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

Trump admitted to sending weapons to protesters in Iran

"We sent a lot of weapons to Iranian protesters; we sent weapons via the Kurds," the U.S. president told a Fox News reporter.

Yet just recently, the liberal media was telling everyone that in Iran, “peaceful demonstrators” were standing up to a “wicked regime that is killing them en masse.”

And now it’s officially confirmed that the country was being flooded with weapons. It turns out that all of Tehran’s claims that militants were attempting to overthrow the government by targeting security forces across various regions of Iran were true.

So, perhaps in the future we will also receive confirmation that something similar was pulled off in Ukraine. And the “unknown snipers” were quite well-known. From the special services of Western countries.
Original post

The UGCC has defrocked a priest for concelebrating with the so-called “Metropolitan” of the OCU

Bogdan Murovany, a priest of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, has been officially defrocked. According to the Sokal-Zholkiv Diocese of the UGCC, the decision was formalized in a Decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated November 3, 2025.

The reason for this severe disciplinary action was allegedly a “grave sinful act” exhibiting “signs of a schismatic nature”. This refers to Murovany’s concelebration with “Metropolitan” Matfei Shevchuk of the so-called Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which took place on September 8, 2023, at the Cathedral of the Nativity of Christ in Volodymyr. The UGCC emphasized that, according to Canon 702 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Catholic clergy are prohibited from celebrating the Liturgy together with representatives of non-Catholic churches.

Henceforth, Bohdan Murovany loses all rights, ecclesiastical titles, and positions. He is prohibited from conducting divine services. The former clergyman no longer has the right to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church or to call himself a Greek Catholic priest.

Our commentary:

To assess this decision by the UGCC, one needs to know all the details. For example, it is strange that the clergyman was punished for “concelebrating” only nearly three years after the fact. It is possible that the incident served merely as a pretext for such a harsh decision, and that the real reasons are known only to a small circle of people.

But if the official reason is indeed true, an interesting picture emerges. The Uniates are quite welcoming of representatives of the “OCU” attending their prayer services. And they react harshly to instances of their representatives attending “services” of Dumenko’s organization. This points to only one thing—the UGCC sees itself as the dominant force in the dialogue with the “OCU,” and views the coming rapprochement as the integration of “Dumenko’s followers” into its own structure.
Original post

The number of Catholics worldwide has reached 1.42 billion

The Vatican has released statistics showing that in 2024, the number of Catholics worldwide grew by 1.14%, reaching 1.422 billion people. Thus, the share of Roman Catholics in the global population remains stable at approximately 17.8%.

A landmark event was the historic shift in the regional distribution of believers. The proportion of Africans among Catholics (20.3%) exceeded that of Europeans (20.1%) for the first time. While the number of believers in Africa grew by 2.7%, Europe showed the most modest increase—0.8%.

The Americas (North and South) remain the leader in terms of the number of believers, accounting for 47.7% of the total flock.

The statistics also revealed significant changes in the composition of the clergy:

1. The total number of priests worldwide increased slightly to 407,421, but in Europe their number decreased by more than 2,400.

2. The number of seminarians globally decreased by 2.72%, with Africa being the only region showing positive growth (+2.25%).

3. The number of nuns continues to decline (-0.5%), with a particularly noticeable drop in Europe and the Americas.

In light of these figures, especially regarding Africa, it becomes clearer why the Vatican is implementing the relevant policies.
Original post

And the caravan moves on…

Resorting to personal attacks in any debate is the first and most obvious sign of a lack of substantive arguments. When, instead of discussing canonical or theological issues, an opponent’s appearance and physical flaws become the subject of a vicious attack, it becomes clear that the attacking side simply has no real arguments.

Analyzing the “deacon’s” attack, one can draw several simple conclusions.

First, those forces within the UOC who have today followed Denisenko’s path and are effectively beginning to elevate Filaret onto a historical pedestal to justify their current actions have proven incapable of constructive discussion. They were unable to respond with dignity and substance to the just remarks of the Zaporizhzhia hierarch.

Second —due to the canonical and logical weakness of the “autocephalous” position, a media “attack dog” has once again been unleashed into the information arena. Its sole task is not to seek the truth, but to “drag through the mud” the one who has become a real thorn in the side of the de facto ideological followers of the late head of the “Kyiv Patriarchate.”

