Chapter 16: Uranopolitism vs Nationalism

On November 23, 2009, Patriarch Kirill stood at the grave of a murdered priest and called him "a faithful servant" who preached “the word of God.” That priest was Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev.

Fifteen years later, Hieromartyr Daniel’s disciple repeated his teacher's doctrine to Patriarch Kirill. Patriarch Kirill’s response? He mocked him.

Some will dismiss this as mere patriotism, a love of country that any Christian might share. But what Sysoev condemned was not love of country. It was the elevation of nation above Church, the claim of Russian superiority over other peoples.

A. The Witness: What Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev Taught

Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev is most known and cherished for his missionary work and for the conversion of Muslims to Orthodoxy through his evangelism.

Yet while the world knows his fruit, it often overlooks his root. Muslim evangelism was not the central point of his teaching, as many assume.

If we had to identify the central teaching of Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, it would be what he called "Uranopolitism" (from Greek ouranos = heaven, polis = city, meaning "heavenly citizenship"), a new term for an ancient Gospel truth.

Uranopolitism says: "Our true homeland is heaven; the Church is our highest allegiance." By contrast, Russian World nationalism says: "Our true mission is as Holy Russia; the nation and its geopolitical role define the Church."

His LiveJournal page which he often wrote on confirms this. Hieromartyr Daniel’s first and last posts were both about uranopolitism, as those who revered and followed him attest:

Uranopolitism is a very important, key point in Fr. Daniel’s preaching. It’s even more important than exposing Islam and other delusions and heresies. Therefore, the first post Fr. Daniel made on his Live Journal page was about uranopolitism. And the last post Fr. Daniel made, just a few hours before his death, was about uranopolitism. Therefore, I would argue that uranopolitism is the golden thread running throughout Fr. Daniel Sysoev’s life.

— Ludmila Esipenko

What is Uranopolitism then, exactly?

Father Daniel [...] was a partisan of uranopolitism (having derived the term from Greek Uranos - sky and polis - city) - a doctrine of Divine laws preceding the earthly. The followers of uranopolitism maintain that communion in Christ prevails over kinship or ethnic relations, and Christians on Earth are only pilgrims and strangers from heaven.

— Biographical note in Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

Some may object: this word Uranopolitism does not appear in the writings of the Fathers, so why should Orthodox Christians permit the introduction of new terms?

Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev answered this directly:

This question is asked by many of my friends, who quite rightly note that what I write is simply ordinary Christianity as set forth in the Bible and in the Fathers of the Church. I will try to explain my position. In my view, so much pseudo-Christian mythology has crept into the worldview of many modern Orthodox that if we say 'simply Christianity,' we will be accused of Protestantism, and the word 'Orthodoxy' in the consciousness of a huge number of people means something completely undefined, abstract.

Sysoev then names specific examples, including Igor Karpets, a Russian monarchist-nationalist ideologue who claimed to be Orthodox Christian, while promoting Gnostic and pagan ideas:

Now Karpets calls himself Orthodox (by normal classification an ordinary Gnostic), a tsar-worshipper (by traditional classification a pagan), an atheist like Lukashenko, etc. And we are terribly hindered by the 'theory of theologoumena,' when anyone who wishes considers himself entitled to ascribe any meanings to the word 'Orthodoxy.'

We are faced, in understanding the Church acting in this world, with the same problem that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council faced when speaking with the Arians. The same words in the consciousness of different people often carry mutually exclusive meanings. And at the same time, people are not bothered by expressions like those I recently saw on a banner in the Moscow region: 'The Church has always served Russia.' Although the ordinary First Commandment of the Decalogue forbids serving anyone except God.

And I believe that it is necessary to introduce a new term with which supporters of 'hybrid Orthodoxies' could not agree. The word 'uranopolitism' is new, and therefore it is not yet possible to interpret it wrongly. It quite clearly draws a line between Orthodox Christianity and patriotic 'Christianity,' separates Orthodox faith from both nationalism and cosmopolitanism and liberalism. This term is even more rooted in Scripture than the Nicene 'homoousios.' The heavenly city is mentioned in Scripture repeatedly (Rev. 21-22, Heb. 11:10-16; 12:22; 13:14), and therefore the expression 'uranopolitism' or 'heavenly citizenship' is simply biblical.

— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

Sysoev's opposition to nationalism was consistent throughout his ministry. His repudiation of the banner "The Church has always served Russia" reveals what he witnessed daily in Russian church life. Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev clashed frequently with those who promoted this view in Russia, himself of course being a native of Moscow, who was born, raised, and reposed there.

A striking example comes from a conversation recorded in the memorial book Неизвестный Даниил (Unknown Daniel). When others began discussing politics and praising "Moscow as the Third Rome," Sysoev rejected the mythology entirely. He identified the United States, not Russia, as the contemporary katechon (Restrainer), and declared that Orthodox and heterodox Christians form "one Christian civilization" against Islam. This is pure uranopolitism applied to geopolitics: faith trumps nation, and the boundaries that matter are between Christ and antichrist, not between Russia and America.

Sysoev's point was geopolitical, not ecclesiological: he was demolishing the "Third Rome" mythology, not endorsing theological unity with heterodox confessions. His extensive anti-ecumenist writings confirm this. The full quote and its devastating contrast with Patriarch Kirill's own katechon claims are examined in Can War Be Called Holy?.

Why He Compared It to the Nicene Fathers:

Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev explicitly compared his creation of the term “Uranopolitism” to the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council who introduced “homoousios” (consubstantial) to combat Arianism. Just as “homoousios” was a new term needed because existing language had been corrupted by heretics who used the same words to mean opposite things, so too “Uranopolitism” was needed: the word “Orthodoxy” had been claimed by nationalists, ecumenists, and moralists to the point that it carried meanings the Fathers would not recognize.

When critics in the Russian blogosphere began calling uranopolitism “a dangerous anti-Christian heresy,” Fr. Daniel responded by publishing a list of “Great Uranopolitans” from Church history:

Here, as a starter, I decided to publish a list of prominent uranopolitan saints. I have had to see in the blogosphere that uranopolitism is called a "dangerous anti-Christian heresy":(. So then. Uranopolitans include: St. Abraham, St. Isaac, St. Jacob. St. Levi, the Holy Prophet Moses. The Holy King and Prophet David. King Solomon. The Prophet Isaiah. The Prophet Daniel. The Maccabee Martyrs. The Apostle Peter. The Apostle Paul. The Apostle John. The Apostle James the Brother of God. St. Clement, Pope of Rome. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. St. Justin the Philosopher. St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Cyprian of Carthage. St. Athanasius the Great. St. Cyril of Alexandria. St. Basil the Great. St. Gregory the Theologian. St. John Chrysostom. St. Gregory of Nyssa. Blessed Augustine of Hippo. St. Isaac the Syrian. St. Anthony the Great. St. Macarius the Great. St. John Climacus. St. Symeon the New Theologian. St. Gregory Palamas. St. Theophan the Recluse. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. The Holy Martyr Stephen. These are saints whose uranopolitan statements immediately come to mind. So any fighter against uranopolitism can easily see how deeply this teaching has penetrated the Church:).

— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

When a commenter wrote "Too hasty a conclusion," Fr. Daniel replied:

You're right. There are far more uranopolitan saints. I'll correct this and add another fifty.

— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

Notice that this is correct Orthodox epistemology: the question is never "what do I think?" but "what do the Fathers teach?" And this is an important lesson we Orthodox Christians in this time need to learn, and not to rest on our own intellect.

Sysoev's list names prophets, apostles, and hierarchs. The paradigmatic uranopolitan ruler, the canonized Orthodox sovereign who embodied this teaching at the hour of his death, is Tsar Lazar of Serbia, whose dying prayer corrected a possessive: "not my people but Thy people, O Lord." His story is treated at length in The Heavenly Kingdom: St. Lazar's Choice.

Thus, this teaching is not from Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, but is simply a new word representing a biblical teaching held by numerous fathers and saints.

Sysoev's Definition: What Is Nationalism?

Sysoev was not speaking abstractly. He identified specific, concrete characteristics of nationalism and warned against its combination with Christianity. When asked "How does nationalism combine with Christianity?", he responded with characteristic clarity:

How does nationalism combine with Christianity?

