Press, 2021) to see one vibrant example of the Orthodox Church plunging headlong to confront—rather than hide from or kowtow to—modernity in a way that seeks to provide real spiritual support in difficult times to its people.
That being said, the actions and words of Kirill have us in an "emperor's new clothes" situation regarding the Russian Church in particular. I have to admit that I was previously optimistic about the ROC's possibility in being a voice for the Church—looking to people like Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev.
Mr. Trakakis obviously wants Orthodoxy to go the way of the Episcopalians, as if the central tenants of Christian teachings are up for a "vote" and we can discard Apostolic teachings because we moderns are so much smarter and we voted. How's that working out for them? Not well, we don't want that.
Reading history is an exercise is balancing pessimism and optimism. The long history of the Orthodox Church is full of depressing chapters in which every turn of the page induces sighing and cringing. Yet all these centuries later, here we are. I think there are parallels in any tradition. So, I’d say Kirill is our generation’s regrettable episode, but God is greater than Kirill and the Faith has been through worse.
The larger conversations about nationalism, Modernity, and so on are all necessary—and underway. The outcome remains to be determined, but nothing in Orthodoxy moves swiftly.
I'm not 100% sure what the right take is here, but I'm cautious to point the finger at orthodoxy. Church attendence in russia is around 5-8% compared to nearly 30% in Ukraine meaning Ukraine is a much better picture of orthodoxy then russia on that count alone. Additionally, the soviets committed a widespread genocide against russian orthodox and people that worked for the kgb (the organization performing the genocide) seemed to control who went up the roc ranks, the last patriach was basically confirmed kgb. It feels cruel in that context to point the finger at orthodoxy
"the rest of the Orthodox World represented by the bishop of Constantinople patriarch Bartholomew" is not really Orthodox ecclesiology. HAH Bart isn't the Orthodox pope pitted against Kirill, the Russian anti-Pope.
Being tied in to Orthodox institutions, I don't think it's fair to say Orthodoxy is refusing to meet the challenges of modernity. It's seeking to do so head-on in most places. Second in size to Russia's Church is the church of Romania (with much higher Church attendance, I might add)—maybe pick up the recent book of translated essays by Patriarch Daniel (Patriarch Daniel: Rebuilding Orthodoxy in Romania, SVS Press, 2021) to see one vibrant example of the Orthodox Church plunging headlong to confront—rather than hide from or kowtow to—modernity in a way that seeks to provide real spiritual support in difficult times to its people.
That being said, the actions and words of Kirill have us in an "emperor's new clothes" situation regarding the Russian Church in particular. I have to admit that I was previously optimistic about the ROC's possibility in being a voice for the Church—looking to people like Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev.
Thank you for your informative article and sharing an issue that troubles the church as a whole - nationalism.
Mr. Trakakis obviously wants Orthodoxy to go the way of the Episcopalians, as if the central tenants of Christian teachings are up for a "vote" and we can discard Apostolic teachings because we moderns are so much smarter and we voted. How's that working out for them? Not well, we don't want that.
Word.