The Moscow Church Court has ruled to strip priest John Koval of the holy dignity as a clergyman of the Church of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Lublin after determining that he authorized changes to the text of the prayer for Holy Russia without permission. This development was reported by DEA News, citing Archbishop Vladislav Tsypin, who serves as the deputy head of the city’s Episcopal Court. The decision marks a formal disciplinary action within the church hierarchy and reflects ongoing concerns about liturgical texts and the adherence to approved wording in public worship.
Archbishop Tsypin noted that the ruling will become effective once it receives the blessing of the ruling bishop, a process that, in the Moscow Patriarchate, requires confirmation by Patriarch Kirill. He emphasized that, at that stage, there remains an opportunity for appeal to the broader church court, allowing the case to be reviewed at higher ecclesiastical levels. The procedural steps underscore the church’s internal mechanisms for resolving disputes over liturgical language and church discipline.
Earlier, Patriarch Kirill had imposed a ban on the priest from performing his priestly duties until the case reached its conclusion. Media outlets have reported that the suspension stemmed from accusations that the priest altered the text of a daily prayer recited in all churches, substituting the word “victory” with “peace” in a plea directed to the Lord for Holy Russia and its people. These reports highlight the sensitivity surrounding liturgy and the expectations for precise language in prayers that are shared by congregations across multiple jurisdictions.
In subsequent comments, Vakhtang Kipshidze, who serves as the deputy head of the Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and the Media of the Russian Orthodox Church, clarified that the disciplinary action was not merely about a single word swap. According to Kipshidze, the departure lay in the act of changing the text of the prayer in a manner that disrupted the approved form by replacing “victory” with “peace.” He stressed that the church’s concern centered on maintaining liturgical consistency and preventing unilateral alterations to prayers used in public worship, which could affect doctrinal clarity and communal prayer life.
Throughout the case, the church has framed the matter as one of governance and reverence for liturgical tradition. The process involves multiple layers of oversight—from individual diocesan authorities to the higher ecclesiastical court—ensuring that any disciplinary measures align with canonical procedures. Observers note that the outcome may influence how clergy across the region approach translations, adaptations, and wording in prayers used in diverse congregations. The case also illustrates how church authorities balance respect for local practice with the universal norms that guide the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole.
For communities connected to the Church of the Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Lublin, the developments raise questions about the preservation of liturgical integrity and the responsibility of clergy to adhere to approved texts. While some parishioners may view the case as a corrective measure aimed at safeguarding doctrinal accuracy, others may interpret it as a broader discussion about linguistic sensitivity in sacred language. Regardless of perspective, the episode underscores the importance of clear governance in church rituals and the accountability structures that support a unified liturgical voice across parishes.
The broader implication of the decision touches on how religious institutions manage disputes over language in prayers, how appeals are handled within the church’s legal framework, and how such actions resonate with believers who seek continuity and reverence in daily worship. As the ecclesiastical authorities move through the remaining stages of the process, observers will be watching to see how the church preserves sacred traditions while allowing for thoughtful dialogue on liturgical expressions in a modern, multilingual context. The outcome will likely influence future practices in liturgical text approval and disciplinary procedures within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, with potential reverberations beyond national borders and into international discussions about liturgical authority and church governance (DEA News).