Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

«Bishops & Priests Are Truly Gods on Earth»: John of Kronstadt’s Theology of the Orthodox Priesthood

Religions 2025, 16(10), 1299; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101299

by Alexey Iv. Černyi

Reviewer 1:

Eugene Lyutko

Reviewer 2:

Marta Łukaszewicz

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Religions 2025, 16(10), 1299; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101299

Submission received: 31 July 2025 / Revised: 29 September 2025 / Accepted: 6 October 2025 / Published: 13 October 2025

(This article belongs to the Section Religions and Theologies)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker of English and therefore cannot make authoritative judgments about the quality of the text in terms of language norms.

1
Original quote:
“According to Zulehner, this type of self-awareness greatly determines the relationship between priests and laypeople in the community: the ‘timeless’ priest has complete authority over his flock, does not allow democratic tendencies to develop, and above all hinders the active participation of the laity in the life of the community.” (lines 77-80)

Comment:
The term “timeless” priest may imply a systemic issue: such a figure could hinder the community’s ability to function in a modern sense. Clarification is needed.

2
Original quote:
“Hence, many believed that the main duty of a priest was an active civic position (Freeze 1988, p. 115–135; Scarborough 2022).” (lines 188-189)

Comment:
This is an oversimplification and anachronistic. The argument here should emphasize that priests were expected to lead the people as spiritual shepherds, not merely adopt a secular “civic position.” The role is rooted in pastoral responsibility, not modern political engagement.

3
Original quote:
“Discourse on asceticism, presupposing the penetration of what were originally monastic practices into the sphere of secular life, gained a large amount of currency in the 19th century, largely thanks to the elders of Optina Pustyn.” (lines 235-237)

Comment:
The “discourse on asceticism” does not inherently imply monastic influence on secular life. For a nuanced analysis, reference Michelson’s study:
Michelson P. L. Beyond the Monastery Walls: The Ascetic Revolution in Russian Orthodox Thought, 1814–1914. University of Wisconsin Press, 2017.

4
Comment:
The section on confession should reference recent scholarship:
Kizenko N. Good for the Souls: A History of Confession in the Russian Empire. Oxford University Press, 2021.

5
Original quote:
“Given the historical context, the ministry of this new type of urban priest was undoubtedly an innovation and an exception to the rule. However, according to the outstanding Russian pastoral theologian Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), this experience began to be regarded as the norm to which every clergyman should strive (Khrapovitsky, p. 223). Most probably, Anthony had in mind a very specific archetype here, which for many years established a new theological benchmark for many generations of Russian priests.” (lines 285-290)

Comment:
The phrase “[Anthony] began to be regarded as the norm” requires clarification. If Metropolitan Anthony specifically referenced St. John of Kronstadt as the archetype, this should be supported with direct quotes. Otherwise, the claim risks overgeneralization.

6
Original quote:
“In other words, the pastoral ministry of Fr. John of Kronstadt, with all its charisma and individuality, significantly determined the development of Orthodox pastoral ministry. According to Nadezhda Kitsenko, it was John of Kronstadt who put ‘the focus of the church life of the laity on the figure of the parish priest’ (Kitsenko 2006).” (lines 307-310)

Comment:
A specific page number must be added for the Kitsenko reference.

Original quote:
“The history of Russian pastoral care after Fr. John of Kronstadt shows that the response of the new martyrs to the catastrophic persecution was not the sacralization of the clergy, but the formation of a sacralized Christian community, freely united around its pastor-martyr.” (lines 455-457)

Comment:
The term “sacralization” is ambiguous here. In Western contexts, “sacralization of the clergy” refers to elevating their institutional authority, whereas a “sacralized community” implies a mystical unity centered on sacraments and martyrs. This distinction must be clarified to avoid conflating divergent theological concepts.

