Recently, on the occasion of a Russophobic online publication regarding the relationship between Orthodoxy and war, I received an invitation from Silouan Wright to read the book 'The Heresy of Patriarch Kirill', which supposedly proves that the Patriarch in question teaches heresy on this specific subject.
I will not examine the political and historical arguments of the book at all. Besides, for Mr. Wright—who is a citizen of a State that maintains death-bases all over the world and has invaded dozens of countries—the problem is Russia, while he does not dare to speak about the terrible persecutions carried out for over a decade by the Ukrainian government and its neo-Nazi deep state against citizens (relevant reports by Amnesty International exist on this) and against the canonical clergy who do not align with its dictatorship [as is well known, Zelensky has abolished elections]. All this because, if he mentions them, he will prove that Russia's war is defensive (despite the fact that the authors try excessively to convince us that a defensive war is only one waged by... heterodox or people of other faiths).
I will only examine specific theological/patristic points of the book that were briefly touched upon during a discussion between us on Facebook.
Right from the first lines of the specific chapters covering this topic (Ch. 17), I was surprised by an unprecedented distortion. Patriarch Kirill is accused of having 'proclaimed that Russian soldiers who die in Ukraine are washed of their sins.'
However, looking at the authentic original text of the patriarchal sermon ( https://www.patriarchia.ru/article/103723 ), I noted with sadness two things: first, that the Patriarch's exact words are distorted, and second, that this phrase is isolated from the entire patriarchal sermon, thereby creating false impressions.
Regarding the first point in particular, Patriarch Kirill writes verbatim: 'The Church recognizes that if someone, driven by a sense of duty and the need to fulfill his oath, remains faithful to his calling and dies in the line of military duty, then he undoubtedly performs an act equivalent to a sacrifice. He offers himself as a sacrifice for others. And therefore, we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins he has committed.'
The entire speech is dedicated to the duty of sacrifice. It does not even mention the word 'Russian'. On the contrary, this 'someone' in this fratricidal (as he calls it) war could also be Ukrainian. Moreover, he does not generalize, nor does he speak broadly about 'Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine'. His phrasing is hypothetical ('if'), indefinite ('someone'), and conditional ('driven by a sense of duty'). In fact, he does not say 'whoever kills', but 'whoever dies'!
At the same time (as any rational person reading the patriarchal sermon can ascertain), he condemns the 'fratricidal' and 'civil war' between 'brotherly nations' and prays for the 'swift termination of internal conflicts.'
Unfortunately, the authors of the book fully adopted the Russophobic political propaganda regarding the interpretation of the patriarchal sermon, distorted his words, and furthermore, attempted to give it a theological cover by deploying certain texts from Fathers or Synods.
Specifically, the following were deployed, among others:
1. The 13th Canon of St. Basil the Great.
However, this Canon essentially turns against them, because while they rely on the opinion (it seems to me / ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ) and counsel (to counsel / συμβουλεύειν) of Basil the Great, they pretend not to see the position of the other Fathers (our Fathers did not reckon killings in war as murders / τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις φόνους οἱ Πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τοῖς φόνοις οὐκ ἐλογίσαντο).
2. The 83rd Canon of the Holy Apostles, the 7th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the 5th Canon of Saint Gregory of Nyssa.
However, these Canons do not condemn those who kill in war (because in that case, they should have said 'whoever kills in war, let them be anathema'), but rather prevent those who have killed from becoming or remaining clergymen (because the Church wants its clergy to be blameless)!
Their invocation by the authors is therefore misplaced and misleading, because there are also other impediments (impedimenta) to Priesthood, for which, however, laypeople are not condemned for having.
Let us give an example. Is it a sin for someone to be blind, deaf, or disabled? Of course not! Yet, the 77th and 78th Canons of the Holy Apostles consider blindness, deafness, and disability as impediments to Priesthood.
Similarly, laypeople are not condemned for other impediments to Priesthood (e.g., demonic possession [79th of the Holy Apostles], lack of proper age [14th and 15th Canons of the Quinisext Council / Sixth Ecumenical Council, 11th Canon of Neocaesarea, 16th of Carthage], digamy or other unlawful marriages [17th, 18th, and 19th Canons of the Holy Apostles, 3rd Canon of the Quinisext Council], the inability to convert all their relatives to Orthodoxy [36th of Carthage], etc.).
3. The 'Canons of Hippolytus' (which are unrecognized by the Orthodox Church).
However, according to the 14th Canon of the text in question ('A Christian is not to become a soldier', etc.), all Saints who were military men stand condemned...
4. The reference to the response of the Synod at the time to Emperor Nikephoros Phokas' request for the canonization as martyrs of those killed in war.
This is a completely misplaced parallel, because Patriarch Kirill did not request the canonization of the fallen soldiers...
5. Saint Paisios the Athonite.
Various excerpts from the beloved and popular Saint are used, in which he reveals his own abhorrence of killings in the specific war he experienced. Imagine now if we were to generalize his teaching and apply his words to every situation, such as:
a. During the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.
That is, Constantine Palaiologos, seeing the Turkish hordes, saying: 'My Saint Barbara, let me be endangered in any military fighting; help me only to avoid killing anyone'!
b. During the Battle of Zalongo in 1803.
