Zionism and the “Biblical Armageddon”

Renowned economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs and historian Professor Yakov Rabkin offered a critical perspective on the current state of Israel in an interview with the YouTube channel “Neutrality Studies.” According to these intellectuals, Zionism, which originated as a colonial project, has evolved into a form of “modern fascism,” turning Israel into the most dangerous place for the Jewish people to live.

As reported by the “Glasove” portal, Yakov Rabkin, author of the book “ZionismDecoded in 101 Quotes,” emphasizes that the current radical course of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is not a random deviation but a logical continuation of late 19th-century ideology. The historian notes that Zionism was originally built on the principles of ethnic nationalism and even collaborated with anti-Semitic forces, pursuing the common goal of resettling Jews in Palestine.

Jeffrey Sachs, for his part, draws attention to the dangerous alliance between Jewish Zionism and American Christian fundamentalism. According to him, Washington is under the influence of a powerful lobby representing the interests of 50 million “Christian Zionists.” This group believes that a large-scale war in the Middle East, including a conflict with Iran, will trigger the biblical Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. Sachs argues that U.S. foreign policy has effectively been privatized by interest groups, pushing the world toward global catastrophe.

Experts conclude that equating Judaism with Zionism causes immense harm to Jewish communities worldwide, sparking waves of unwarranted aggression against them. They call for a clear distinction between a peaceful religious tradition and “militant nationalism,” which, instead of the promised security, has brought Israel isolation and internal division.
Original post

Justifying the Schism: How Archbishop Silvestr (Stoychev) Constructs the Myth of Filaret (Part One)

A recent publication by Archbishop Silvestr (Stoychev) of the UOC, timed to coincide with the ninth day since the death of Mykhailo Denisenko (the former Metropolitan Filaret), has raised legitimate questions. Instead of an objective assessment of the church tragedy, Jesuitical methods and approaches are being employed. The text by His Eminence appears to be a blatant manipulation and distortion of the facts. In fact, the hierarch has acted as an advocate for the high-handed actions of the head of the “UOC-KP” regarding autocephaly, behind which lies the grave problem of drifting into schism.

First, it is extremely surprising and jarring to hear Archbishop Silvestr use the title “patriarch” in reference to Denisenko without any quotation marks. The bishop attempts to justify this by citing the norms of “diplomacy” and the “natural rule of politeness.”

However, such logic does not stand up to criticism when confronted with reality. Let us imagine a hypothetical but illustrative situation. What if one of Archbishop Silvestr’s students were to unilaterally declare himself rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary? What if this student, with the help of the state, seized part of the KDAiS’s assets and buildings, and then began seeking the liquidation of the real KDAiS and international recognition of his own “KDAiS,” created as a result of deception and schism?

Would Archbishop Silvestr, within the framework of “diplomatic etiquette,” refer to this impostor as rector, just as he does himself? Obviously not. Such a person would rightly be called an impostor hierarch and a schismatic. But in the case of Denisenko, for some reason the principle of “this is different” works flawlessly for the UOC bishop.

Second, the archbishop constructs a very specific reason for Filaret’s arbitrary actions. According to the hierarch’s logic, Denisenko was not driven by a thirst for power, wounded pride, or unfulfilled ambitions regarding the Moscow Patriarchal See, but rather by a certain “prophetic ability to see tectonic shifts” in the state and society.

Such an interpretation is not merely controversial. It directly puts the current Metropolitan of Kyiv, Onufry, and the entire historic Kharkiv Council of 1992 in the crosshairs. Based on Bishop Silvestr’s logic, it follows that all the bishops who remained faithful to the canonical Church were short-sighted people who failed to understand the “tectonic shifts” and did not support the “champion of a bright future” in the person of Denisenko. By elevating Filaret to the rank of a “prophet,” Stoychev effectively devalues the feat of standing firm in the truth by those who, in the early 1990s, did not succumb to pressure and preserved canonical unity.

Thirdly, the text is striking for its blatant distortion of the facts regarding the Russian Orthodox Church’s reaction to Filaret’s letter in 2017. According to Bishop Silvestr, the Moscow Patriarchate allegedly rejected the hand extended by the “Kyiv Patriarchate” and did everything to prevent reconciliation from taking place.