The combination of nationalism with Christianity is an erroneous teaching. We may pray for Russia, but we may not pray to Russia itself. When an argument about nationalism starts, problems arise because of the terms. People understand the word "nationalism" to mean everything under the sun. When I say that nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity I understand the word "nationalism" the way an ordinary encyclopedia understands it. According to any encyclopedia this term has two definitions. The first is the idea of an exclusive role, of my nation's superiority over all other nations. A Christian would never say that we are better than others because we are Russian. The second type of nationalism mentioned in the encyclopedia is the assertion that a nation is the highest form of social organization. A Christian would not agree with this either. The highest thing in the world is the Church.

— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

Sysoev then distinguished nationalism from legitimate patriotism:

Patriotism is love of one's fatherland, and these feelings are natural. Love of one's nation is also a natural feeling and does not need a name. For instance, a person might like his native language, and that is normal. A person might like the culture in which he grew up, and that is normal as well. This is a simple, ordinary human state. When a person loves his mother there is no need to invent a term for it. There is a special love of children; I have a daughter, for instance, and I love her. This is not a bad quality: this is a natural human state.

— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

This distinction establishes that Sysoev's critique was not of love for one's nation, but of two specific theological errors:

The claim of national superiority: Belief that one's nation is better than others
Elevation of the nation above the Church: Making national identity the highest organizing principle

Sysoev described what this looks like in practice:

For instance, one hears that Russians, because they are Russian, are already Orthodox. In one article that I read, I saw the assertion that even atheists are truly Orthodox, if they are a part of the Russian culture. This is the replacement of faith with culture. Orthodoxy is God's revelation, preserved in a pure form since the times of the Apostles. One now sees efforts by some to replace the New Testament with national myths, including old ones that the Church has always fought against.

— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev

The idea that atheists themselves are Orthodox if they are a part of Russian culture is something Patriarch Kirill has stated explicitly, calling Soviet atheists "rudimentarily Orthodox Christians" because "they remained within the same system of values" (see KGB and the DECR).

Additional Patristic Witness

Sysoev's teaching was not novel. St. Cosmas of Aetolia, the 18th-century Greek Equal-to-the-Apostles, taught the same principle:

We, my fellow Christians, have no homeland here. For this reason, God created us with our heads upright and placed our mind in the highest part, so that we may always contemplate the heavenly kingdom: our true homeland.

— St. Cosmas of Aetolia

Eternal salvation, not earthly borders, determines true citizenship.

St. John of Kronstadt, the most beloved Russian saint of his era, loved Russia. But he loved it with a prophet's love: willing to declare God's judgment upon the nation he served:

Russia is rebelling, suffering, and is tormented by the bloody internal strifes, from the earth's failure to give crops and from famine, from the terribly high prices of all goods, from godlessness, from anarchy and the extreme decline of morals. A sad fate inspiring gloomy reflections. But Most Kind Providence will not abandon Russia in this sorrowful and pernicious condition. It will justly chastise her and lead her to rebirth. God's just judgments are being wrought upon Russia...

[...]

The Russian people and the other tribes inhabiting Russia are deeply perverted; the furnace of temptation and misfortunes is essential for all, and the Lord, wishing that no one perish, thoroughly burns all of them in this furnace.

— St. John of Kronstadt

A saint who saw his own nation as "deeply perverted" and under God's "just chastisement" cannot be claimed as a witness for the theology that elevates Russia to cosmic spiritual significance, nor can they be labeled as Russophobic.

Patriarch Kirill's Acknowledgment

One may think to dismiss Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev's teaching…but he lived in the bosom of Russia. And further, he was fully acknowledged by the very subject of this book.

Patriarch Kirill, standing in front of Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, confirmed him as preacher of God, a faithful servant, and a martyr:

Father Daniel [Sysoev] was well known to Orthodox Christians not only in the capital city but also in many other dioceses. By his hard work to preach the word of God, his efforts to bring people to the faith of Christ, his care of the spiritual needs of young people he gained respect of his fellow-pastors and public leaders.

At the same time, his firm missionary stand and inspiring, vivid and emotional image left an imprint in the consciousness of those who sought a way to the church and were impressed by the profundity of his faith and trust in the Lord.