The logic of the article should be more clearly structured:

Problem setting, Zulehner’s structure, and the articulation of the “timeless cleric.”
The preconditions for the formation of the new image of the clergy: the poverty of the clergy, their marginal status, and the challenges of the time. It is necessary to note that attempts to shape an elevated image of the parish priest appeared already in the first half of the 19th century. This refers to the book by A. Sturdza Письма о должностях священного сана (see: Лютько, Е. И. (2024). Воображая священника XIX века: (по материалам романа А. С. Стурдзы Письма о должностях священного сана). Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом, 42(4), 200–223).
The expansion of the horizon of expectations toward the priest — this should be addressed in connection with confession and parish eldership. In this way, the section The Conception of a Priest for St. John of Kronstadt will be properly framed, and the logical paths leading to his theology of priesthood will be clearly defined.
Accordingly, the same should be reflected in the conclusion: Marginality → expansion of the horizon of expectations → theological upsurge.

Author Response

I am very grateful to the reviewer for the comments, which are undoubtedly of great value to my article.

Comment:
The term “timeless” priest may imply a systemic issue: such a figure could hinder the community’s ability to function in a modern sense. Clarification is needed.

Response 1: I am not entirely sure what commentary is requested regarding Zulehner's terminology. It is presented in the article only to show that various theologies of the priesthood can exist.

2
Original quote:
“Hence, many believed that the main duty of a priest was an active civic position (Freeze 1988, p. 115–135; Scarborough 2022).” (lines 188-189)

Response 2: I have made the correction in line 194-195 (“pastoral position").

Response 3: I have added a reference to Michelson in line 242.

4 Comment:
The section on confession should reference recent scholarship:
Kizenko N. Good for the Souls: A History of Confession in the Russian Empire. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Response 4: I have added a reference to Kizenko's recent study (line 144).

5 Original quote:
“Given the historical context, the ministry of this new type of urban priest was undoubtedly an innovation and an exception to the rule. However, according to the outstanding Russian pastoral theologian Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), this experience began to be regarded as the norm to which every clergyman should strive (Khrapovitsky, p. 223). Most probably, Anthony had in mind a very specific archetype here, which for many years established a new theological benchmark for many generations of Russian priests.” (lines 285-290)

Response 5: The cited passage is merely my supposition. It is possibly incorrect.

Comment:
A specific page number must be added for the Kitsenko reference.

Response 6: I have added the page number in line 321.

Response 7: The term "sacralization" is used in the article in a theological, not a church-political, sense, a distinction which I believe is sufficiently clear from the text.

Comment 8: The preconditions for the formation of the new image of the clergy: the poverty of the clergy, their marginal status, and the challenges of the time. It is necessary to note that attempts to shape an elevated image of the parish priest appeared already in the first half of the 19th century. This refers to the book by A. Sturdza Письма о должностях священного сана (see: Лютько, Е. И. (2024). Воображая священника XIX века: (по материалам романа А. С. Стурдзы Письма о должностях священного сана). Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом, 42(4), 200–223).

Response 8: I have also added references to Liut'ko 2024 (line 241.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper under review examines St. John of Kronstadt's opinions about the nature of the priesthood. The primary sources analyzed are his diaries, which are reviewed in the context of Western Christian (mainly Catholic) pastoral theology, as well as in relation to the social status and everyday life of the Russian Orthodox clergy.

While the theological context related to Catholic views of priesthood appears to be well-developed and convincing, the Orthodox part, in my opinion, requires further refinement and a few additions.

Firstly, I would recommend expanding the introductory part of the paper to include more information about the source material and the methodology used.

I also suggest some shifts in the structure, specifically combining Part 6, which discusses Catholic pastoral theology in its historical development, with Part 1 (Introduction), which also addresses Western concepts. It would strengthen the paper's logical coherence.

Important information, which appears to be missing from the paper and should be included, as it may even influence the Author's conclusions, is the context of the pastoral theology taught in Russian seminaries in the 19th century. There is no mention of them, despite their seeming importance, as they appear to be the closest context for St. John of Kronstandt's own theological ideas about the significance of the priesthood. Including information about them would help us understand the extent to which St. John's ideas were rooted in the pastoral theology of his time, how he modified them, and what made them distinct.