The reality, however, was quite different. The Russian Church viewed Denisenko’s move positively, expressed a willingness to negotiate, and even established a special commission for this purpose. It is telling that the archbishop’s accusatory rhetoric is undermined by the words of Filaret himself, who described those events as follows:

“The initiative came from the Moscow Patriarchate, though not directly from Moscow to Kyiv, but via New York, through Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. As a result of the initiative from the ROCOR, I organized a delegation for initial contacts with the Department of Ecclesiastical Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church led by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev). [...] As a result of this meeting, the question of reconciliation was raised, but the call for reconciliation came from the Moscow Patriarchate. They wanted to achieve reconciliation with our ‘church’ (‘UOC-KP’)”.
Original post

Justifying the Schism, or How Archbishop Silvestr (Stoychev) Constructs the Myth of Filaret (Part Two)

Part One

Archbishop Silvestr also, for some reason, fails to mention that the entire negotiation process collapsed solely due to intense pressure from Denisenko’s own radical entourage. It was precisely his representatives who declared at the time that there could be no compromises with Moscow, and demanded simple recognition of the status of the “Kyiv Patriarchate” (without repentance and without a canonical resolution of the issue of the legitimacy of ordinations). Moreover, the “young eagles” from Filaret’s inner circle emphasized that Ukraine’s “autocephalous church” could be built only on the basis of the “UOC-KP.” Therefore, Stoychev’s references to the possibility of some success in the dialogue between the UOC and the “Kyiv Patriarchate” are simply untenable. Since, from the perspective of the “Filaretists,” its outcome could only be one scenario, namely the incorporation of the canonical Church into the structure headed by Denisenko.

In summary, one can safely say that Archbishop Silvestr’s rhetoric is, in essence, entirely understandable and explainable. The hierarch is deliberately molding Denisenko into a “tragic and noble figure” solely because the UOC itself, following the so-called council in Theophania, embarked on a similar path of self-proclaimed autocephaly and schism.

It is already clear to many that the actions of the current leadership of the UOC structurally and logically repeat the path of Filaret in the early 1990s. In light of this, by retroactively justifying the ambitions and actions of the former Metropolitan of Kyiv, the rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary is effectively writing an apology for the current “Feofanites,” attempting to legitimize and justify—through an analogy with Denisenko’s “prophetic ability”— Denisenko—their own canonical violations.

Moreover, by shifting the blame for the deepening of the church schism in Ukraine from the shoulders of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (which, through its interference, brought the UOC to the brink of survival, triggered a wave of seizures of its churches, and the shedding of Orthodox believers’ blood) onto the shoulders of the Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Silvestr is apparently trying to earn attention and forgiveness from the Phanar. And it is deeply regrettable that the memory and efforts of all those who, at the cost of their health and even their lives, defended their Church and its holy sites from desecration by supporters of the Phanar-controlled structure are being sacrificed for the sake of the expected “whole barrel of jam and whole basket of cookies.”
Original post

A Pill for Memory

A self-reproach from the past.

"The Constantinople Patriarchate’s disregard for the legitimate ecclesiastical hierarchy ministering on the territory of Ukraine constitutes a flagrant departure from the principle of healing schisms," — Rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary

Bishop Silvestr of Belgorod:

It is our deep conviction that the Patriarch of Constantinople had no right whatsoever to consider the case of Filaret (Denisenko), Makariy (Maletich), and their followers. But even if we leave aside the question of the legality of this act itself, many other obvious questions arise.

As Archbishop Anastasios of Albania rightly pointed out in his letters, the documents published by the Patriarchate of Constantinople contain not a single word to the effect that the Ukrainian schismatics have repented and acknowledged their errors and delusions. In no public statement by Filaret (Denisenko), Makariy (Maletich), or other representatives of the “UOC-KP” and “UAOC” do we see repentance before the Church for the sin of schism. Second, the admission of these individuals into ecclesiastical communion and the retroactive restoration of the sacred orders of all those ordained during the schism was carried out through administrative procedures, i.e., by a Synodal decision. No liturgical rites were performed over the former schismatics. There was no laying on of hands, no recitation of special prayers, nor any other liturgical actions. This also clearly does not correspond to the practice recorded in the documents of the First Ecumenical Council.

Archbishop Anastasios of Albania, in his well-known letters to Patriarch Bartholomew, expresses sincere bewilderment: “How did the ordinations performed by Mr. Filaret, who was under excommunication and anathema, retroactively, without canonical ordination, acquire legitimacy in the Holy Spirit and the authentic seal of apostolic succession?” Bishop Anastasius recalls the axiom of Orthodox ecclesiology: “A bishop who ordains in a canonical manner acts not by his own power, but on behalf of the Church—the sole bearer of God’s grace.” Based on this, he poses a rhetorical question: “Does the restoration of Filaret to the canonical rank automatically render the ordinations he performed legitimate?” and qualifies these actions of Filaret (Denisenko) as nothing less than blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And, consequently, all the “ordinations” he performed are deprived of grace-filled sanctification. Thus, given that Patriarch Bartholomew has completely ignored the canonical prescriptions of the Ancient Church regarding “ordinations” performed in communities that have separated from the Church, we believe that the question of the “ordinations” of hierarchs and clergy of the “OCU” must be resolved unequivocally: these are invalid ordinations, and the “OCU” remains in schism.