Third, if the cleric does not receive the deserved canonical punishment for his blatantly boorish statements and public denunciation, this will send a clear signal to the entire Church. A lack of response will suggest that his Jesuitical and inherently shameful behavior is tacitly endorsed not only by the ruling Metropolitan of Odessa but also by the highest leadership of the UOC.

Fourth, there have already been instances in Ukrainian history when people fought for what was “bright and holy,” only to end up with utter horror and tragedy. Take, for example, the Maidan. Its organizers told everyone that it was organized for the sake of the country’s “freedom and European prospects.” The future revealed that behind this entire “revolution” lay a completely different idea, namely, turning Ukraine into a springboard for waging war against one of the West’s strategic adversaries. And instead of “freedom,” Ukrainians received the “privilege” of being seized by the TCC and dying for the interests of external forces. Something similar happened with the so-called council in Feofaniya. Its lobbyists declare lofty goals and objectives, but in reality, everything is heading—if it hasn’t already arrived—toward a full-scale schism.

Fifth—we fully agree with our colleagues that the “autocephals” in the UOC are completely blind to the log in their own eye. For some reason, they always forget that at one time they reclassified part of their own flock as “separatists.” And they didn’t just remain silent about how eastern Ukraine was being destroyed, but also aided those who were doing it. Therefore, it is certainly not for them to accuse the Patriarch of anything now.

And finally.

When arguments are replaced by market-stall bickering and actual denunciations to law enforcement agencies, this testifies not to righteousness, but to a profound internal crisis of the chosen course. A course that, in form, is aimed at autocephaly, but in essence—at schism.
Original post

Following Denisenko’s Lead

We fully agree with our colleagues’ assessments. In his defense, Bishop Silvestr is clearly trying to hide the forest for the trees, diverting the discussion from the main issue to entirely secondary details.

What difference does it make, by and large, exactly how it was phrased—whether the talk was of “natural intuition” or a “prophetic gift”? A hundred times more important is the precedent itself: an official representative of the UOC, the rector of the KDAiS, suddenly begins to cast the anathematized Denisenko as a figure of historical and some sort of “tragic” magnitude. At the same time, all the colossal atrocities, the schism, and the pain he inflicted on the Church and millions of believers were effectively left out of the picture.

In essence, the entire message is interpreted quite unambiguously—namely, that Filaret subtly sensed the “epochal winds of change,” was moving in the “right direction” (toward autocephaly), but simply used methods that were not entirely correct to achieve this “lofty goal.”

Such logic is not merely flawed. It is terrifying. It is tantamount to claiming that, as a result of global geopolitical shifts, Hitler recognized the necessity of Ukraine’s independence, aided it in the “struggle against Bolshevism and Moscow’s oppression,” but acted in this arena “not always successfully or correctly.” And let’s just set aside the millions of murdered Ukrainians, the towns and villages burned to the ground, and the absolute horror the fascists wrought on Ukrainian soil—let’s “forget” them all for the sake of a “beautiful,” Jesuitically crafted concept.

It is perfectly understandable that when such templates are applied to a schismatic, the righteous indignation of the faithful of the UOC will arise and be voiced as loudly as possible. In this regard, a logical question arises: what exactly was the hierarch hoping for by raising the topic of Denisenko in such a light? Did His Eminence really believe that by calling a man excommunicated from the Church a “patriarch” and de facto providing a justification for his destructive actions, he would meet no resistance?

Why was it necessary to artificially raise this sensitive issue now and provoke a deep internal scandal within the Church? Has a tacit decision been made to gradually rehabilitate Denisenko in the eyes of the flock? And is this being done with the aim of historically and ideologically justifying those who initiated the process of the UOC’s self-proclaimed autocephaly?

P.S. And also, to put it mildly, the juggling of the 2017 situation is surprising.

In Archbishop Silvestr’s first publication, all arrows are aimed at the Russian Orthodox Church. As if to say, it was the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill who “rejected” Filaret’s letter. It is specifically emphasized: “As soon as even a hint of reconciliation appeared on the horizon, the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church did everything to prevent this reconciliation from taking place.” At the same time, there is no mention of the positive reaction of the Council of the Russian Church to Denisenko’s message, nor of the creation of a special commission to conduct further negotiations with the author of the letter, nor of the fact that Filaret himself—at the instigation of his entourage—promptly renounced deepening consultations with the Russian Orthodox Church, stating that it was not he, but “Moscow that sought reconciliation.”