Other, more specific improvements I would like to suggest are as follows:

lines 116-117 - I don't suppose that St. John of Kronstadt's opinions about the priesthood, formulated in his personal diary, should be considered "the most developed theology of the priesthood";
lines 147-148 - the expression "weekly preparation for communion ("fasting") is unclear. I suppose what the Author means here is "govienie", which incorporates numerous religious actions. Nadieszda Kizenko, in her history of confession in the Russian Empire ("Good for the Souls", Oxford University Press 2021), uses this word, and I suggest the same to the Author;
lines 272-275 - priests who are enumerated here belong to the later period; more adequate and timely examples should be given instead.
lines 566-567 - again, I would avoid calling St. John of Kronstadt's pastoral ideas "the highest expression of Orthodox pastoral theology". In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the second half of the 19th century witnessed the development of academic pastoral theology, with numerous new manuals being published.

To conclude, I consider the paper definitely worth publishing, and my remarks are intended to enhance the contribution presented by the Author.

Author Response

I am very grateful to the reviewer for the comments, which are undoubtedly of great value to my article.

Comment 1: Firstly, I would recommend expanding the introductory part of the paper to include more information about the source material and the methodology used.

Response 1: I am not certain that I have correctly understood the reviewer's suggestions, but I have expanded the introduction to include information on the sources and methodology used (lines 119-124).

Comment 2: I also suggest some shifts in the structure, specifically combining Part 6, which discusses Catholic pastoral theology in its historical development, with Part 1 (Introduction), which also addresses Western concepts. It would strengthen the paper's logical coherence.

Response 2: Unfortunately, the structural changes proposed by the reviewer would be problematic to implement. The manuscript is being resubmitted after extensive revision, and in the initial draft, Part 6 was indeed placed at the beginning. However, this placement attracted sharp criticism from previous reviewers, who felt that as a main section, it excessively diverted the focus of the research. For this reason, I chose to move it to a supplementary section titled "Discussion."

Comment 3: Important information, which appears to be missing from the paper and should be included, as it may even influence the Author's conclusions, is the context of the pastoral theology taught in Russian seminaries in the 19th century. There is no mention of them, despite their seeming importance, as they appear to be the closest context for St. John of Kronstandt's own theological ideas about the significance of the priesthood. Including information about them would help us understand the extent to which St. John's ideas were rooted in the pastoral theology of his time, how he modified them, and what made them distinct.

Response 3: I am very grateful to the reviewer for highlighting the need to address the development of pastoral theology. I have added a mention of this (lines 291-294). However, I have not deemed it appropriate to elaborate on this topic in detail, as it could become the subject of future research. During the period of Fr. John of Kronstadt's studies, pastoral theology as a discipline was only just emerging and was largely confined to practical manuals for pastors, whereas pastoral ascetics gained prominence much later, only after the reforms of 1910-1911.

I have also tried to take into account the more specific comments, for which I am also very grateful:

Comment 4: lines 116-117 - I don't suppose that St. John of Kronstadt's opinions about the priesthood, formulated in his personal diary, should be considered "the most developed theology of the priesthood";

Response 4: Lines 115–116: I have clarified in the text that the views of St. John of Kronstadt on the priesthood should be considered "the most developed theology of the priesthood" within the legacy of the Holy Fathers of the Russian Church.

Comment 5: lines 147-148 - the expression "weekly preparation for communion ("fasting") is unclear. I suppose what the Author means here is "govienie", which incorporates numerous religious actions. Nadieszda Kizenko, in her history of confession in the Russian Empire ("Good for the Souls", Oxford University Press 2021), uses this word, and I suggest the same to the Author;

Response 5: I deliberately avoid using the word "goveniye" in this case, as this practice by definition implies infrequent communion. For this reason, it has also fallen out of use in the modern context.