Another flagrant deviation from the principles of healing schisms is the Constantinople Patriarchate’s de facto disregard for the legitimate ecclesiastical hierarchy ministering on the territory of Ukraine. In ancient times, clergy accepted from a schism were restricted in their rights and were necessarily placed under strict subordination to canonical hierarchs. The return of schismatics to full-fledged church ministry was possible only after their sincerity of intentions had been tested and only by decision of canonical bishops who had not strayed into the schism.

In Ukraine, however, clergy accepted from the schism were not subjected to any restrictions by the Patriarch of Constantinople. If, for example, regarding the former Melitians, the First Ecumenical Council made an unequivocal decision that they “have no right to elect whomever they please, nor to propose names, nor to do anything without the consent of a bishop of the Catholic Church,” in Ukraine, it was precisely those who had been ordained during the schism who held the so-called “Unification Council” on December 15, 2018, at which they announced the creation of a new church structure and the election of its “primate.” There was no mention whatsoever of the clergy returning from the schism being subject to local canonical hierarchs.
Original post

Bartholomew has lost himself in his arrogance

A very interesting text. Not even so much for the information about the Greek Orthodox Church, but for the presence of certain phrases. In particular, "the schismatic of Constantinople."

"Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople continues to persistently pursue a treacherous course toward the schism of global Orthodoxy, guided by the principle of 'divide and conquer.' This time, he wants to bring the Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC) under his influence, taking advantage of the passing of Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of All Georgia.

The Phanariot wishes to promote a representative of the GOC to the vacant post, someone on whom he could rely. Bartholomew is considering Metropolitan Abraham (Garmelia) of Western Europe and Metropolitan Gregory (Berbichashvili) of Potis and Khob as candidates for this role. To his inner circle, he presents them as the most suitable executors of his will.

Church circles note that a lust for power has become a constant companion of the Constantinople schismatic. Through his actions, Bartholomew is once again substituting “primacy of honor” with “primacy of power,” interfering in the internal affairs of yet another—notably, one of the oldest—Georgian Orthodox Churches. It is evident that, as in the cases of Ukraine, Serbia, and the Baltic states, he has forgotten the second rule of the Second Ecumenical Council: “Regional bishops shall not extend their authority over Churches outside their own region...”
Original post

New Appointments in the Vatican

Pope Leo XIV recently made a series of key personnel decisions that significantly alter the balance of power within the Roman Curia. The Vatican announced the replacement of the “second-in-command” at the Secretariat of State and the appointment of a new Prefect of the Papal Household. These reshuffles are not merely routine rotations, but a strategic move by the new pontiff to consolidate power and reform the administrative apparatus of the Papacy.

Specifically, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli (55) has been appointed the new Substitute (Deputy) for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State. This is one of the most influential positions in the Vatican, often compared to the post of Minister of the Interior. Rudelli, an Italian diplomat with extensive experience (having served in Colombia, Zimbabwe, and at the Council of Europe), succeeded the Venezuelan Edgar Peña Parra in this role.

In turn, Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra (66), who had served as Substitute since 2018, has been transferred to the post of Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican ambassador) to Italy and San Marino.

And Archbishop Petar Rajić (66), a Canadian-born Croatian and experienced diplomat, has been appointed Prefect of the Papal Household.

What is behind these appointments?

Petar Rajić’s promotion will put an end to an awkward situation that has persisted since early 2020. It was then that Pope Francis sent Archbishop Georg Gänswein on indefinite leave without appointing an official replacement (regent Leonardo Sapienza temporarily managed affairs). By appointing the experienced Vatican diplomat Rajic to this post, Leo XIV is restoring a clear protocol to the organization of papal audiences, ceremonies, and trips.

As for Rudelli, it is worth remembering that the Substitute of the Secretariat of State acts as the Pope’s plenipotentiary and oversees the daily operations of the Roman Curia. Replacing Parra with the 55-year-old Italian Rudelli signals the pontiff’s desire to rejuvenate the administrative leadership and rely on the classical European diplomatic school. Given the age of Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin (71), Rudelli is taking on a massive portion of the Vatican’s operational management. In the future, this could lead to Rudelli’s nomination for Parolin’s current position.