The Lord called His faithful servant to Himself, granting him an opportunity to become a confessor of faith and martyr for the cause of preaching the gospel.

— Patriarch Kirill

Patriarch Kirill stood at the grave of a martyr who taught that "nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity" and called him "a faithful servant" who preached "the word of God."

Understanding all of this, what further evidence will show the tendency towards nationalism?

B. The Evidence: What Patriarch Kirill Teaches

Criterion 1: Claiming Exclusive Role and National Superiority

In a January 2026 Christmas interview, Kirill explained why he believes the West opposes Russia:

It's not by chance, because we represent a very attractive alternative of civilizational development. We offer values that the West has rejected and is rejecting... Surprisingly, our country today is a defender of traditional values concerning the human person. We do not accept what is accepted in the West today under the slogan of "human rights," but which in reality is aimed at destroying human morality.

— Patriarch Kirill

This is precisely Sysoev's first definition of nationalism: belief in one's nation's superiority over others.

Kirill teaches that Russia has an apocalyptic, cosmic significance through the doctrine of the Katechon (Greek: τὸ κατέχον, "that which restrains"). The Katechon is a mysterious force mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 that holds back the revelation of the Antichrist. Kirill's teaching claims that Russia specifically fulfills this biblical role of restraining cosmic evil. In other words, Russia, by its very existence as a nation, performs a salvific function for all humanity. (The full quote with Russian original and patristic analysis appears in Can War Be Called Holy?.)

The claim goes far beyond patriotism: Russia has an “exclusive role” beyond any other nation. Sysoev’s rebuke is direct: “A Christian would never say that we are better than others because we are Russian.” Yet Kirill teaches precisely this: that Russia is better positioned spiritually to lead humanity, that Russia is the “Restrainer,” while the West has fallen into “Satanism.”

Criterion 2: Making the Nation the Highest Form of Social Organization

Patriarch Kirill subordinates the Church to Russian national interests:

Sysoev taught: “The highest thing in the world is the Church.” Kirill’s actions demonstrate the opposite principle: that the highest thing is Russia itself.

Consider the following evidence:

Breaking communion over jurisdiction, not over heresy: When Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine under “Metropolitan” Epiphanius Dumenko in 2018–2019 (see Understanding the Ukrainian Churches), Kirill responded by breaking full communion with Constantinople. Note the priorities this reveals: Kirill has never broken communion over the theological errors documented throughout this book, not over joint prayer with heretics, not over the ecumenist movement, not over any doctrinal matter. But when Ukrainian ecclesiastical independence threatened Russian jurisdictional claims, he acted immediately. The one issue that provoked him to sever communion was not a matter of faith, but a matter of national territory.

Theological subordination of salvation to national service: In his September 2022 sermon, Kirill declared: "If someone, moved by a sense of duty, the necessity to fulfill an oath, remains faithful to their calling and perishes in the performance of military duty, they undoubtedly perform an act equivalent to sacrifice... And therefore we believe that this sacrifice washes away all the sins that a person has committed" (see Does Dying in War Wash Away All Our Sins?: Patriarch Kirill's War Theology: The Claims).

This teaching makes Russian military service, dying for the Russian state, a path to salvation independent of Christ and His sacraments. The nation has become the vehicle of redemption. Sysoev warned: "We may not pray to Russia itself," yet Kirill teaches that dying for Russia washes away sins, making Russia itself redemptive.

Organizing the Church by nationality rather than faith: Kirill insists that Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians “are really one people” and therefore cannot have separate churches. He makes ecclesiastical jurisdiction dependent on ethnic and national belonging rather than on apostolic faith and canonical propriety. As he stated: “We are one people originating from the Kiev baptismal font,” therefore Ukrainians cannot have an independent Church.

This inverts Sysoev's principle that "the main and only kinship among people is not blood or country of origin, but kinship in Christ." Kirill makes national belonging determinative of Church structure, exactly the nationalism Sysoev condemned.

Thus, by Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev's own criteria, Patriarch Kirill meets both definitions of nationalism: claiming Russia's exclusive spiritual superiority (Chapters Does Dying in War Wash Away All Our Sins?-Can War Be Called Holy?) and subordinating the Church to national interests.