A Souliote defender saying, just before the Turco-Albanians attacked to rape the women and children: Mother of God: “Let me suffer, let me be in danger, only do not let me kill anyone; and make me worthy to become a monk.”
6. The Military Saints.
Although the mere existence of the Military Saints (such as Saints Demetrius, George, Theodore, Minas, etc.) is yet another proof that killing in war is justified, the authors nevertheless reverse things by summarizing: "These are martyrs who happened to be soldiers, not warriors glorified for slaying, maiming, and killing. We venerate their witness to Christ, their refusal to obey orders that violated the faith, their willingness to die rather than betray the Lord. We do not sing about the battles they won. We do not keep feast days for enemies they slew. We do not glorify their military record."
Also at another point (chap. 18) they pose the misleading question: "Which military saint waged holy war against the pagans? Which hagiographic account praises armed resistance to persecution? The question is not rhetorical evasion. It is a genuine challenge: produce the example. Show us the saint who took up arms against his persecutors and was glorified for it."
And yet we also remember the battles of the Saints who defeated the enemies (e.g. the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in which the (still pagan) Constantine won with the help of the Holy Cross in his just war), but also the just killings of the Military Saints, such as:
i. The killing of the persecutor emperor Julian by St. Mercury.
We read its description: "That same night Basil, the most holy bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, saw in a dream the heavens opened and the Saviour Christ seated on a throne and saying loudly, "Mercurius, go and kill the emperor Julian, who is against the Christians". St Mercurius, standing before the Lord, wore a gleaming iron breast-plate. Hearing the command, he disappeared, and then he re-appeared, standing before the Lord, and cried out, "The emperor Julian has been fatally wounded and has died, as you commanded, Lord" (The Chronicle of John Malalas, p. 181-182. Πρωτότυπο κείμενο: "Ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ νυκτὶ εἶδεν ἐν ὁράματι καὶ ὁ ὁσιώτατος ἐπίσκοπος Βασίλειος ὁ Καισαρείας Καππαδοκίας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἠνεῳγμένους καὶ τὸν σωτῆρα Χριστὸν ἐπὶ θρόνου καθήμενον καὶ εἰπόντα κραυγῇ, Μερκούριε, ἀπελθὼν φόνευσον Ἰουλιανὸν τὸν βασιλέα τὸν κατὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν. Ὁ δὲ ἅγιος Μερκούριος ἑστὼς ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐφόρει θώρακα σιδηροῦν ἀποστίλβοντα· καὶ ἀκούσας τὴν κέλευσιν ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο. Καὶ πάλιν εὑρέθη ἑστὼς ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ἔκραξεν, Ἰουλιανὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς σφαγεῖς ἀπέθανεν, ὡς ἐκέλευσας, Κύριε").
ii. The killing of the Bulgarian Tsar Κaloyan of Bulgaria by St. Demetrius
When in 1207 the Tsar of the (Orthodox) Bulgarians, John (the Greeks called him Dog John, for his crimes) attacked Thessaloniki because they considered it theirs. On the feast day of Saint Demetrius (October 26 of the Julian calendar), the Saint killed him. Here is how a man of that time, the knight Robert de Clari, describes the event:: "It was not long after this that John the Vlach and the Comans rode into the land of the marquis of Salonika. And the marquis was in his land and finally he fought with these Vlachs and Comans, and he was slain in this battle and all his people were defeated. Then John the Vlach and these Comans went and besieged Salonika and had their engines set’ up to assault the city. And the wife of the marquis had remained in the city, and knights and other people with her to defend the city. Now there lay in this city the body of my lord St. Demetrius, who would never suffer his city to be taken by force. And there flowed from this holy body such great quantities of oil that it was a fair marvel. And it came to pass, as John the Vlach was lying one morning in his tent, that my lord St. Demetrius came and struck him with a lance through the body and slew him. When his own people and the Comans knew that he was dead, they broke camp and went away to their land" (The Conquest Of Constantinople, p. 127). The incident is also recorded by the Serbian king St. Stephen the First-Crowned (who also lived at that time) in the life of his father, St. Stephen Nemanja.
iii. The killing of the iconoclast swordsman (spatharios) at the Chalki Gate by the St. Theodosia and the Holy Ten Martyrs.
7. The Church's prayer for the army.
The authors believe that the Church prays not for the army's victory in a war, but for the prevention of war and the salvation of the soldiers.
And yet the Church's prayers are clear. For centuries the Church prayed (as the Book of Prayer attests): "For our most pious and God-fearing kings, for all their palaces and camps, let us pray to the Lord. For them to fight together, and to subdue under their feet every enemy and opponent, let us pray to the Lord" ("Υπέρ των ευσεβεστάτων και θεοφυλάκτων βασιλέων ημών, παντός του παλατίου, και του στρατοπέδου αυτών, του Κυρίου δεηθώμεν. Υπέρ του συμπολεμήσαι, και υποτάξαι υπό τους πόδας αυτών πάντα εχθρόν και πολέμιον, του Κυρίου δεηθώμεν") and on the feast of the Holy Cross it sang "victory to the kings against the barbarians, granted" ("νίκας τοῖς βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος").