At the same time, the transfer of Edgar Peña Parra to the post of nuncio to Italy is a classic Vatican diplomatic maneuver. Although the post of Vatican ambassador to Rome is historically considered highly honorable and prestigious, in reality it signifies removal from the actual levers of power within the Curia. It appears that Leo XIV is carefully but decisively replacing personnel appointed during Francis’s pontificate, clearing the way for his own trusted associates.
Original post

How the U.S. Is Using an Euthanasia Tragedy to Punish Spain for Its “Iranian Defiance”

The shocking story of 25-year-old Spanish woman Noelia Castillo Ramos, who fell victim to the state-assisted suicide system, has unexpectedly escalated into a severe diplomatic crisis. The Donald Trump administration has launched an official investigation against Spain, accusing Madrid of “massive human rights violations.”

However, behind the lofty rhetoric about protecting vulnerable populations lies harsh geopolitical pragmatism. Washington has found the perfect moral lever to punish the Spanish government for its defiance on the Iran issue.

The truly horrific circumstances surrounding Noelia’s death served as the formal pretext for the unprecedented U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of a European ally. The young woman, who was left paralyzed after a gang rape (which occurred while she was in state custody), underwent euthanasia.

The case took a sinister turn when it emerged that, at the last minute, Noelia—according to her lawyers—had attempted to refuse the lethal injection. However, she was denied on a blood-curdling pretext: her organs had already been allocated to recipients, and “the transplant logistics had been set in motion.”

In U.S. diplomatic documents, this is explicitly classified as a potential case of “involuntary euthanasia” and “state-sanctioned murder for the purpose of organ harvesting.” U.S. officials state that they do not intend to sit idly by while a partner country “sacrifices basic human rights to utilitarianism.”

Noelia’s tragedy is undeniable, and the actions of the Spanish authorities and doctors demand the most rigorous investigation. However, Washington’s sudden “moral awakening” raises reasonable questions. The U.S., where the death penalty is still in use and the treatment of Latin American migrants at the border regularly draws criticism from human rights advocates, has suddenly decided to act as Europe’s chief moral arbiter. Why now, and why specifically against Spain?

The main argument explaining this move lies in Madrid’s recent foreign policy decisions. Spain has openly defied Washington by categorically condemning the U.S. confrontation with Iran and refusing to offer the Trump administration any support in the Middle East.

For the White House, Spain’s move was a challenge demanding a demonstrative response. The “Noelia case” proved to be the perfect weapon for an asymmetric strike.

Thus, accusations of forcibly killing a disabled person for their organs strike at the most vulnerable point of Spain’s left-wing government (which pushed through liberal euthanasia legislation), destroying its image as a defender of humanism and human rights.

By initiating an investigation, the U.S. is creating a toxic atmosphere around Spain on the international stage, forcing other European countries to distance themselves from Madrid.

Washington is also sending a clear signal to the rest of Europe: any attempt to sabotage global American initiatives (such as the conflict with Iran) will result in the U.S. finding a vulnerable spot in the domestic politics of the rebellious country and delivering a crushing media and diplomatic blow.
Original post

Why the “OCU” Will Have to Live with Its Own Schism

Recently, spokespeople for the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” issued a categorical statement regarding the status of Denisenko’s supporters. The “OCU” officially emphasized that they “did not, do not, and will not recognize” as “bishops” any “hierarchs” of the “UOC-KP” whom Filaret ordained after December 15, 2018 (the date of the so-called “Unification Council”). Moreover, Epiphany Dumenko’s administration stated that “from a canonical point of view,” these individuals are not “bishops,” and some are not even “clergy.”

At first glance, this appears to be a routine administrative conflict. But if we analyze this thesis more deeply, a picture of striking duplicity and double standards emerges.

Let us recall the basic mythological premise upon which the very existence of the “OCU” is built. In 2018, the Phanar made an unprecedented and essentially political decision. It “restored” to the priesthood the excommunicated Mykhailo (Filaret) Denisenko and, with the stroke of a pen, recognized as legitimate all the “bishops” whom he had managed to “consecrate” during his decades in schism. It is precisely these people who formed the core of the newly created “OCU.”

A logical question arises: if the “OCU” sincerely believes that the Phanar recognized them as legitimate “bishops” and Filaret as a legitimate “hierarch,” then on what grounds are his subsequent “consecrations” suddenly declared invalid?