And so this is where it becomes interesting. What happens…when someone actually applies Sysoev's teaching in Kirill's presence?

We shall see right now, as it was caught on video.

The Living Proof: Fr. Alexei Shlyapin Confronts Patriarch Kirill

On February 11, 2025, at a clergy meeting of the Moscow Metropolis, a 49-year-old priest named Father Alexei Shlyapin stood up to speak. His credentials were impeccable: ordained in 1998, a seminary disciple of Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, and recently awarded the palitsa (a liturgical honor awarded for distinguished service) in 2022. He was a faithful priest of 27 years who had studied under the very martyr Patriarch Kirill eulogized as "a faithful servant."

At this clergy meeting, the assembly was deliberating a resolution for adoption by the clergy of the Moscow Metropolis. Point 11 of this resolution called on priests to “strengthen love for the Motherland” («укреплять любовь к Родине») in their parishioners. When Fr. Alexei approached the microphone, someone in the audience whispered audibly: “Shoot, shoot, it's about to happen” («Снимай, снимай, сейчас будет»).

They were right. It was about to happen.

Full video: Fr. Alexei Shlyapin's statement and Patriarch Kirill's response at the Moscow Metropolis clergy assembly, February 11, 2025.

The video is in Russian, but it is highly recommended to watch it first, then read the transcript, as the manner and demeanor of the exchange cannot be fully captured simply with text.

Somehow it's not right that in church documents the words "fatherland" and "homeland" are capitalized, with some kind of reverence for these earthly concepts. For a Christian, "fatherland" and "homeland" is the Kingdom of Heaven, Paradise. But these are purely earthly concepts. For example, even when the word "faith" is used, speaking to Orthodox believers, it's written with a lowercase letter. And these concepts should also be written in documents. Look at them; these are common nouns, not proper nouns. So I just wanted to express such disagreement with such, well, patriotic tendencies, in general in church documents, and in general, in the life of our local churches. The duty of a priest is to lead people to the Kingdom of Heaven, not to engage in patriotism (патриотизмом), as it were.

— Fr. Alexei Shlyapin

Note that Fr. Alexei's Russian word is specifically патриотизмом (patriotism), not национализмом (nationalism). This is significant: he is not merely condemning nationalism, which even Kirill might disavow in the abstract. He is stating that even patriotism, the milder form of national devotion, is not the priest's business. This makes his critique harder to dismiss.

What Fr. Alexei has outlined here is simply uranopolitism, exactly as Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev expressed. On his now taken down website, Fr. Alexei had written extensively on this theme:

The state, society, and the world want people to remain citizens of the earth. Decent, law-abiding, loyal subjects, but citizens of the earth. But they refuse to allow people to become citizens of Heaven, subjects of the Heavenly King, or freed from the power of this world. In other words, the world seeks to use Christianity to support its own ideologies, to satisfy its own earthly and pagan aspirations. But at the same time, it hates Christ, hates the Cross, and cannot tolerate the pure Word of God. But we must not support state and social ideologies, the aspirations of this world... We must teach not patriotism, not regional studies, not culture, etc., but only and exclusively Christianity.

— Fr. Alexei Shlyapin

In 2012, at a pastoral seminar in the Mozhaisk Deanery, Fr. Alexei had already stated:

In the ecclesiastical consciousness of the Russian Orthodox Church, there is a false stereotype, imposed by the state and the nation, that patriotism is a component of Christianity. In fact, patriotism is a pagan worldview. This is one of the diseases of the ecclesiastical consciousness.

— Fr. Alexei Shlyapin

Please note. This is a faithful Russian priest, a disciple of a contemporary saint in Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, speaking against an error of consciousness in the Russian Orthodox Church. This is very important for onlookers to let this sink in, as they will be gaslighted into thinking that these sentiments in this chapter and book have to do with other people being mean to Russia. This is ridiculous and unfounded. This correct chastisement of the ecclesiastical consciousness in Russia is coming also from Russians. This is not some matter of discrimination or propaganda. Those who believe this, choose to believe it without any proof or evidence of this.