Emperor Nikephoros Phocas in his work "Presentation and Composition on Warfare" (Στρατηγικὴ Ἔκθεσις καὶ Σύνταξις) preserves the practice of the time: "The commander of the host must give prior instructions to the strategoi, officers, and the rest of the army in the camp where the whole force is quartered that during the time of the Doxology, both at Vespers and Matins, the priests accompanying the army will recite the Litany upon the completion of the hymns and the whole host must call out, "Lord, have mercy," up to one hundred times with devotion and fear toward God, even with tears, with no one daring to attend to any other task at the hour of prayer... When these rituals have been properly completed, the priests must perform bloodless sacrifice the day before the battle, and upon completion of the Liturgy the army must partake of the Holy and undefiled Mysteries. And so then, confidently and courageously with conviction and faith in God, they are to go forth against the foe" (McGeer Eric, Sowing the dragon's teeth: Byzantine warfare in the tenth century, 1995, p. 57, 59).
This is why the heretic Tolstoy, accusing the Church, wrote: "It is said: bless your enemies, but she [the Church] says: it is permissible to scold. The speech of Jesus says only that one should not defend oneself from enemies, that one should not fight under any circumstances; but the Church has been preaching the opposite for 1500 years and blesses warriors" (πρωτότυπο κείμενο: "Сказано: благословляй врагов, а она (Церковь) говорит: можно ругать. Речь Иисуса говорит только то, что не до́лжно защищаться от врагов, что ни в каком случае не до́лжно воевать; церковь же 1500 лет проповедует противное и благословляет воинов", «Исследование Евангелия». РКП библиотеки М. Д. Академии № 118/210, стр. 227).
Following in the footsteps of Tolstoy, the writers accuse Patriarch Kirill of blessing his country's army, but they did not find a single word of protest to say when Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople blessed Turkey's Muslim army, praying for the Turkish invasion of Afrin ("“We pray that you and the Turkish Armed Forces will achieve success and ‘Operation Olive Branch’ will bring peace to the area as its name promises”", https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/istanbul-greek-orthodox-patriarch-lends-support-to-turkeys-operation-olive-branch-in-syrias-afrin-126375)!
***
At another point (chap. 18) another excerpt from a patriarchal sermon is used, cut and distorted ("There will be no trace left of the schismatics, because they are fulfilling the devil’s evil bidding, destroying Orthodoxy on Kyivan land.") so that it is presented by the authors as a direct murderous threat!
But whoever sees the entire speech of the Patriarch will understand the true meaning. In this sermon, the Patriarch does not threaten that Russia will eliminate the schismatics by force, but makes a historical reference to the "Renovationist Schism", which was supported by the then Communist State of the Soviet Union, stating that just as it was eliminated then (i.e. God eliminated it), so the current schismatics from Ukraine will be eliminated. Here is the entire excerpt, which is absolutely clear: "Here are the thoughts that came to me today as I was thinking about Ukraine, about what is happening there today. The enemy of the human race decided to mock the holy land, our font, the all-Russian font of Baptism, and a schism arose, very reminiscent of the Renovationist schisms in Russia after the revolution. Almost a copy: both there and there, behind the schisms is the state power; both there and there, behind the schisms is the intention to weaken and destroy the Orthodox Church, to excommunicate the people of God from the Church, subordinating them to schismatic, evil-church authorities. But we know what happened in Russia. Where is that Renovationist schism to which the government handed over everything? Where are those ideas that were planted among Orthodox people to separate them from the Church? Everything has passed, not a trace is left. It will be the exact same way in Ukraine — there will be no trace left of the schismatics, because they are fulfilling the devil’s evil bidding, destroying Orthodoxy on Kyivan land." (the original Russian text here: https://www.patriarchia.ru/article/104111 ).
The authors then attempt to cite patristic passages against the concept of "holy war", using texts by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, Fr. Spyridon Bailey, and St. Nicholas Velimirovich (for the former, they attempt to prove that his condemnation of the 1848 Russian invasion of Hungary can be applied to our case; however, there were no Russians living in Hungary, nor were they being persecuted, so the parallel is again unfortunate).
At the same time, they reject:
i. The famous saying of St. Athanasius the Great "it is not right to kill, yet in war it is lawful and praiseworthy to destroy the enemy", considering it to be misinterpreted because supposedly "the quote has been torn completely out of context" (i.e. what they themselves systematically do in the texts of Patriarch Cyril!). And yet Athanasius the Great is absolutely clear (I am quoting the entire passage this time, which is not susceptible to any misinterpretation): "For example, it is not right to kill, yet in war it is lawful and praiseworthy to destroy the enemy; accordingly not only are they who have distinguished themselves in the field held worthy of great honours, but monuments are put up proclaiming their achievements. So that the same act is at one time and under some circumstances unlawful, while under others, and at the right time, it is lawful and permissible." (οἷον, φονεύειν οὐκ ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ' ἐν πολέμοις ἀναιρεῖν τοὺς ἀντιπάλους καὶ ἔννομον καὶ ἐπαίνου ἄξιον· οὕτω γοῦν καὶ τιμῶν μεγάλων οἱ κατὰ πόλεμον ἀριστεύσαντες ἀξιοῦνται, καὶ στῆλαι τούτων ἐγείρονται κηρύττουσαι τὰ κατορθώματα· ὥστε τὸ αὐτὸ κατά τι μὲν καὶ κατὰ καιρὸν οὐκ ἔξεστι, κατά τι δὲ καὶ εὐκαίρως ἀφίεται καὶ συγκεχώρηται).
ii. The use of Old Testament passages on the subject, but a use made by the Saints!
