If you know anything about the New Testament, then you know that St. Paul spend a lot of time and energy in the great cities of Greece.
It would seem logical for one of the ancient patriarchates of Eastern Orthodoxy to be located in Greece, perhaps in Athens, Corinth or Thessaloniki. So who is the patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church? Why are the great churches of Greece led by archbishops, instead of their own patriarch?
That’s a complicated question (click here for Orthodox Wiki timeline) and, as always, the Orthodox will argue about many historical twists and turns. But the big idea is that over the centuries Constantinople grew to become the great city of the wider Greek world and, thus, the leader of Greek Orthodoxy remains in Istanbul. That’s where the Ecumenical Patriarch’s few remaining churches have faced crushing persecution by the Turks. Consider the plight of Turkey’s only seminary, in Halki, which has been shuttered for half a century. Halki is a tragic and sad place. I’ve been there.
Thus, the archbishops in Greece are powerless and without influence? Tell that to the Greeks.
What does this have to do with a simplistic, laugh-to-keep-from-crying paragraph of unattributed information — written in classic “omniscient anonymous" voice — in another New York Times story about the religious tensions in Ukraine? Here is that paragraph:
The Russian church … has made no secret of its desire to unite the branches under a single patriarch in Moscow, which would allow it to control the holiest sites of Orthodoxy in the Slavic world and millions of believers in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for its part, has been slowly asserting itself under its own patriarch, reviving a separate and independent branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, after the independence of Ukraine in 1991.
Where to begin?
If you know anything about Orthodox Christianity in the Slavic world, you know that the story begins in Kiev in 988 with the “Baptism of Rus“ in the waters of the Dnieper River, after Prince Vladimir embraced Orthodox Christianity as the faith of his lands. The famous Lavra of the Kievan Caves was founded in 1051, marking the birth of monasticism in what would become the Russian world.
Kiev was the key city in Slavic Orthodoxy. However, Moscow grew in importance and, eventually, became the base for the Russian Orthodox Church, much as Constantinople became the great city of the wider Greek world. Thus, the Patriarch of Moscow has for centuries — before the Soviets and certainly before autocrat Vladimir Putin — led the churches of the lands linked to the ancient Rus.
The Times language makes it sound as if (a) a patriarch being based in Moscow is a new thing and (b) that the synod serving with Metropolitan Onuphry, primate of Kiev and all Ukraine, has little or no power or functional autonomy.
Is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) linked to Moscow? Yes, and it has been for a long, long time. To understand the history of the key figure in the new Ukrainian Orthodox body, reporters would need to wade into a pool of acid surrounding the life of one Philaret Denisenko. Suffice it to say that he is a hero to many of the Orthodox Western Ukraine and an apostate to the Orthodox — including the monks of the Lavra of the Kievan Caves — loyal to the previously mentioned Metropolitan Onuphry.
What is my point here?
The fact that Putin is twisting the history of Slavic Orthodoxy to suit his evil purposes does not mean that he created this historical narrative, which has for centuries had great power and symbolism in the Slavic world. Saying that the Baptism of the Rus is a Putin fiction is something like saying (and reporters have done precisely this many times) that centuries of Roman Catholic teachings on the priesthood or moral theology are merely the opinions and interpretations of whoever currently occupies the Throne of St. Peter.
Back to Metropolitan Onuphry for a moment. Is he behaving, right now, like a man who leads his own church and his own synod of bishops? Here is a passage from my “On Religion” column from last week.
"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 synod of bishops went further, urging Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to personally seek "cessation of fratricidal bloodshed on Ukrainian land, and to call on the leadership of the Russian Federation to immediately stop the military actions that are already threatening to turn into a world war."
Ah, you may say, note the reference to the “Dnieper Baptismal font.” That means that this man accepts Putin’s interpretation of the Rus. Right?
Well, what about the millions and millions of Orthodox over the centuries who lived and died accepting that the roots of Slavic Orthodoxy are found in Kiev? Do the crimes of Putin simply erase history?
This brings me to an Associated Press report on a related topic, one written by religion-beat veteran Peter Smith. For the Orthodox, this will be a rather confusing story — in that it mentions the history of the Rus, while also seeming to accept the narrative that Putin somehow invented it (as opposed to twisting it). The headline: “Kyiv shrines, memorials with powerful symbolic value at risk.” Here is the overture:
Kyiv, bracing for a potentially catastrophic Russian attack, is the spiritual heart of Ukraine.