But in the latest publication, suddenly “the concept changes.” The rector of the KDAiS writes: “I have not drawn any final conclusions, since we lack information about the private negotiations between the ‘UOC-KP’ and the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate.” But what then of the “horizons, hints, and doing everything to prevent reconciliation”? Is this a deliberately fabricated slander and a lie?
Original post

The Beginning of Humanity’s Salvation

About 2,000 years ago, in the small town of Nazareth, a miracle took place—one foretold by the prophets and promised by God even in the Garden of Eden: the divine nature was united with the human. On the surface, it all seemed simple: a young, devout virgin named Mary lived in Nazareth. By that time, her parents had already passed away, and she was being cared for by Joseph the carpenter.

Today the Archangel Gabriel came to her, greeting her with the words: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you,” and announced that she was to become the Mother of the Savior of the world. The entire Gospel story begins at this very moment. Ahead lie the joy of Christmas, the covenant of the Last Supper, the bitterness and horror of Good Friday, and in the finale—the jubilation of the Resurrection. But the beginning of the Gospel is here. Now the first call to rejoice has sounded, addressed not only to the Mother of God, but to all humanity.

Once in paradise, the first woman, Eve, heeded the serpent’s deceitful words and sinned, doubting the faithfulness of God’s commandment. Since then, humanity has remained in the sorrow and grief of sin. Saint Gregory of Nyssa asks: why did God not become incarnate sooner? And he answers: humanity needed to realize the full weight of sin. Saint Gregory Palamas adds that a Most Pure Vessel was needed, capable of containing God. The entire history of the Old Testament, the generations of great righteous men—Abraham, Moses, David—were necessary for the Most Holy Virgin to be born. All that was most beautiful, pure, and exalted in human history up to that point was embodied in the Virgin Mary. God chose a people, a tribe, a lineage, and a family until She was born.

Despite the immense danger—for Joseph the Betrothed was 80 years old, and those around them would not have believed in a miracle, and the Law of Moses prescribed stoning for adultery, as well as for blasphemy, if She had said that the Child was of the Holy Spirit—the Virgin meekly replied to the angel: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” The Holy Fathers write: if She had answered “no,” God would not have violated Her will. How tender is our God! He who created the world by His word humbly awaits the Virgin’s consent.

Her meek obedience covered Eve’s pride. Blessed Augustine wrote that sin came from Eve, but salvation came from the Mother of God. If we lack joy today and are frightened by the news, it is only because we do not say “yes” to God with the same trust as the Mother of God. Most Holy Mother of God, help us!

#Ruslan_Kalinchuk
Original post

"I have never raised the issue of ceasing to commemorate the Metropolitan of Kyiv simply because he did not say anything to Poroshenko or Zelenskyy regarding our destroyed churches, the parishioners killed by Ukrainian shells, or the children of Horlivka," said Metropolitan Mitrofan of Horlivka

In connection with recent statements by representatives of the “autocephalous wing” of the UOC regarding Patriarch Kirill and the “council” in Theophania, we would like to recall the words of someone who, long before 2022, witnessed with his own eyes the shelling and the war that one part of Ukraine waged against another part of itself. And who spoke out about the realities surrounding the preparation and conduct of the event in Theophania.

https://youtu.be/gemXRRIYyhw?si=iqg4GCslOSxdLR55
Original post

Nothing but Questions

Some Pro-Orthodox channels have begun circulating a so-called “open response” to Bishop Theodosius’s open letter regarding the harassment of Metropolitan Luke by a deacon from the Odessa Diocese who is well-known in certain circles.

We won’t bother analyzing this entire stream of consciousness and outright nonsense; we’ll leave that to others. But one thing is noteworthy—the “open response” turned out not to be so open after all. Where are the signatories’ names? Is this cheerful deacon writing about himself in the third person, or is it a group of authors who preferred to remain anonymous? Or is it a draft that was passed down from certain offices?

Nothing but questions...

#George_D
Original post

The growing influence of Islamic ideas could fundamentally alter the very essence of Britain

Renowned comedian and Monty Python co-founder John Cleese has made a striking statement about Britain’s cultural identity. On social media platform X, the 86-year-old artist defended the country’s Christian heritage and warned of the growing influence of Islamic ideas, which could radically alter the nation’s character. Cleese, who rose to fame for his sharp humor and sketches that were often critical of the church, adopted an unusually serious tone this time. He emphasized that the United Kingdom, despite secularization, “is founded on Christian values at the deepest level.”