Returning to the topic; Fr. Alexei in expressing his views, was simply expressing what his teacher Sysoev had taught, what St. Cosmas had taught, what the Fathers had always taught: that a priest's duty is to lead people to the Kingdom of Heaven, not to serve national interests. He had been saying this for over a decade. It only became a problem when he said it to Patriarch Kirill's face.

Having established all of this, let us now examine how Patriarch Kirill responded. For those who have patiently been reading the full chapter up to now, it will be very difficult to dismiss the response given.

How did Patriarch Kirill respond?

First, Patriarch Kirill whispered something before the microphone picked up his full response. According to Novaya Gazeta, Kirill referenced a prophecy from an elder named Father Jonah. This prophecy states that Orthodox Christians should separate from patriarchs who “agree with the government” when “the government is not leading people in the right direction”:

[If] a patriarch agrees with the government, and the government is leading in the wrong direction, then this is also his error... If he blesses them for this, then he is mistaken... If he blesses them wrongly, they must be admonished if they lead the people in the wrong direction.

— Father Jonah of Odessa

Consider the irony: Patriarch Kirill invoked a prophecy that condemns him. The prophecy speaks of hierarchs who subordinate the Church to state interests. Kirill whispered about it as if to dismiss Fr. Alexei's concerns, but the prophecy describes exactly what Kirill himself has done: subordinated the Church to Putin's government and blessed its war.

Then came the public response:

That's great, isn't it? You, Father, aren't from western Ukraine by any chance? [Audience applause & cackling] Go, sit down and seriously think about everything you just blurted out here.

— Patriarch Kirill

Patriarch Kirill's response was to mock the priest with ethnic labeling, asking if he was "from western Ukraine," and ordering him to "sit down and seriously think about everything you just blurted out."

And the audience of priests and hierarchs? They did not sit in stunned silence. They applauded. They cackled.

Note also the self-contradiction. Patriarch Kirill continually insists that Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians "are really one people" originating from "the Kiev baptismal font." The "Russian World" has no state borders. Yet… when a priest quotes the saints, Kirill's instinct is to ask if he is "from western Ukraine," as though geographic origin within his own claimed civilizational unity disqualifies a man from speaking.

A question to those who defend Patriarch Kirill: if the Russian World is truly one people, why does "western Ukraine" function as a slur to shame someone?

The quip from Patriarch Kirill reveals what the doctrine conceals: the "Russian World" is not a spiritual unity but a hierarchy, with Moscow at the top and Ukraine beneath it. Kirill does not believe his own theology. He believes in Russian supremacy.

In the aftermath, Kirill defended his position with explicit Sergianism:

The Church ignored its own plight; it did everything it could to inspire its people to fight. And what did this lead to? A radical change in the Church's position in our country. The Church cannot fail to be with its people; the Church cannot fail to be responsible for the fate of the country.

— Patriarch Kirill

The argument is transparent: the Church was brutally persecuted under atheist authorities, but instead of opposing the regime, it supported the Soviet war effort, and this servility "led to a radical change in the Church's position." Submission to the state was rewarded with institutional survival. Those who fully understand Sergianism will be able to understand that this is textbook Sergianism (see Glorifying Sergianism and the KGB Church). The New Martyrs who died refusing to subordinate the Church to atheist authorities would disagree with Patriarch Kirill. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) existed for decades as a witness against this exact position.

The pattern is consistent. At the November 2024 World Russian People's Council, Patriarch Kirill urged Russians not to fear the "so-called 'end of the world'" (так называемого «конца света»), a phrase he characterized as secular fear-mongering, while affirming Russia's role as the Katechon, the Restrainer against Antichrist. In context, he uses "end of the world" to dismiss Western apocalyptic rhetoric while positioning Russian military victory as eschatologically necessary.

Christ says: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33). Patriarch Kirill inverts this: the Church must be "responsible for the fate of the country" first. The Kingdom of Earth comes before the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the inversion Fr. Alexei Shlyapin named, and for naming it, he was silenced.

The consequences of speaking up

Following this public confrontation, multiple Russian Orthodox news sources reported that Fr. Shlyapin was summoned by his diocesan authorities for a reprimand. The category to which he was assigned was damning: he was placed among “the enemies of the Church and of the people.”