Among the sites at risk in the Ukrainian capital are the nation’s most sacred Orthodox shrines, dating back nearly 1,000 years to the dawn of Christianity in the region.
The sites, along with other landmark shrines in Kyiv, are religiously significant to both Ukrainian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. They also stand as powerful symbols in the quarrel over whether the two groups are parts of a single people — as Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed — or are distinct but related Slavic nations.
The landmarks include the golden domed St. Sophia’s Cathedral and the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, a sprawling underground and above-ground complex also known as the Monastery of the Caves. Others include the multi-towered St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery and St. Andrew’s Church.
Actually, ancient Kiev — or Kyiv in the West — is the spiritual heart of Slavic Christianity. It is much more than the “spiritual heart of Ukraine.” So, at this point, the story is framed in precisely the way that many — repeat “many,” as in “not all” — Ukrainians would frame this issue during the current conflict.
Note, in this next passage about the Lavra, with the theme that Putin has somehow invented the Baptism of the Rus.
The shrines’ oldest parts date back to the medieval Kievan Rus kingdom, soon after its adoption of Christianity under Prince Vladimir in the 10th century. Putin has claimed the kingdom is the common ancestor of today’s Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainians counter that theirs is a distinct nation now under fratricidal attack from its Slavic neighbor.
As I have stated earlier, I have made two trips to Kiev and talked with many, many people who favor an independent, free Ukraine. I didn’t meet anyone who backed Putin.
At the same time, I don’t think I heard anyone deny the history of Slavic Orthodoxy. Instead, they would say that Ukraine — especially after the hellish oppression of the Soviets — has grown into a distinct nation and culture. The shared history does not, however, negate the modern reality, especially in the highly European cites of Western Ukraine.
Later in the piece, there is this complex and important passage — one that seems to accept the history, structures and symbols of Slavic Orthodoxy on their own terms. Let’s walk through this?
St. Sophia’s, built under Prince Yaroslav the Wise in the 11th century, was modeled after the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the spiritual and architectural heart of medieval Orthodoxy.
I’ve been to St. Sophia’s and have, twice, covertly prayed inside the museum/mosque that is Hagia Sophia. Trust me, these great churches don’t resemble each other at all. This is a reminder of an old saying in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is that there are Orthodox Christians who insist that every Orthodox church in the world is based on Hagia Sophia. Let’s move on.
The Kyiv cathedral includes mosaics and frescoes as old as 1,000 years, and it was a model for later churches in the region, according to UNESCO.
“The huge pantheon of Christian saints depicted in the cathedral has an unrivaled multiplicity among Byzantine monuments of that time,” UNESCO says.
The Monastery of the Caves, including underground monastic cells, tombs of saints and above-ground churches built across nearly nine centuries, was hugely influential in spreading Orthodox Christianity, according to UNESCO.
All true. Moving on, there is this reference to two landmarks:
The monastic complex is overseen by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is affiliated with the Orthodox patriarch of Moscow, though it has broad autonomy. St. Michael’s is the base for the more nationalist Orthodox Church of Ukraine. But the Ukrainian leaders of both Orthodox groups have harshly criticized the Russian invasion.
Once again, that’s true — including the reference to Metropolitan Onuphry having “broad autonomy.”
Where does this leave us?
Let me urge reporters to reject the “Putin created the myth of the Rus” narrative that is going around. It is accurate to say that he has twisted that history to his own purposes. It’s also true that millions of Orthodox people around the world — including those in churches with various levels of shared history with the Russian Orthodox Church — reject Putin’s actions and his claim that Orthodox history requires the state of Russia to control Kiev.
What about the tensions between Moscow and Istanbul and the two clashing Ukrainian Orthodox bodies?
It seems popular, at the moment, for reporters to embrace the USA-EU acceptance of those who argue that the Ecumenical Patriarch in Turkey has near papal powers to settle that kind of dispute.
While it is frustrating, it helps to know that the Orthodox have handled various divisions of this kind over the centuries. The key is that Orthodoxy stresses a conciliar approach to governance when it comes to settling important issues in church life, such as the future of Orthodoxy in Ukraine (and in the United States, for that matter).
This complex church issue will take time. My advice: Never ignore the ancient Church of Antioch.
FIRST IMAGE: Map from a Reddit page on the “Creation of the Kievan Rus.”