Comment 6: lines 272-275 - priests who are enumerated here belong to the later period; more adequate and timely examples should be given instead.

Response 6: I have removed the mention of Father Anatoly Zhurakovsky, who indeed belongs to a later period.

Comment 7: lines 566-567 - again, I would avoid calling St. John of Kronstadt's pastoral ideas "the highest expression of Orthodox pastoral theology". In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the second half of the 19th century witnessed the development of academic pastoral theology, with numerous new manuals being published.

Response 7: Line 576: I have replaced the word "highest" with "high."

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The premise of the article is that the priesthood faces a crisis in the modern world, and that John of Kronstadt presented an effective response to this crisis. The nature of this crisis is never clearly explained.

In the introduction, the author provides a number of quotations from various authors without identifying their context. Most of them seem to concern the Catholic priesthood. While it is fine to place “the priesthood” in the context of a global confrontation with industrial society, the author should also acknowledge that Russian Orthodox “modernity” was unique in many ways. Moreover, the meaning of these quotations is often unclear. For example, I also do not understand what Cardinal Kasper means by comparing the priesthood to a “neuralgic point.” How is this quote relevant to the central argument?

The author goes on to introduce the Orthodox priesthood through a western lens. “Where the Orthodox priesthood is concerned, many authors consider it to be the most sacralized of all the Christian denominations, and even to have magical features.” Who are these “many authors,” and how is this clearly chauvinistic characterization of the Orthodox as “magical” relevant? Moreover, what can sources such as the “Priester 2000 project" really tell us about the pre-revolutionary Russian pastorate?

Finally, what is the basis of the author’s claim that “the most developed theology of the priesthood belongs to Fr. John of Kronstadt”? Such an assertion needs to be backed up with a discussion of pastoral theology in late imperial Russia. For an introduction to modern Orthodox pastoral theology, the author should consult Jennifer Hedda’s book, His Kingdom Come.

Section 2

The author demonstrates confusion about Russian history here. For example, he or she attributes the segregation of the clergy into a separate “tribe” to the theology of medieval Rus’. In fact, the segregation of the clergy into a separate estate originated with Peter I’s educational reforms. This is explained in Freeze’s Russian Levites, which the author cites.

The author claims that, “The reforms of Peter I, who sought to regulate all aspects of life in Russian society in order to turn it into a well-functioning mechanism, led to the formation of upper and lower classes . . .” Is the author under the impression that there was less social stratification before the Petrine reforms?

The author claims that “many clergymen, unlike government officials, did not enjoy any state benefits from their position.” In fact, priests received small state salaries, free seminary education for their sons, and exemption from the poll tax paid by peasants.

The author references, “spiritual consistories, which were the apparatus of the ruling bishops and were made up predominantly of representatives of the black (monastic) clergy.” In fact, consistories were administered largely by secular bureaucrats, not monks.

In the 19^th century, the author claims, “For the most part, priests continued to live below the poverty line.” It is not clear how one should measure a “poverty line” in 19^th century Russia, but this is an exaggeration in any case. While priests experienced poverty, they were usually more well-off than the peasants. Urban priests were sometimes well off.

The author’s exploration of the role of confession in the status of the parish priest is interesting. Yet, he or she examines this question from the perspective of monks. For example, one St. Ignatius is quoted as having asserted that parish priests, “must completely distance themselves from any material interests and concentrate entirely on their struggle with human passions.” This is the view of a celibate monk, without the family responsibilities of a parish priest. The author also seems to confuse the tradition of spiritual fathers (startsy) with parish priests. Patrick Lally Michelson’s book, Beyond the Monastery Walls, discusses these different, sometimes competing, forms of spirituality within Russian Orthodoxy. While the writings of monastic clergymen, such as Met. Khrapovitsky, were certainly influential, the author should also discuss the pastoral theory and practice that was specific to parish priests.