Overall, the OCU’s logic is falling apart at the seams.

After all, if Filaret Denisenko is legitimate and had the right to “ordain” the “episcopate” until December 15, 2018 (which the “OCU” acknowledges, since otherwise they themselves are nobody), then why did he suddenly lose this ability on December 16?

If his actions after December 2018 constitute a “schism without grace,” then how do his actions prior to that date differ in principle?

The answer is obvious—in no way. The only reason the “OCU” refuses to recognize Filaret’s new appointees is that it is not in their interest. Because this undermines Epiphany Dumenko’s monopoly and creates a competitive structure.

And anyway. One cannot be “a little bit… legitimate.” Since the “OCU” considers its own “hierarchy”—built on Denisenko’s schismatic ordinations—to be legitimate, then, within their distorted framework, it follows that those whom Denisenko made “bishops” after 2018 are also logically legitimate.

Dumenko’s followers opened this Pandora’s box themselves by agreeing to the Phanar’s legalization of the schism. And now they will not be able to simply brush off inconvenient competitors with loud statements. Having sown lawlessness, the “OCU” is doomed to reap its fruits. And now this structure will have to live with its own old-new schism, which is a direct consequence and a mirror image of its own history.
Original post

⚡️The Pope Has Been Accused of Idol Worship

In fact, barely a day into his pontificate, the new Pope Leo XIV found himself facing a major media crisis. On March 18, 2026, the conservative publication LifeSiteNews published scandalous archival photographs showing the future pontiff participating in a ritual dedicated to Pachamama (“Mother Earth”). This incident gave traditionalist circles cause not only to accuse the pope of idolatry but also to question the legitimacy of his reign on the Chair of St. Peter.

The basis for the accusations were photographs taken in 1995 at a symposium on ecology and theology in Brazil. In them, a young Augustinian missionary, Robert Prévot, is seen kneeling during a ceremony “deeply rooted in Andean spirituality.” Captions accompanying the original materials explicitly describe the event as a “celebration of the Pachamama ritual.”

The authenticity of the photographs has already been confirmed.

According to experts, the publication of these images right now, at the start of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate, is a targeted strike by the conservative opposition with far-reaching goals.

First, the accusations immediately bring to mind the severe internal Catholic crisis of 2019 under Pope Francis. At that time, statues of Pachamama were brought into the Vatican gardens, which provoked the fury of conservatives, culminating in the wooden idols being thrown into the Tiber. For traditionalists, the name “Pachamama” became a symbol of heresy, syncretism, and Catholicism’s capitulation to neo-paganism.

Second, radical critics of the Vatican leadership are using this episode to advance a clear thesis: a person who commits an act of public idolatry falls into heresy and, therefore, could not have been lawfully elected pope. This escalates the situation to an unprecedented level of confrontation, calling into question the very structure of the Roman Catholic Church’s governance.

Third, the silence of the official press office of the Roman Catholic Church will be perceived by traditionalists as an admission of guilt, and attempts to reduce everything to “respect for local culture” and an environmental agenda will only add fuel to the fire. This scandal guarantees that the remainder of Leo XIV’s pontificate will take place under the most intense pressure. Any steps he takes toward ecumenism or dialogue with other cultures will now be viewed through the lens of the “Brazilian incident.”

Fourth, the heated discussions in the Catholic media regarding the “illegitimacy” of the current pontiff are an extremely alarming signal for the Vatican. This indicates that the internal schism within the Catholic Church, which has been smoldering in recent years, is entering a critical phase.
Original post

The Vatican Is Closer to Its Orthodox Brethren

https://t.me/bellchamber/6095

Judging by his attitude toward his Orthodox brethren, Patriarch Bartholomew believes that the Phanar has more in common with them that divides them than unites them. Paradoxically, he is far more, if not a hundred times more, favorably disposed toward Catholics than toward his own co-religionists.
Original post

He’s Goga, he’s Gosha, he’s Yuri, he’s Gora, he’s Zhora...

https://t.me/antiraskol/28054

A deep-seated inferiority complex and an awareness of the unattractiveness (to put it mildly) of their very existence compels the “OCU” to greedily co-opt every available name for itself. The Dumenkoites seem to believe that quantity will sooner or later turn into quality. And even if, under the umbrella of one of the hijacked names, they manage to construct a myth about their “legitimacy.”