Furthermore, they also use St. Theodore the Studite, claiming that the Saint sets out (in his letter to St. Theophilus of Ephesus) "the criteria for defensive war". However, here too (unfortunately once again) we have a misinterpretation by the authors, because Saint Theodore in his specific letter does not refer to war, but to the persecution of heretical citizens (the Manichaean Paulicians).
The Saint himself clearly explains this by writing that the issues are different, but the authors (I continue to hope that they did not do it with cunning) cut out the relevant passage: "This is one thing and that is another; the former is directed against enemies, the latter against heretics who are under our rule" (ἄλλο τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο ἕτερον, τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ τοὺς πολεμίους, τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑπὸ χεῖρα αἱρετικούς).
And he continues the letter by writing the following revealingly: "For indeed, the story concerning John the Faster, the president (patriarch) of Constantinople, does not seem true to me—namely, that he permitted the sorcerers to be impaled —, but rather that he conceded to it. For they too are murderers, against whom those in power must not be prevented from executing the provisions of the Roman laws; for 'not in vain', he says, 'do they bear the sword, they are avengers to the one who practices evil.' (Romans 13:4) However, one must not permit this against those whom the Lord has forbidden; for being rulers of bodies, it is permitted to them to punish those caught in bodily offenses, but not those caught in offenses concerning the soul. For this belongs to the rulers of souls, whose places of punishment are excommunications and the rest of the ecclesiastical penalties."
It clearly recognizes, therefore, in the Orthodox State the right to punish those who do evil, but not against those who err in spiritual matters.
And something else (which the authors conceal): on this issue (about the non-persecution of heretics) at least three Saints disagreed strongly with St. Theodore the Studite: the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Nikephoros the Confessor (commemorated on June 2), St. Theophanes the Confessor (commemorated on March 12), and the aforementioned St. Theophilus (commemorated on September 25). And this is because the three Saints believed that these heretics should be punished for the terrible persecutions and massacres they committed against the Orthodox. (details on the issue here: https://www.oodegr.com/oode/protestant/sykofanties/pavlikianoi_2.htm#11. ).
In closing, and wanting to emphasize how bad war is, the authors point out that David was not worthy of God to build the Temple because he shed much blood and waged great wars. However, if the Church adopted the interpretation put forward by the authors, then it should have forbidden the Emperors who participated in many bloody wars (such as Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Heraclius, Nikephoros Phokas, Basil the Bulgar-slayer [who fought against the Bulgarians who were of the same faith!], etc.) to build temples.
***
Indeed, Orthodoxy does not justify a holy war of the jihad type, but it accepts the concept of "just war", as is proven by other texts of Fathers and Teachers which I immediately present, since the authors concealed them (I believe not out of deceit, but out of ignorance):
(1) The Apostle Peter: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." (1 Peter 2:13-14)
(2) St. Ambrose of Milan: "It may be said to a person of power: Why did you not aid the widow, the orphans also, when enduring wrong? Were you powerless? Could you not help? I made you for this purpose, not that you might do wrong, but that you might check it. Is it not written for you Save him that endures wrong? Sirach 4:9 Is it not written for you: Deliver the poor and needy out of the hand of the sinner?" (On the Duties of the Clergy, Book I, Chapter 16). And elsewhere: "For courage, which in war preserves one's country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice" (in the same, Chapter 27). And below: "Thus, in accordance with the will of God and the union of nature, we ought to be of mutual help one to the other, and to vie with each other in doing duties, to lay all our advantages as it were before all, and (to use the words of Scripture) to bring help one to the other from a feeling of devotion or of duty, by giving money, or by doing something, at any rate in some way or other; so that the charm of human fellowship may ever grow sweeter among us, and none may ever be recalled from their duty by the fear of danger, but rather account all things, whether good or evil, as their own concern. Thus holy Moses feared not to undertake terrible wars for his people's sake, nor was he afraid of the arms of the mightiest kings, nor yet was he frightened at the savagery of barbarian nations. He put on one side the thought of his own safety so as to give freedom to the people" (in the same, Chapter 28). And at another point: "One of the duties of fortitude is to keep the weak from receiving injury;... The glory of fortitude, therefore, does not rest only on the strength of one's body or of one's arms, but rather on the courage of the mind. Nor is the law of courage exercised in causing, but in driving away all harm. He who does not keep harm off a friend, if he can, is as much in fault as he who causes it. Wherefore holy Moses gave this as a first proof of his fortitude in war. For when he saw an Hebrew receiving hard treatment at the hands of an Egyptian, he defended him, and laid low the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. Exodus 2:11 Solomon also says: Deliver him that is led to death. Proverbs 24:11" (in the same, Chapter 36). And again: "What regard for virtue our forefathers had to avenge by a war the wrongs of one woman which had been brought on her by her violation at the hands of profligate men!... What great regard our forefathers had for virtue is shown by the fact that forty thousand men drew the sword against their brethren of the tribe of Benjamin in their desire to avenge the wrong done to modesty, for they would not endure the violation of chastity. And so in that war on both sides there fell sixty-five thousand warriors, while their cities were burnt. And when at first the people of Israel were defeated, yet unmoved by fear at the reverses of the war, they disregarded the sorrow the avenging of chastity cost them. They rushed into the battle ready to wash out with their own blood the stains of the crime that had been committed." (On the Duties of the Clergy, Book III, Chapter 19)
(3) St. Augustine writes: "For if the Christian religion condemned wars of every kind, the command given in the gospel to soldiers asking counsel as to salvation would rather be to cast away their arms, and withdraw themselves wholly from military service; whereas the word spoken to such was, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages, Luke 3:14 — the command to be content with their wages manifestly implying no prohibition to continue in the service." (Letter 138 to Marcellinus). And in another work in more detail: "However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill. Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion. And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle. Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him had given him secret instructions to do this. With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder." (The City of God, Book I, Chapter 21).