This is the most interesting and informative section of the piece. The article examines St. John’s pastoral theology on the basis of his diaries. It is not clear, however, how his theory of pastoral asceticism relates to the “crisis of the priesthood.” Nor does the author attempt to explain why St. John’s approach to pastorship resonated among so many other priests and laypeople. There is no mention of his great charisma, or the fact that he attracted a devoted following by the “Ioannity”, whose movement the official Church declared schismatic.

I noticed at least two errors in the bibliography. The Russian Levites, by Freeze, was published by Cambridge, not Harvard. Russia’s Social Gospel, by Scarborough, was published by the University of Wisconsin Press, not Cambridge.

Recommendations:

The author needs to articulate the central claim of this article. What was the “crisis of the priesthood” in the context of late imperial Russia, and how did the figure of John of Kronstadt serve as a satisfying response to this crisis? As it stands, I have no idea what point the author is trying to make.

The author needs to read the cited literature more carefully in order to eliminate errors in the description of the historical context.

This context is important. In stark contrast to the rest of Europe, late Imperial Russia experienced an increase in monasticism (See: Scott Kenworthy, The Heart of Russia. But, it also experienced intense debates over the role of the parish clergy and organization of the parish. (See Beglov, Pravoslavniy prikhod Rossiiskoi imperii).

Author Response

I am very grateful to the esteemed reviewer for their comments and sharp critique, which are undoubtedly of great value not only for my article but for all my future work. I am very grateful to the esteemed reviewer for their comments and sharp critique, which are undoubtedly of great value not only for my article but for all my future work.

Comment 1: The premise of the article is that the priesthood faces a crisis in the modern world, and that John of Kronstadt presented an effective response to this crisis. The nature of this crisis is never clearly explained.

Response 1: Thank you for this crucial point. The "crisis of the priesthood" in the context of late imperial Russia is indicated by several factors:

The profound isolation of the clerical estate from the rest of society (as noted, for example, by Mironov, The Russian Empire: From Tradition to Modernity, Vol. 1, 2014, pp. 364–365).
The extensive criticism directed at parish priests by participants of the All-Russian Church Council of 1917–1918 (referenced in the manuscript).
The emergence of the derogatory moniker "Filaret's clergy", used to contrast a perceived passive, older generation of clergy with more socially active urban priests (as discussed in Liut'ko, "The Concept of ‘Filaret’s Clergy’," 2019).
The broader religious crisis in Russian society during the second half of the 19th century, which is detailed in a significant body of literature (e.g., Orekhanov, The Historical and Cultural Context of the Dichotomy “The Russian Orthodox Church – L.N. Tolstoy”, 2012).

Comment 2: In the introduction, the author provides a number of quotations from various authors without identifying their context... While it is fine to place “the priesthood” in the context of a global confrontation with industrial society, the author should also acknowledge that Russian Orthodox “modernity” was unique in many ways. Moreover, the meaning of these quotations is often unclear. For example, I also do not understand what Cardinal Kasper means by comparing the priesthood to a “neuralgic point.” How is this quote relevant to the central argument? The author goes on to introduce the Orthodox priesthood through a western lens... Who are these “many authors,” and how is this clearly chauvinistic characterization of the Orthodox as “magical” relevant? Moreover, what can sources such as the “Priester 2000 project" really tell us about the pre-revolutionary Russian pastorate?

Response 2: The quote from Cardinal Kasper in the introduction is intended to highlight the acutely problematic nature of the topic of priestly ministry in modern Catholic theology. While Russian Orthodox "modernity" was undoubtedly unique, the main task of the introduction is, on the one hand, to demonstrate the contemporary relevance of the theme "priesthood vs. modernity," and on the other, to show that theologies of the priesthood can vary significantly. This point is valid for both the late 19th and 21st centuries, and across different confessions.

Comment 3: Finally, what is the basis of the author’s claim that “the most developed theology of the priesthood belongs to Fr. John of Kronstadt”? Such an assertion needs to be backed up with a discussion of pastoral theology in late imperial Russia. For an introduction to modern Orthodox pastoral theology, the author should consult Jennifer Hedda’s book, His Kingdom Come.