But, overall, it’s a circus. An organization to which, by hook or by crook, they’ve attached a whole string of names—“SCU,” “OCU,” UOC (“OCU”), “UOC-KP.” Outright schizophrenia.
Original post

There is a need for a unified defense of the canonical structure of global Orthodoxy, its traditions, and its order

From an interview with Metropolitan Feodosy of Cherkasy and Kaniv for the Serbian portal “Life of the Church”:

In your opinion, what kind of assistance from other Local Churches would be most helpful to the UOC right now?

Probably, first and foremost, it is prayerful support. And we already have that. Sometimes we feel it very strongly in Ukraine. We sincerely thank His Holiness Patriarch Porfirije of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as the Primates, hierarchs, clergy, and faithful of other Local Orthodox Churches for this prayerful, spiritual support.

Additionally, it seems to me that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church would greatly benefit from two forms of support that sister Churches could provide.

The first is speaking out on every possible international platform, as well as before the governments of their own countries, about the persecution of Christians taking place in the very heart of Europe in the 21st century! I am confident that if everyone who currently sympathizes with us and offers prayerful support were to fully join in this effort, the global community would, willy-nilly, be compelled to heed the voice of Orthodoxy in Europe and other parts of the world and would exert a corresponding influence on the persecutors within Ukraine.

And the second is the consolidated defense of the canonical order of global Orthodoxy, its traditions, and its structure. Today, the harm caused by Patriarch Bartholomew’s unilateral decision to legalize the Ukrainian schism is already evident to all. The consequences of this decision are catastrophic. They have not only triggered a process of bloody persecution against the UOC within our country, but have also brought global Orthodoxy to the brink of schism. In this regard, I am confident that if the Local Orthodox Churches, which sympathize with our shared tragedy, were to take a firm canonical stance on the Ukrainian issue, then over time we could together not only resolve this issue within the canonical framework, but also protect other Local Churches from such unpredictable external interference in their internal affairs. And this is precisely what would preserve the unity of global Orthodoxy for future generations.

What lessons, in your opinion, should the Serbian Orthodox Church draw from the Ukrainian experience?

Perhaps the realization that if, in the modern world—even among one’s own people—we cease to give due attention to the systematic upbringing of new generations in the Orthodox faith and morality, in grateful remembrance of our history and our pious ancestors, and in respect for our historical Church and our history in general, then others will very soon fill this void. They will first mentally cripple the people, and then begin to physically destroy the Church as a dangerous atavism. Or they will replace it with an obedient simulacrum. And you will no longer be able to do anything about it. Many countries are currently following this path. We must not relax for a single moment, for we are responsible before our holy ancestors for the future of our peoples and our Churches. And the Lord will hold us accountable for this.
Original post

⚡️There are several Local Orthodox Churches that are fully capable of (and have offered to) provide a suitable venue for holding a true Pan-Orthodox Council

From an interview with Metropolitan Theodosius of Cherkasy and Kaniv for the Serbian portal "Life of the Church":

Recently, at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Polish Orthodox Church, it was stated that the Ukrainian church conflict must be resolved at the pan-Orthodox level. In your opinion, is it realistic to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council or assembly at this time? For example, under the banner of the need to defend Orthodoxy in the Middle East. And to consider the Ukrainian issue within the framework of such a gathering?

The fate of the Church lies in God’s hands. Yes, theoretically, a Pan-Orthodox Council could contribute to the establishment of Orthodox unity in spirit and truth, in communion through the Holy Sacraments, in the recognition of common canonical foundations, and in mutual love in Christ. But in practice, the question of holding a Pan-Orthodox Council remains open for a number of objective reasons. The main one, in my deep conviction, is as follows. The format of the Pan-Orthodox Council that was proposed and discussed at inter-Orthodox meetings in the 20th century, and which is now being imposed on global Orthodoxy by the Phanar and a number of Churches dependent on it, cannot in any way be considered a Council in the patristic sense of the word. And therefore, the powers of a Council cannot in any way be attributed to such a gathering. For what is being proposed to us? Instead of the universal participation of all Orthodox bishops of the world in such a Pan-Orthodox Council, as has been established since apostolic times and affirmed by the Fathers of the Church, we are being offered participation in a gathering of equal delegations from each of the Local Churches with equal voting rights—whether it be a delegation from a Church with 5 bishops or a delegation from a Church with 500 bishops.

That is, it is not Orthodox bishops from around the world who vote, each in accordance with their conscience. No, it is delegations with equal decision-making authority that vote. One delegation—one vote. Whether 500 bishops or 5 bishops, each has one vote. Their influence on the adoption of a Pan-Orthodox decision will be equal.