(4) St. Isidore of Pelusium writes to a murderer: "Βecause you killed a good man, many tongues mock you; and because you boast of the murder, as if you had destroyed one of the wicked, even more people lament you. Consider then, you foolish man, did you kill as Moses did? Did you show zeal like Phinehas, did you defend God like Samuel, did you take vengeance like Elijah? Only if so, should you pride yourself on what you dared to do. But if no law appointed you, nor did the ranks of war arm you, nor did a divine oracle unleash you against the blood of your own kinsman—even when you are expected to offer love to your very enemies" (PG 78, 356. Original Greek text: "Ὅτι γὰρ ἀπέκτεινας ἄνθρωπον χρηστόν, πολλαί σε γλῶσσαι κωμῳδοῦσιν· ὅτι δὲ ὡς τινα τῶν φαύλων ἀνῃρηκὼς ἐναβρύνῃ τῷ φόνῳ, πλείονές σε πάλιν τραγῳδοῦσι. Κατανόησον οὖν, ἀσύνεπτε, εἰ ὡς ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἐφόνευσας; εἰ ὡς Φινεὲς ἐζήλωσας, εἰ ὡς Σαμουὴλ ἤμυνας Θεῷ, εἰ ὡς Ἠλίας ἐξεδίκησας, καὶ τότε μέγα φρόνει ἐφ’ οἷς ἐτόλμησας. Εἰ δὲ οὔτε νόμος σέ τις ἐχειροτόνησεν, οὔτε πολέμου τάξις ἐξώπλισεν, οὔτε θεῖος χρησμὸς ἐπαφῆκε τῷ ὁμοφύλῳ σου αἵματι, καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀγάπην σπενδόμενος"). And in another letter: "For that God praises even the hatred of evil is proven by what happened in the case of Phinehas. For though he committed two murders in a single moment, [God] honored him with the priesthood; He would not have done this, if He had legislated goodness alone" (PG 78, 528. Original Greek text: "Ὅτι γὰρ καὶ τὸ μισοπόνηρον ἐπαινεῖ ὁ Θεός, τεκμηριοῖ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Φινεὲς γεγονότα. Δύο γὰρ φόνους αὐτὸν ἐργασάμενον, ἐν μιᾷ καιροῦ ῥοπῇ, ἱερωσύνῃ τετίμηκεν· οὐκ ἂν τοῦτο ποιήσας, εἰ ἀγαθότητα μόνην ἐνομοθέτει"). And elsewhere: "For on one hand, some made good use of murder (such as Moses and Phinehas), and of anger (Peter and Paul); but with fornication, no one has ever made good use. Therefore, it defiles the one who commits it. For I pass over the fact that those who kill in war are deemed worthy of both monuments and public acclaim" (PG 78, 1209. Original Greek text: "Φόνῳ μὲν γάρ τινες εὖ ἐχρήσαντο (ὡς Μωσῆς καὶ Φινεές), καὶ ὀργῇ (ὁ Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος)· πορνείᾳ δὲ οὐδείς πώποτε εὖἐχρήσατο. Διὸ καὶ τὸν δρῶντα μολύνει. Σιωπῶ γάρ, ὅτι τοὺς ἐν πολέμῳ φονεύοντας καὶ στηλῶν καὶ ἀναῤῥήσεων ἀξιοῦσιν").