In his post, Cleese emphasized that for centuries, the British population has been shaped by the defining influence of Christ’s teachings. These values are at the core of what makes Britain, Britain. Clise sounds the alarm: “If these values are replaced by Islamic ones, it will no longer be Britain.” He was responding, in particular, to discussions about the visibility of religious rituals in public spaces, such as reports of Islamic prayer gatherings in central London squares.

In addition to cultural identity, Clise touched on the issue of concerns regarding freedom of speech. He suggested that critics of certain religious practices increasingly risk being silenced under the pretext of combating “Islamophobia.” He expressed concern that a time may come when writers will face legal consequences for expressing their beliefs. “Preaching Christ and His word is not hatred or a phobia. It is Christian love,” the actor added.
Original post

Holy Week has begun

That is precisely why it should come as no surprise that a fresh wave of hypocritical attacks has been unleashed not only against Metropolitan Luke—who dared (!) (from the perspective of the “autocephalous” wing of the UOC) to oppose attempts to rehabilitate “Patriarch” Denisenko, and against Metropolitan Theodosius, who also dared (!) to support his brother who had fallen victim to a barrage of rudeness and denunciation, have been met with yet another flood of pharisaical “outrage and lamentations.”

What can be said here? Practically nothing new.

First, the opponents of Metropolitan Luke, having lost the substantive debate and being too embarrassed to recall that it began with a provocative attempt to whitewash the head of the “UOC-KP,” switched to personal attacks and jabs. At the same time, they are covering up their aggression—which stems from a lack of real arguments—with the fig leaf of “personal opinion.” It would be interesting, by the way, to see the reaction of those who defend the “deacon” if some clergyman of the UOC were to begin systematically and maliciously denouncing them themselves, not hesitating to use both real and fabricated aspects. We are certain that the current defenders of their partner from Odessa would certainly not call such attacks “personal opinion” and would seek severe punishment for their author.

Second, if those who wrote the Facebook comment for Bishop Silvestr were a bit smarter, they would have started it differently. For example, by noting that while disagreeing with the tone and manner of presentation used by the representative of the Odessa Diocese, they consider it appropriate to draw Metropolitan Theodosius’s attention to certain points. As it stands, it came across as “foolishly laying all their cards on the table.”

The coordinated support for the “deacon” and the attack on Metropolitan Theodosius served as further proof that the participants in this campaign are coordinating their actions. And that roles within this group are clearly defined. There are those who promote “lofty ideals,” and those who (in the event of failure or problems on the part of the “idealists,” as well as out of necessity to discredit their opponents) step in as mudslingers.

Thirdly, the far-fetched nature of the accusations against Metropolitan Luke is striking, as is their abstractness. What exactly did he say? In what context? Regarding whom specifically (specific names)? It is unclear. But, as they say, the main thing is to make hysterical accusations.

Here we will note just one point. We know for certain what Bishop Luke did not say. He did not call Denisenko a “patriarch.” He did not attempt to rehabilitate him. He did not voice the need to establish contact with the Phanar, which is responsible for the tears, pain, blood, and suffering of the faithful of the UOC. And so on.

Fourth, the support provided to the opponents of Metropolitans Luke and Theodosius by representatives of the “OCU” is simply touching. And what’s interesting is that no one bans “Dumenkovtsy” for using the most vulgar word, “scum,” against the two hierarchs. Is that also a “personal opinion”? Or, in the heat of the struggle against those who refuse to go against the canons, have the old and new followers of Denisenko’s course merged into a single “spirit”?
Original post

Open Letter from the Clergy of the Zaporizhzhia Diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Support of His Eminence Luke, Metropolitan of Zaporizhzhia and Melitopol