In other words, we are being offered a manipulative substitution of the Church’s conciliar mind under the guise of “convenient” rules of procedure. And this is happening at a time when a whole range of pan-Church issues are highly contentious and require a truly pan-Orthodox decision, not backroom deals. Is it even possible to seal the decisions of such a gathering of delegations—especially in the absence of consensus—with the formula “As the Holy Spirit and we will”? Of course not. We are being offered pure manipulation, which certain forces within global Orthodoxy are insisting on in principle. And we understand why they are insisting on this. When they speak of the technical impossibility of holding a full-fledged Council, that is not true. There are several Local Orthodox Churches that are quite capable of (and are offering to) provide a suitable venue for holding a genuine Pan-Orthodox Council. But they do not even want to hear about it. Therefore, to speak of the prospects for holding a Pan-Orthodox Council in the near future seems, to me, unrealistic.
Original post

The Great “Church” Redistribution in Moldova

On March 25, 2026, during the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council, Archbishop Markell of Bălți and Fălești delivered an unprecedented statement regarding the systematic discrimination against the Orthodox Church of Moldova.

The key and most alarming issue raised from the high podium was the real threat of a large-scale redistribution of religious property. The concern is that the state is laying the groundwork to seize hundreds of parishes from the canonical Church.

As many are already aware, a legal proceeding is currently underway in Moldova, the outcome of which could radically alter the country’s religious landscape. At the center of the proceedings is the issue of the possible forced transfer of up to 800 churches of the Moldovan Orthodox Church to the jurisdiction of the “Bessarabian Metropolis” of the Romanian Orthodox Church.

It is important to note that these churches were lawfully acquired by the Orthodox Church of Moldova through restitution. The attempt to seize them en masse is not merely an administrative dispute, but a direct disregard for the rights of a bona fide user and the principle of legal certainty.

International human rights organizations (Public Advocacy, etc.), which supported Archbishop Markell at the UN, are sounding the alarm. Their official statement emphasizes that such measures directly contradict fundamental international standards.

At the same time, concerns regarding the transfer of 800 churches are not merely an abstract legal theory. The process has already begun to shift into a phase of open armed confrontation.

The recent events in the village of Derenu serve as a telling and alarming example. As Archbishop Markell reported to the UN, the authorities deployed special forces units against believers of the OCU. The state’s security forces were deployed solely to physically ensure the transfer of the local church to the structures of the “Bessarabian Metropolis.” The use of security forces against its own citizens to resolve interconfessional disputes indicates that the state has taken sides in the conflict and is prepared to employ harsh methods to force through the desired outcome.

The UN also noted that preparations for the large-scale seizure of the MOC’s property are accompanied by a comprehensive campaign to squeeze the canonical Church out of Moldovan public life. Human rights defenders are documenting the formation of a sustained and targeted policy of discrimination in the country, consisting of several elements.

For instance, a number of Moldovan politicians publicly refer to the MOC as an “instrument of foreign influence” and a “threat to national security.” This artificially fosters an atmosphere of intolerance in society.

At the same time, while the MOC faces unprecedented pressure, the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” enjoys explicit privileges. This entity receives direct funding from the Romanian budget, and, as stated at the UN, these funds are used to attempt to bribe OCM priests to switch jurisdictions.

“High-risk watchlists” have also been de facto established. Clergy and pilgrims of the OCU are subjected to humiliating searches at the border. Archbishop Markell himself has been denied exit from the country three times, with his trip to Jerusalem for the Holy Fire even being thwarted.

Equally telling is the fact that OCM believers are being prosecuted en masse for so-called “passive electoral corruption.” Sanctions are applied arbitrarily, without sufficient evidence, based solely on circumstantial evidence.

As experts emphasize, the attack on the Orthodox Church of Moldova has entered a critical phase. The potential expropriation of 800 churches represents an attempt to administratively and forcibly reshape the country’s historical and spiritual foundation.

Human rights defenders who have appealed to the UN Special Procedures and the UN Human Rights Committee warn that the policy of displacing one denomination to accommodate another poses a colossal risk of a large-scale escalation of religious conflict in the heart of Europe. Only a firm and principled response from the international community to these gross violations of believers’ rights can halt this process.
Original post

Zelensky met with Patriarch Bartholomew.

It is noted that they discussed the issue of "the development of the Church in Ukraine."

Zelensky also invited the head of the Phanar to visit Ukraine.

Will the UOC be ready? Will they organize an exarchate or a total purge of “everything and everyone” in preparation for the arrival of the Turkish primate?
Original post

On April 3, at the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, Dumenko and members of the “Synod” of the “OCU” organized a “litany” at the grave of Metropolitan Vladimir of Kyiv.