(5) The famous Canonist John Zonaras, interpreting the 13th Canon of Basil the Great, writes: "The Saint (Basil the Great) states that those who kill in war should abstain from Holy Communion for three years, not as a command, but as a piece of advice. However, such advice seems burdensome. For, because of it, it would happen that soldiers might never partake of the Divine Gifts, especially those who display courage and the most excellent warriors; since they would never have the opportunity to rest for a period of three years. If, therefore, those who are occupied with successive wars and kill the enemy are barred from Communion, they will be deprived of partaking in the Good for their entire life; which is an unbearable punishment for Christians. But why should those who fight on behalf of the state and their brethren—so that they are not captured by enemies, or to liberate those who have been enslaved—not be judged pure in their hands? For if they hesitate to kill the barbarians, fearing that they will defile their hands thereby, everything will be lost, and the barbarians will rule over everyone. Reflecting on this, the ancient Fathers did not include those who kill in war among common murderers, showing leniency towards them, as the saint said, because they defend self-restraint and piety. For if the barbarians prevail, there will be neither piety nor self-restraint; they will abolish piety by reinforcing their own objects of worship, and no one will be permitted to pursue self-restraint, but everyone will be forced to live according to barbarian ways. Furthermore, Athanasius, great in divine matters, explicitly says the following in his canonical letter to the monk Ammoun: "To murder is not permitted, but to destroy adversaries in war is both lawful and praiseworthy."I believe, therefore, that this directive of Basil the Great was never actually enforced; however, it proved useful at one time to those who held fast to church traditions. For, as history records, when Emperor Nikephoros Phokas demanded that those who fell in war should be numbered among the martyrs, and be honored and hymned just like them, the bishops of that time countered that it was not just to honor them. Since they could not convince him, they finally used this canon as a rule, saying: "How shall we number those who fell in war among the holy martyrs, whom Basil the Great barred from the Holy Sacraments for three years, on the grounds that their hands were not clean?"" (Original Greek text: "Οὐ κατ’ ἐπιταγήν φησιν, ὁ ἅγιος, τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις ἀναιροῦντας ἐπὶ τριετίαν ἀπέχεσθαι τῆς κοινωνίας, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμβουλήν· πλὴν φορτικὴ ἡ τοιαύτη δοκεῖ συμβουλή· συμβαίη γὰρ ἂν ἐκ ταύτης, μηδέποτε τοὺς στρατιώτας μεταλαβεῖν τῶν θείων δώρων, καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς θάρσος ἐνδεικνυμένους, καὶ ἀριστεῖς· οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε σχοῖεν ἄδειαν ἐπὶ τριετίαν ἠρεμῆσαι. Εἰ γοῦν οἱ πολέμοις ἀλληπαλλήλοις σχολάζοντες, καὶ ἀναιροῦντες τοὺς πολεμίους, εἴργονται τῆς κοινωνίας, ἔσονται διὰ βίου στερούμενοι τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μεταλήψεως· ὅπερ Χριστιανοῖς ἀφόρητος κόλασις. Διὰ τί δὲ τὰς χεῖρας οὐ καθαροὶ κριθεῖεν οἱ ὑπὲρ τοῦ πολιτεύματος καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀγωνιζόμενοι, ἵνα μὴ ληφθεῖεν τοῖς πολεμίοις, ἢ ἵνα αἰχμαλωτισθέντας ἐλευθερώσωσιν; Εἰ γὰρ φονεύειν τοὺς βαρβάρους εὐλαβηθήσονται, ὡς τὰς χεῖρας ἐντεῦθεν μιαίνοντες, οἰχήσεται ξύμπαντα, καὶ κρατήσουσιν οἱ βάρβαροι πάντων· ἃ καὶ οἱ πάλαι Πατέρες λογισάμενοι, οὐ τοῖς φονεῦσι συγκατέλεξαν τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις φονεύοντας, συγγνωμονήσαντες αὐτοῖς, ὡς οὗτος ἔφησεν ὁ ἅγιος, ὡς ὑπὲρ σωφροσύνης καὶ εὐσεβείας ἀμυνομένοις· εἰ γὰρ οἱ βάρβαροι κυριεύσουσιν, οὔτε εὐσέβεια ἔσται, οὔτε σωφροσύνη· τὴν μὲν γὰρ εὐσέβειαν ἀθετήσουσι, τὸ οἰκεῖον σέβας κρατύνοντες· τὴν δὲ σωφροσύνην οὐδεὶς μετιέναι συγχωρηθήσεται, ἀλλὰ ζῆν κατ’ ἐκείνους ἅπαξ ἐκβιασθήσεται. Ὁ δὲ τὰ θεῖα πολὺς Ἀθανάσιος, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἀμμοῦν μονάζοντα κανονικῇ ἐπιστολῇ ταῦτα λέγει ῥητῶς· Φονεύειν οὐκ ἔξεστιν, ἀλλ’ ἐν πολέμῳ ἀναιρεῖν τοὺς ἀντιπάλους, ἔννομάν τε καὶ ἐπαίνου ἄξιον. Οἶμαι γοῦν, ὡς οὔποτε ἡ τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ὑποθήκη αὕτη ἐκράτησε· τέως δὲ ἐν καιρῷ τοῖς ἀντεχομένοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν παραδόσεων ἐλυσιτέλησε. Τοῦ γὰρ βασιλέως Νικηφόρου τοῦ Φωκᾶ, ὡς ἱστόρηται, ἀπαιτοῦντος τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις ἀναιρουμένους συντάττεσθαι τοῖς μάρτυσι, καὶ κατ’ ἐκείνους τιμᾶσθαι καὶ ὑμνεῖσθαι, οἱ τότε ἀρχιερεῖς ἀντεπέφερον μὴ δίκαιον εἶναι τοὺς τοιούτους τιμᾶσθαι, καὶ μὴ πείθοντες, τελευταῖον ὡς κανόνι τούτῳ ἐχρήσαντο, φάμενοι, Πῶς ἡμεῖς τοῖς μαρτυρήσασι τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις πεσόντας συναριθμήσομεν, οὓς ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, ὡς μὴ καθαροὺς τὰς χεῖρας, ἐπὶ τριετίαν τῶν ἁγιασμάτων ἀπεῖρξε;").