Response 3: I have clarified in the text that the views of St. John of Kronstadt should be considered "the most developed theology of the priesthood" within the legacy of the Holy Fathers of the Russian Church. It should be noted that during Fr. John's studies, pastoral theology as a scholarly discipline was only just emerging and was generally limited to practical manuals. Pastoral ascetics became widespread only after the academic reforms of 1910–1911. Therefore, a detailed exposition of this nascent field was not deemed central to the article's focus, and it could be a topic for future research. I did not find significant data directly pertinent to this paper's thesis in the recommended book by Hedda.

Comment 4: The author demonstrates confusion about Russian history here. For example, he or she attributes the segregation of the clergy into a separate “tribe” to the theology of medieval Rus’. In fact, the segregation of the clergy into a separate estate originated with Peter I’s educational reforms.

Response 4: I agree that the formation of the clergy as a separate estate (soslovie) resulted from Peter I's educational reforms. My intention was to suggest that the preconditions for this separation arose much earlier. The word "tribe" was perhaps not suitable and has been removed.

Comment 5: The author claims that, “The reforms of Peter I ... led to the formation of upper and lower classes . . .” Is the author under the impression that there was less social stratification before the Petrine reforms?

Response 5: Undoubtedly, social stratification existed before the Petrine reforms. My point is that the definitive legal and cultural division of society into classes—upper and lower—was formally consolidated and codified under Peter, a fact detailed extensively in the historical literature.

Comment 6: The author claims that “many clergymen, unlike government officials, did not enjoy any state benefits from their position.” In fact, priests received small state salaries, free seminary education for their sons, and exemption from the poll tax paid by peasants.

Response 6: I have clarified the text to state that priests did not enjoy significant advantages (163), thereby acknowledging the benefits they did receive while maintaining the core point about their precarious financial standing relative to other state-affiliated classes.

Comment 7: The author references, “spiritual consistories, which were the apparatus of the ruling bishops and were made up predominantly of representatives of the black (monastic) clergy.” In fact, consistories were administered largely by secular bureaucrats, not monks.

Response 7: While consistories were indeed administered by many secular officials from a bureaucratic standpoint, my statement is that they were predominantly composed of and influenced by representatives of the black (monastic) clergy, especially in terms of spiritual authority and key decision-making within the ecclesiastical structure.

Comment 8: In the 19th century, the author claims, “For the most part, priests continued to live below the poverty line.” It is not clear how one should measure a “poverty line” in 19th century Russia, but this is an exaggeration in any case.

Response 8: I do not consider it essential to precisely measure the degree of poverty among the parish clergy. However, the existence of this widespread problem is explicitly indicated by the numerous attempts made throughout the period to improve their material standing.

Comment 9: The author’s exploration of the role of confession in the status of the parish priest is interesting. Yet, he or she examines this question from the perspective of monks... The author also seems to confuse the tradition of spiritual fathers (startsy) with parish priests.

Response 9: I must respectfully disagree with the comments on Section 3. The main thesis of this section is that monastic spirituality and the ascetic tradition gradually shaped new horizons of expectation for parish priests. All the examples and quotations provided concern parish priests and are used to illustrate this very influence, not to conflate the distinct roles of monastics and married clergy.

Comment 10: It is not clear, however, how his theory of pastoral asceticism relates to the “crisis of the priesthood.” Nor does the author attempt to explain why St. John’s approach to pastorship resonated among so many other priests and laypeople. There is no mention of his great charisma, or the fact that he attracted a devoted following by the “Ioannity”.

Response 10: The charismatic nature of Fr. John is mentioned in lines 308 and 318. Furthermore, the preceding section attempts to explain why his approach to pastoral ministry resonated so widely by outlining the historical and spiritual context that created a demand for such a figure. The connection between his pastoral asceticism and the "crisis" is that it offered a new, spiritually potent model of priestly identity in response to the marginalization and low status of the clergy.