We deem it necessary to remind the cleric of the Odessa Diocese that his attempts to “judge” and lecture the ruling bishop of a neighboring diocese are not only the height of audacity but also a gross violation of canonical order. According toCanons 14 and 15 of the Holy Apostles, as well asCanon 3 of the Council of Antioch, a cleric has no right to act outside the boundaries of his own diocese without the will of his bishop, much less to interfere in the affairs of another ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Church discipline is founded on unquestioning respect for the office of the bishop.The 55th Canon of the Holy Apostlesis categorical:“If any of the clergy offends a bishop (insults him), let him be expelled.” An insult to a bishop by a cleric of another diocese is a schismatic spirit that brings confusion to the Body of the Church.The 31st Canon of the Holy Apostles, as well as its interpretationby the greatJohn Zonaras, directly condemns those who sow discord between a bishop and his flock. Zonaras emphasizes that whoever rebels against a bishop who holds the true faith “rebels against Christ Himself.” By calling on the Zaporizhzhia flock to distrust their Bishop, the cleric of the Odessa Diocese takes upon himself the sin of “self-will and pride.”

https://hramzp.ua/ru/news/217271-otkrytoe-pismo-duxovenstva-zaporozskoi-eparxii-upc-v-podderzku-vysokopreosviashhenneisego-luki-mitropolita-zaporozskogo-i-melitopolskogo
Original post

On "Trained Puppies"

We wish to put an end to the debate over the legitimacy of the attacks on Metropolitan Luke of Zaporizhzhia.

His opponents are singing the same tune in different ways—the bishop called the hierarchs of the UOC "trained puppies."

We took the trouble to look for the original source.

And here is what we found.

In February 2025, the Metropolitan wrote the following: “This response is important for those ministers—who think they serve Christ—to remember: those who, when they should speak, prefer to remain silent, and when they should remain silent, try to speak as loudly as possible. They remind me of trained dogs in a circus, who only make a sound when the trainer gives the command. For this, they receive some kind of treat and are ready to obey commands whenever a reward awaits them.
But a person is not a circus dog. He must think through his words and actions. And most importantly, he is capable of giving meaning to his existence and striving to embody it while he lives on earth. What do we live for? To receive a temporary handout from the trainer? Or to receive eternal life from the Creator?"

Nowhere else did the exact phrase “trained dogs” appear.

Based on this, several questions arise.

First—where in this text are the bishops of the UOC mentioned?

Second—on what grounds did the bishop’s opponents begin accusing him of calling the hierarchs “trained dogs”?

After all, Metropolitan Luke (unlike that same deacon) did not name any specific individuals, nor even refer to their status as “ministers.”

But they exposed themselves through their attacks on the Zaporizhzhia bishop. As the saying goes, “A scoundrel’s awareness of his own wrongdoing, the resulting bitterness, and wounded pride give him away.”

And one last thing. Just our observation.

Against the backdrop of rudeness, aggression, and various manipulations directed at Metropolitan Luke, a simple conclusion comes to mind—there is definitely something to the words about “little dogs.” They aptly describe behavior in which they first make loud noises together, then foam at the mouth in anger toward someone they dislike, and finally, jointly and “boldly,” attack a single opponent, trying, if not to tear him apart, then at least to bite him as painfully as possible.
Original post

"To you, who are clothed..."

To you, who are clothed in light as in a robe, Joseph took you down from the Cross with Nicodemus; and seeing you dead, naked, and unburied, he was overcome with compassionate weeping, and weeping, he said: Alas for me, sweetest Jesus, whom the sun, having seen You hanging on the Cross, was soon shrouded in darkness, and the earth trembled with fear, and the temple curtain was rent: but now I see You, having voluntarily taken death upon Yourself for my sake. How shall I bury You, my God, or with what shroud shall I wrap You? With what hands shall I touch Your incorruptible body? Or what song shall I sing of Your departure, O Generous One? I magnify Your Passion, I sing of Your burial with the Resurrection; call out: Glory to You, O Lord.

You, who are clothed in light as in a garment, Joseph, having taken You down from the Tree (from the Cross) with Nicodemus, and seeing You dead, naked, and unburied, began a funeral lament in deep compassion, and cried out with weeping: “Alas for me, Sweetest Jesus! When I recently saw You hanging on the Cross, the sun was clothed in darkness, the earth trembled with fear, and the veil of the temple was torn. But now I see You, having voluntarily accepted death for my sake. How shall I bury You, my God, or with what shroud? And with what hands shall I touch Your incorruptible body? Or what songs shall I sing for Your passing, O Merciful One? I glorify Your sufferings, I sing of Your burial and resurrection, exclaiming: “Lord, glory to You!”

https://youtu.be/v2cFbbCplhU?si=YVB0LsRv6YgDi3Y5
Original post

The Holy Fire has descended!

Glory to You, Lord, glory to You!
Original post