(6) The other famous Canonist Theodore Balsamon, commenting on the same Canon, writes: "Through the present canon, the Saint (Basil the Great) advises that those who have killed in war should abstain from Communion for a full three years, even though the Fathers have granted leniency to such men and did not reckon them among murderers, since they fought on behalf of the piety and self-restraint of the faithful who were at risk of captivity. This canon, while set forth in a manner worthy of the holiness of the divine Father, is not enforced in practice; for, if it were accepted, it would result in soldiers never partaking of the Holy Sacraments, given that they are engaged in successive wars and kill the enemy, which is unbearable. Indeed, it is recorded that when Emperor (Nikephoros) Phokas demanded that those slain in war be numbered among the martyrs, the bishops of that time used this canon to silence the imperial objection, saying: "How shall we compare those who fell in war to the martyrs, when Basil the Great barred them from the Sacraments for three years on the grounds that their hands were not clean?". Furthermore, when various priests, and indeed a certain bishop, appeared before the synod by imperial decree and confessed that they had engaged with enemies and killed many of them, the divine and holy synod—following this canon as well as the 43rd canon of the same saint and other divine decrees—wished to bar them from celebrating the liturgy; however, the majority, and especially those of a more military disposition, insisted that they were even worthy of rewards" (Original Greek text: "Διὰ τοῦ παρόντος κανόνος ὑποτίθησιν ὁ ἅγιος συμβουλευτικῶς, τοὺς ἐν πολέμῳ φονεύσαντας ἀπέχεσθαι τῆς κοινωνίας δι’ ὅλης τριετίας, κἂν οἱ Πατέρες τοῖς τοιούτοις συγγνώμην δεδώκασι, καὶ μετὰ φονέων αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἐλογίσαντο, ἀγωνισαμένους ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τῆς σωφροσύνης τῶν μελλόντων αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι πιστῶν. Οὗτος δὲ ὁ κανών, ἀξίως μὲν τῇ ἁγιοπρεπείᾳ τοῦ θείου Πατρὸς ἐξετέθη, οὐκ ἐνεργεῖ δέ, διὰ τὸ συμπίπτειν, εἰ τοῦτο δοθῇ, μηδέποτε τοὺς στρατιώτας μεταλαμβάνειν τῶν θείων ἁγιασμάτων, πολέμοις ἀλληπαλλήλοις ἐνασχολουμένους, καὶ ἀναιροῦντας τοὺς πολεμίους· ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀφόρητον. Γέγραπται δέ, ὡς τοῦ βασιλέως ἐκείνου Φωκᾶ ἀξιοῦντος μετὰ μαρτύρων συναριθμεῖσθαι τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις ἀναιρουμένους, οἱ τότε ἀρχιερεῖς τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ χρησάμενοι, τὴν βασιλικὴν ἔνστασιν κατεσίγησαν, φάμενοι, πῶς τοῖς μάρτυσι συγκριθήσομεν τοὺς ἐν πολέμοις πεσόντας, οᓦς ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος, ὡς μὴ καθαροὺς τὰς χεῖρας, ἐπὶ τριετίαν ἐκώλυσε τῶν ἁγιασμάτων; Διαφόρων δὲ ἱερέων παραστάντων συνοδικῶς κατὰ βασιλικὸν ὁρισμόν, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἐπισκόπου τινός, καὶ ἐξομολογησαμένων μετὰ πολεμίων συμπλακῆναι, καὶ ἀνελεῖν πολλούς ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἡ μὲν θεία καὶ ἱερὰ σύνοδος, ἀκολούθως τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ καὶ τῷ μγ΄. τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ ἑτέραις θείαις διαταγαῖς, ἤθελε μηκέτι αὐτοὺς ἱερουργῆσαι· οἱ πλείους δέ, καὶ μᾶλλον οἱ στρατιωτώτεροι, καὶ βραβείων αὐτοὺς ἀξίους εἶναι διενίσταντο")
(7) St. Theophanes the Recluse writes in a letter from 1877, during the Russo-Turkish War (the Russian Empire invaded the Ottoman Empire to protect the Orthodox populations) that was taking place in the Balkans: "Warriors fighting for the cause of God walk the path of martyrdom. Our war is truly for the cause of God" (Letter 783, original Russian text: "Воины за дело Божие воюющие идут мученическою дорогою. Наша же война воистину идет за дело Божие."). And in another letter: "Here comes war. Lord, have mercy on us! We have truly sinned greatly, and continue to sin with the entire Russian Empire... and for this we should be punished with defeats. But since we take up arms not for ourselves, but to help Christians, we can remain hopeful that the Lord will show us His mercy and grant us success. He will accept the very toil and burden of war as penance for our sins. We only need to add repentance. Lord, have mercy on us!" (Letter 550, original Russian text: "Вот и война. Господи, помилуй нас! Мы точно много нагрешили и грешим всем корпусом русского царства... и за это следовало бы нас наказать пораженьями. Но как мы не за себя поднимаем оружие, а в помощь христианам: то можно не терять надежды, что Господь явит нам милость свою и даст успех. – Епитимиею же за грехи наши Он примет самый труд и тяготу войны. Только надо приложить покаяние. – Господи, помилуй нас!"). And in another letter: "It's good that your son is a militiaman. A soldier's life gives him bearing, introduces him to hardship, and teaches him patience. But, of course, everything depends on the soldier himself. ...Yes, our enemies are not asleep. But ours are not idle either. They are making efforts to avert war, but they are also ready to meet it" (Letter 1255, πρωτότυπο κείμενο: "Хорошо, что сын ваш – ополченец. Солдатская жизнь выправку дает, с нуждою знакомит и терпению научает. Но, конечно, все зависит от самого солдатствующего. ...