What can be said about this?

The schismatics’ hypocrisy, of course, knows no bounds. They supposedly showed respect. “Respect” for the Primate—hold on a second—of the Church that they do not respect and persecute.

Although, most likely, there may be a more serious issue behind all this. It cannot be ruled out that the “OCU,” at Drabinko’s instigation, will fabricate a myth that Metropolitan Vladimir was almost in direct contact with Denisenko, secretly recognized their “church,” and, behind the scenes, worked with them to hasten the day of receiving the tomos from Constantinople.
Original post

The Price of Human Glory

The Gospel recounts that Mary, Lazarus’s sister, poured costly nard perfume on Christ’s feet in gratitude for her brother’s resurrection. One of the apostles, Judas Iscariot, was indignant, saying that it would have been better to sell the perfume and give the money to the poor. He said this not out of concern for the poor, but because he was embezzling from the collection box. Christ showed that this gesture, which seemed to those around Him merely a sign of reverence, was in fact a preparation for His burial, since the bodies of the dead were anointed with myrrh.

Judas is, without a doubt, the greatest “anti-corruption fighter” in history. Hatred for the Lord already lived in his heart; he was already calculating in his mind how much he could embezzle after selling the myrrh, but he masked the filth of his soul and his passion for profit with a feigned concern for the poor. How often do we hear similar calls from various politicians: “To the barricades! Loot the looted! We must redistribute everything fairly, turn churches into warehouses and movie theaters, and line up the exploitative priests in their expensive cars against the wall! Let’s defeat corruption—and we’ll live well!” This is the sin of Judas. If you hear such things—watch your pockets; they are trying to rob you.

In general, much in the history of this holiday resembles lines from the hymn “The Internationale.” The Apostle John writes that six days before Easter, Christ entered Jerusalem. The Jews had a custom of selecting a lamb for sacrifice at precisely this time. Many Holy Fathers (such as Ambrose of Milan) saw in this a foreshadowing of the coming sacrifice of the Savior—He who, according to the Book of Revelation, is “the Lamb slain from the creation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). The very entry into Jerusalem was foretold by the prophet Zechariah: “Behold, your King comes to you, righteous and bringing salvation, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zech. 9:9).

Ordinary people entered the city on foot, while kings rode in on horses. Christ enters not on a horse, but on a donkey, showing that He is meek and that His Kingdom is a Kingdom of meekness. He always avoided popularity: while performing great miracles, the Savior forbade their disclosure. And yet today He seems to be accepting human glory. In reality, however, He remains misunderstood.

First, not the entire crowd greets Him with jubilation—standing nearby are the scribes and the leaders of the people, who are already plotting His murder. The raising of Lazarus caused a sensation, and the authorities feared that the people would follow Christ. Who would they profit from then? Instead of accepting Him, knowing the truth, and bowing down before the miracle, they wanted to kill both Christ and Lazarus.

Second, what does the cheering crowd want? It is welcoming a political king. What do people usually expect from kings? Higher wages, job creation, and that very “fight against corruption.” We’re told this fairy tale before every election. And when the Savior fails to meet these mundane expectations, those same people will scream at the top of their lungs: “Crucify Him!”

The significance of Holy Week and Good Friday can only be understood in connection with the entry into Jerusalem. Even the Roman legionnaires, mocking the Savior, put a purple robe and a crown of thorns on Him, saying: “See how Your Kingdom has ended? Where are those who came out to meet You?” Such is the price of human glory: today the crowd applauds, and tomorrow it is ready to tear Him apart.

The whole problem is that the “man of the crowd” sees the cause of his misfortunes not in his own heart, but in external circumstances. It seems to him that if he changes them—distributes everything fairly, takes from the exploiters, sells the world, creates an ideal society—happiness will come, and there will be plenty of bread and money. In this new society, the ideal human, the “superhuman,” is supposedly supposed to emerge. This is the essence of the philosophy of Nietzsche, Marx, and others. The formula “We will tear down this world of violence to its very foundations, and then…” is as old as the world itself: from the Tower of Babel to the present day. The tragedy of any “new order” and attempts to achieve an earthly paradise through external coercion lies in the inevitable drift toward the kingdom of the Antichrist.

But Christ came to ascend Golgotha. He tells us that one cannot enter His Kingdom merely by greeting Him with palm branches. To be with Him, one must take up one’s cross and share His path.

#Ruslan_Kalinchuk
Original post