Consider that phrase: “the enemies of the Church and of the people.” The conjunction reveals the conflation. In true Orthodox ecclesiology, one can be an enemy of the people without being an enemy of the Church, or vice versa. The Church is not the people; the Church is the Body of Christ. But in nationalist ecclesiology, they are one and the same. To question Russian nationalism is to attack the Russian Church. Fr. Alexei's crime, if it can be called that, was treating them as distinct.

According to Novaya Gazeta, parishioners speaking anonymously told journalists that after this encounter, security forces visited the priest’s home and conducted a search. Further, it is important to note that Fr. Alexei Shlyapin’s website shlyapin.ru stopped functioning on February 12, 2025, a mere day after this encounter with Patriarch Kirill, and it is still offline at the time of this publication.

Everything Fr. Alexei said was in direct line with the teachings of Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev. A disciple of the martyr, trained by him in seminary, spoke pure uranopolitism to the Patriarch's face. For this, he was mocked with ethnic labeling ("western Ukraine?"), ordered to "sit down," placed among “the enemies of the Church and of the people,” reprimanded by diocesan authorities, had his website shut down, and his home searched.

Is this the "Holy Rus" that Patriarch Kirill speaks of?

A place where simple disagreement with authorities on the basis of patristic teaching gets you mocked, reprimanded, persecuted, and your home searched? What is the crime exactly? Quoting the saints? Does citing St. Cosmas of Aetolia now place you among “the enemies of the Church and of the people”?

This is how nationalism treats heavenly citizenship, and this is how the heresy silences the truth. This is also modern Orthodoxy in microcosm: the Church venerates saints, but persecutes those who follow them.

Patriarch Kirill stood at Hieromartyr Daniel's grave and called him a "faithful servant" preaching "the word of God." Fifteen years later, a priest trained by that very martyr repeats the teaching of the “faithful servant” to him face to face, and he is mocked, labeled an enemy, reprimanded, and silenced for it.

In our contemporary times, we see many piously venerate the icons of the martyrs, while crushing anyone who sincerely tries to live by their teaching. The saints are safe once they are dead, but their living disciples are treated as dangerous and are to be stopped by any means necessary.

C. The Verdict

Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev and St. Cosmas of Aetolia agree: nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity. The combination is "an erroneous teaching." A Christian cannot claim national superiority or elevate the nation above the Church. Patriarch Kirill himself stood at Sysoev's grave and called him "a faithful servant" preaching "the word of God." He praised the teacher. He now contradicts the teaching of that teacher.

Patriarch Kirill meets both of Sysoev's criteria for the heretical combination of nationalism with Christianity. If the evidence examined above is true, then Kirill teaches exactly what Sysoev condemned. And when a disciple of Sysoev repeated his teacher's doctrine, Kirill mocked him with ethnic labeling, ordered him to "sit down," and this priest was subsequently placed among “the enemies of the Church and of the people,” reprimanded, had his website shut down, and his home searched. And it’s all on video as well, lest someone claim that it was somehow made up.

But What About Greeks Praising Greece?

Someone may object: "But Orthodox Greeks praise Greece. Isn't that nationalism too?"

By the criterion Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotes established in Russian World Ethnophyletism, the measure of a nation is its service to humanity, not its coercion through power. Patriarch Kirill teaches the opposite. He does not praise Russia for her gifts and service. He claims Russia has an "exclusive role" as the Katechon. He asserts Russian moral superiority. He denies Ukraine's existence as a separate people. He subordinates the Church to state interests. Where Augoustinos praises "liberators, never conquerors," Kirill blesses a war of conquest. Where Augoustinos insists "every nation has a place under the sun," Kirill denies Ukraine that place. By Augoustinos' criteria, Kirill's teaching is condemned.

If Patriarch Kirill acknowledged Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev as a "faithful servant" preaching "the word of God," and Sysoev taught that "nationalism cannot be combined with Christianity," on what possible basis can Patriarch Kirill's nationalism be excused?

There is no basis. The martyr's teaching stands as judgment. The Patriarch's teaching stands as evidence. The disciple's persecution proves which side has won in Moscow.

Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, Great missionary and Uranopolitist, pray to God for us.