Towards an “Ecumenical” Council Inside of Orthodoxy!

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In your abstract, you refer to “Any Church who blesses the war, aggression and confrontation” … without defining what specific war you are speaking of … You use a definite article “the” as opposed to an indefinite article “a” war – seeming to indicate (I assume) the war between Russia and Ukraine, but without naming it specifically.

 

I think your abstract reads a bit polemic. Your argument would be stronger if you presented the questions, you are asking more neutrally at the start. I don’t necessary disagree with your conclusions, but your writing does not come across as objectively as it otherwise might.

 

You mention “small frictions” between the ecumenical Patriarchate and other autocephalous patriarchies – but then state somewhat dismissively “it is natural to find solutions to any misunderstandings.” I think many within the various Orthodox traditions would disagree. There are several “small frictions” that continue to exist that I am aware of (from outside of the orthodox communions). I would suggest if you truly believe those frictions have been addressed you spend at least some time citing your evidence of the claim that the Orthodox communions have overcome their differences in large part.

 

As you continue with your argument of asserting the stumbling block of the Russian Orthodox Church (RuOC) to “Orthodox ecumenicism,” your argument would be strengthened by providing some context for what the relationship of the RuOC had been with the Kremlin and the state prior to the February 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The war between Russian and Ukraine had been going on for eight years previously and had the RuOC gradually been leading up to becoming a “subsidiary institution of the state?” Or was there a drastic transition in the role of the church after the February 2022 invasion?

 

I worry when there are pronouncements like “true believers” (line 57) without such terms being clearly defined.

 

Statements such as line 86-87 “It is clear to everyone that the attitude of the 86 RuOC at the beginning of the war was reprehensible.” Does not seem to represent an academic consideration of events. Who is the “everyone” you are referring to?

 

Line 92 – “Instead, he should have publicly condemned this aggression…” Your conclusions would be quite strengthened if you quoted other Orthodox leaders who held the same assertions you are trying to make. This article reads more like an opinion piece than an academic article.

 

It takes far too long to get to your main point – Lines 246-249: “I will not dwell on these issues here because it would take a lot of time for a neutral historical analysis and because I would be moving away from the main purpose of this essay, namely: the necessity of convening a pan-Orthodox synod to discuss the anti-Christian attitude of Patriarch Kirill, who promotes war, instead of putting himself with his whole being in the service of peace and love.”

 

Your indictment of Patriarch Krill is clear – lines 407-410: “Although his complicity is obvious, and from a moral point of view he is totally compromised in front of the whole world, he prefers to continue to imitate faith, patriotism, and Christian love, under the umbrella of the most sinister political system of the 21st century, characterized by lying, slander, manipulation, or simply abominable crime against humanity.” However, if the main purpose of your article is that a “pan-Orthodox synod” should be convened – it seems you digress and do not focus clearly on points that substantiate why you think such a synod would be constructive and what you hope it might accomplish.

 

Your conclusion (477-478) seems to indicate that the Christian Orthodox world is “dominated by political rather than religious interests” but what does that have to do with what a synod might accomplish? If you assume as it appears in your conclusion that the clergy who would be gathered at a pan-Orthodox synod are already corrupted by political aspirations or concerns about self-protection – than why bother with such a convening? And why would you want to “bestow dignity” on the Orthodox leaders (line 484) whom you speak so poorly of? Perhaps to avoid bestowing confusion and uncertainty (line 485).

 

I found myself at the end of your article clear about your personal conviction and belief in Patriarch Krill’s culpability and failures in his role as a moral religious leader in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I did not, however, have much clarity on your views in terms of how an ecumenical council might be constructive in addressing Patriarch Krill’s failures.

 

In addition, any comprehensive analysis of Patriarch Krill’s contributions to the Orthodox communions should also at least take into consideration the role he has played in support of the Armenian Christian community. As the Western world has largely ignored the pleas of the Christians of Armenia in light of the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia – particularly over Nagorno/Karabakh.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

thank you very much for reading my paper and for the report.

Here is my reply!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the article presents a clear idea that the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kiril are tools in the hands of the state led by Putin. This idea is always found in the study.

 

In terms of title and tone, the study is more of a manifesto.

 

The first 3 parts of the study are more about the evil in the Russian Orthodox Church, and less about the topic of the study. My opinion is that they are way too long.

In the second part, the author touches on the title. In the part entitled "Orthodox solidarity under political pressure" the position of the patriarchates and some autocephalous Orthodox churches is well exemplified. Here he could give the position of all the Churches in the Orthodox communion.

The conclusions are a bit pessimistic. That is why I return with the criticism that the text is a manifest essay. Even if it is written in an academic way.

Author Response

Dear colleague,

thank you very much for reading my paper and for the report.

Here is my reply!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important contribution to the recent debates within Orthodox Christianity generated by the war in Ukraine and the way it affects the whole Eastern Christianity.

The article is well structured and easy to follow. The publication of such an article is also an act of courage. For this reason, I would like to congratulate the author.

 

 

Author Response

Dear colleague,

thank you for reading my paper, and for the report.

Here is my reply!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It did not seem like my extensive feedback was addressed.