Comment 11: I noticed at least two errors in the bibliography. The Russian Levites, by Freeze, was published by Cambridge, not Harvard. Russia’s Social Gospel, by Scarborough, was published by the University of Wisconsin Press, not Cambridge.

Response 11: Thank you for this careful correction. Freeze's book was indeed published by Harvard University Press in its first edition (1977), but I take the reviewer's point and have corrected the reference for Scarborough's book. These bibliographical details have been rectified

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved significantly. It is more logically coherent, and historical inaccuracies have been removed.

I still feel that the introduction is a bit disconnected from the main discussion. The author discusses a universal crisis in pastorship in the modern (mostly Catholic) world, and then zooms in on pre-revolutionary Russia. I am not sure John of Kronstadt would have been so successful at "sanctifying parish life" in other parts of the Christian world. I would suggest that the author say something about the unique role of monastic asceticism in Russian Orthodoxy. He or she already quotes Michelson's Beyond the Monastery Walls, which discusses this issue. I also suggest Kenworthy's, The Heart of Russia, which points out that the ordination of monks and nuns increased in 19th century Russia, while it decreased throughout the rest of Europe.

Author Response

I am grateful to the esteemed reviewer for the comments.

I did not intend for the introduction to give the impression of an analysis of Catholic material. The main purpose of the introduction is to point out that theologies of the priesthood can, in principle, differ, and that various types of priests "fit into" modernity in different ways. This is exemplified by the sacralized image of the priest found in the diary of Fr. John of Kronstadt.

Regarding the valuable suggestion about the role of contemplative monasticism in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, I have made the corresponding additions and included a reference to Kenworthy's important book (Lines 241-246).

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have read the manuscript with great interest. It contains many important insights. Nevertheless, I think it must be improved before publication.

1) I think you need to tell us a bit more about the context these religions are working in. For this, I suggest to give more information on the relation to politics. Freeze has worked on that in the Orthodox context. More recently, Papkovam Stoeckl or Koellner have done so too. Moreover, most parish priests before the October Revolution were considered to be poorly equipped and to have too many tasks beyond their pastoral obligations.

2) I also think the understanding of East and West is too simplistic. Here you have to be more precise because we have Protestants and Catholics in the West and religions beside Orthodoxy in the East if you include more states than Russia (which is also unclear).

3) I think the research question needs to be improved because it is unclear which time you are referring to > pre-revolutionary Russia or today?

4) I think you need to include more than Fr. Kronstadt. Sure, he has been influential but there is more to be said. Already before the October Revolution there was a whole tradition of anti-clericalism in Russia. Socialism with its atheism did not appeared suddenly.

5) You need to say more about Orthodoxy (and Catholicism) as such. Please tell us about black and white clergy. Moreover, you need to say a word about spiritual fatherhood and confessors. This was very important and among them were priests and monks. Here you could also refer to recent developments such as presented by Jeanne Kormina on Nomadic Pilgrimage or the relations between priests and businesspeople discussed by Koellner.

Good luck with revising the paper along these lines!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is clearly written, but could use two major improvements to its argumentation:

1) The Author should consider counter-arguments. It is certainly true, for example, that clericalism exists in the Orthodox Church, even if its form may be argued to be different from Catholic clericalism. Can the Author discuss alternative narratives, and document and discuss literature that deals with Eastern clericalism or pertinent problems with common Eastern conceptions of the priesthood?

2) The paper would benefit substantially from drawing out more detailed and precise conclusions from the comparison of post-Tridentine clericalism with St. John's views on the priesthood.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent piece of scholarship. I appreciate the careful attention to detail. I will recommend this piece for publication immediately. I want to encourage the author to continue to pursue this line of research where s/he creates an interplay between common people ("lived religion") and ecclesiastical history. Very rich piece, with ample documentation, and the author should be proud of the high level of scholarship.

Article Menu

«Bishops & Priests Are Truly Gods on Earth»: John of Kronstadt’s Theology of the Orthodox Priesthood

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI