Orthodox: What is your opinion of Kirill I of Moscow?

Folks from all sides comment about our new pope, Francis.

But only a few years earlier, Kirill I was installed as Patriarch of Moscow.

What do you think of him after five years?

I’m of the opinion he is the obstacle to Church Unity. And I think it would be revealing and charitable and go a long way if he was to meet with his brother Pope Francis.

I like the Coptic Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, they should be invited also imho. Perhaps they could meet in the city of Brotherly Love!!!:thumbsup:

In this article, Pope Francis seems to suggest that Patriarch Kirill would like to meet, but conservatives, theologians, and (ultimately?) Putin won’t allow it.


Seems like a nice enough guy to me.

Seconded. I don’t know much about him to be honest.

Not trying to be mean but he seems a bit sketchy to me. The watch incident and the fact that he is in close relations with Putin and the Russian government are part of this attitude.

Never met the guy but he seems to be doing a good job.

Keep in mind Patriarch Kirill isn’t in the same position as the Pope, most Orthodox posters on this forum aren’t under his spiritual authority.

On this forum, no… but he is Patriarch for the vast number of Orthodox Christians in the world. You don’t pay much attention to Hierarchs in other jurisdictions? I follow Cardinals who have no direct jurisdiction over me…just to follow general trends in Church leadership and direction.

I would imagine most of us probably have more experience with Metropolitan Hilarion than with the Patriarch. He is the head of the Department for External Church relations. Roughly akin to a foreign minister. Do you pay attention to Patriarch Gregory or Patriarch Sviatoslav? If you do that’s wonderful but I doubt it’s a common practice.

A Cardinal and a Patriarch are not equivalent. A Cardinal may play an important role in your church, Patriarch Kirill plays no legal role in my church (no matter what the Greeks may think). I am familiar with those in important positions in the life of my church.

Patriarch Kirill does play a role in the Universal Church, and on that count I approve of how he has handled things.

Is a Cardinal and Patriarch the same level in the hierarchy of bishops?

There is nothing equivalent to a cardinal in the Orthodox Churches. Properly speaking, as far as I understand, in the Catholic Church a patriarch, being the primate of a Church, is ranked above a cardinal (who is not a patriarch).

For the Orthodox, Patriarchs are the ranking bishops of autocephalous churches. Cardinals, who are unique to the Catholic Church, do not possess that particular role.

The Patriarchs are on the same level with the Pope. The Pope separated himself from the other Patriarchs about 1,000 years ago by claiming authority over the other Patriarchs. Since then the Pope not only claims superiority over the other Patriarchs, but also Infallibility. These claims are not believed by the other Patriarchs. The original Patriarchs included the Patriarch of Antioch, Pope of Alexandria, Patriarch of Constantinople, Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Jerusalem. Since the Pope of Rome left communion, the Church has continued to grow with new Patriarchs in Moscow & other places.

This is misleading. The Great Schism was not a simple case of one lone patriarch (the Pope) opposing four others of equal influence. By the 11th century, there was essentially the Latin Church and the Byzantine Church. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were under the sway and shadow of Constantinople. The bulk of the original, ancient Churches of Alexandria and Antioch, the Coptic and Syriac Churches, had long since gone into schism with both Rome and Constantinople by this time (at the Council of Chalcedon five centuries earlier).

That being said, yes, I as a Catholic agree that the Eastern Patriarchs are the Pope’s peers. He holds primacy, but they are his brothers not his subjects. Cardinals hold great honour in the Church, elect the Pope of Rome, and exercise immense influence throughout the Catholic Church around the world, but ultimately they are officials of the Latin Church while Patriarchs head sister Churches “sui iuris” of equal dignity to the Latin Church.

What seems strange is when a patriarch is made a cardinal.

This is the former KGB agent, right? Not a fan really.

I agree. It has been suggested that the patriarchs and major archbishops of the Eastern Churches be invited to participate as electors in papal conclaves without being made Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church.

I think the present situation in Russia with the Patriarch and interaction today of Church and State invokes deeper thinking in regards to Church and State, and consensus in general. To me its not a matter of what I think the exact situation in Russia is, but the very idea that it draws attention and reflection once again on this point.



The latest in regards to the Pope and the Catholic Church.


In my opinion only Roman clergy should elect the Bishop of Rome.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.