Да – враги наши не дремлют. Но и наши не зевают. Употребляют усилия, чтобы отвратить войну, но готовы и встретить ее."). And in a letter of December 15, 1876: "There's the support! Listen, the roar is spreading across Russia and echoing throughout the Slavic world. Other nations hear it too—and don't flinch—they hear it with pleasure, with the exception of the wicked England and vile Hungary. It must be assumed that the voice of war against the Turks is the voice of the entire Christian world. And if the voice of one nation is the voice of God, how much more so of many nations? God alone knows what will ultimately result—victory or defeat; but given the entire course of events and the spirit with which it is being waged, it would never occur to anyone that the Lord would look upon our war with unfavor. On the contrary, the conviction is forced upon the heart that the time has surely come for our brethren to breathe freely. Oh, when would it be! What a bright resurrection that will be! War for war's sake is unthinkable; but if without it we cannot get our people back on their feet—and merely deliver a little something for them—then war is better. ...It is heard that both in St. Petersburg and here in Moscow there are many people who are not in favor of war or even of our intercession. These must be some kind of degenerates. For I do not see or hear of any wavering anywhere among the people or among all the provincials. There are also people here with lofty views; but they are all cheap folk. They should be called bashi-bazouks because, not wanting war, they wish for our brothers to remain in statu guo, and that is the same as leaving them under the tyranny of bashi-bazouks." (in the same, original Russian text: "Вон опора! Слышите, гул несется по всей России и отзывается во всем славянском мире. Слышат его и другие народности, – и не морщатся, – слышат с удовольствием, исключая пакостницы Англии и гадкой Венгрии. Надо полагать, что глас о войне на турков есть глас всего христианского мира. И если одного народа голос есть голос Божий, – не тем ли паче многих народов? Одному Богу ведомо, что будет в итоге – победа или поражение; но по всему ходу дела и по духу, с каким оно ведется, и на мысль никому не может придти, чтобы Господь воззрел на войну нашу неблаговолительно. Напротив, так и навязывается сердцу убеждение, что, верно, пришло время вздохнуть свободно братиям нашим. О когда бы! Какое это будет светлое воскресенье!Войны для войны нечего желать; но если без нее нельзя поставить на ноги наших, – а только кое-что им доставить, то лучше уж война. ...Слышно, что и в Питере, и у вас в Москве немало лиц, которые не благоволят к войне и даже к самому заступничеству нашему. Это должно быть выродки какие-нибудь. Ибо я не вижу и не слышу, чтоб хоть где-нибудь было какое колебание в народе и среди всех провинциалов. Есть и тут лица с высшими взглядами; но и это все грошевый народ. Их прозвать надобно башибузуками за то, что, не желая войны, желают братьям нашим оставаться в statu guo, а это – то же, что оставлять их под тиранством башибузуков."). And in another letter against Leo Tolstoy, who was against the war: "What foolish students these are, believing Leo Tolstoy, who believes in nothing. He has no God, no soul, and nothing sacred. He writes nonsense only to confuse believers, and he interprets everything crookedly. – God has often revealed His visibly blessed presence in wars and battles, both in the Old and New Testaments. And how many princes have we had glorified by relics?…who, however, fought. In the caves of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, there are relics of warriors. They fight out of love for their own, so that they will not be subjected to captivity and enemy violence. What did the French do in Russia?…and how could they not fight them." (in the same, Letter 924, original Russian text: "Какие это глупые студенты, что верят Л. Толстому, который ни во что не верит. У него нет ни Бога, ни души и ничего святого. Он пишет глупости только для того, чтобы смутить верующих, и все криво толкует. – На воинах и войнах часто видимое Бог являл благословение, и в Ветхом, и в Новом Завете. А у нас сколько князей прославлены мощами?.. кои, однако ж, воевали. В Киево-Печерской Лавре в пещерах есть мощи воинов. Воюют по любви к своим, чтоб они не подверглись плену и насилиям вражеским. Что делали французы в России?.. и как было не воевать с ними.").
What do the authors have to say? Are Patriarch Kirill's statements as "heretical" as they have presented them?
(8) Confessor Protopriest Valentin Sventsitskij (also known for his reaction to the Sergianist Declaration of 1927), also puts the issue in its proper perspective, literally flattening the arguments of opponents:
"And finally, the third and perhaps most fatal mistake of those who fundamentally condemn war lies in the fact that they reduce the question of war to a choice:
(9) St. Nicholas Velimirovich has developed the subject very analytically in his work "War and the Bible". Paradoxically, this work of his was ignored by the authors, using some excerpts from his other works, which served them well!
In summary, we must recognize that the Church is not a "pacifist" (in the secular sense) association, nor does it reject conscription or the participation of the army in a just war, that is, the battle for the defense of the wronged. On the contrary, it blesses such a just struggle, teaching that evil lies in sin and healing in repentance.
Nikolaos Mannis
