Tag: Christianity

Sts. Francisco and Jacinta are brother and sister, and are two of the three children who saw apparitions of the Virgin Mary, along with their cousin, Lucia Santo, in the fields of Fatima, Portugal, while they tended their families’ sheep.

On May 13, 1917, Our Lady appeared to the children for the first time, and asked them to say the rosary and make sacrifices, offered up for the conversion of sinners. The children did as she asked, praying often, giving away their lunches to beggars, and fasting. They offered up daily struggles, and even kept from drinking water on hot days as a sacrifice.

In October 1918, Francisco and Jacinta both caught the Spanish flu. Our Lady appeared to them and told them she would soon take them to heaven. Francisco requested his first Communion from his bed, and died the next day, on April 14, 1919, at age 11.

Jacinta suffered from her illness for a long time. She was eventually taken to a hospital in Lisbon, and received an operation on the abscess in her chest, but she never recovered. Jacinta died on Feb. 20, 1920, at age 10.

Francisco and Jacinta are the youngest non-martyrs to be made saints. Pope John Paul II canonized them in 2000, and Pope Francis officially canonized them in 2017, showing the Church that even young children can become saints.

Photo: stefmon.ru     

The reading from the Holy Gospel according to St. Luke. (19:1-10)

Today we hear and we celebrate the story of Zacchaeus SundayFor the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. The Lord seizes the mightiest of the devil’s vessels and destroys his cities. See how the Lord not only makes publicans His disciples, but He even takes prisoner—in order to save him—the chief of publicans, Zacchaeus.

“>Zacchaeus. The more that I think on this story and contemplate the more I am blown away. Zacchaeus blows away our conceptions of what it is to desire the Lord. Zacchaeus blows away our understanding of what it means to repent. Zacchaeus utterly demolishes our understanding of what it means to welcome Christ into our lives.

Zacchaeus stands as a corrective for my lame efforts. He shows me that I while I desire to know Jesus Christ, I don’t desire Him with the zeal and the love and the purpose with which Zacchaeus desires to know the Lord. This should put me to shame because I know more of Jesus than Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus had heard of the Lord’s teachings and likely new of some of His great miracles. But I know that Jesus was crucified out of His deep love for us. I know that He willingly suffered and endured great shame for us. I know that He rose from the dead. I know that He has sent us the Comforter, the Holy Spirit to be with us. I know that He has forgiven me.

Yet with all the unbelievable and amazing things that I know about Our Lord Jesus Christ, I don’t show half of the zeal and desire of Zacchaeus who was considered a sinful tax-collector. Most of the tax-collectors were considered sinful because they made their wealth by preying upon the people and over-collecting on taxes. It is likely that Zacchaeus did the same. Yet, although he was hardened by sin, Christ found a way into his hardened heart and through that small crack, the light of Christ began to invade his being. Instead of fighting this light, Zacchaeus followed it to the source. He desired to know this Jesus and nothing would substitute for this knowledge. No one could stand in his way. Indeed, even his own limitations as a man, his very short stature, could not stand in his way. We are reminded that our limitations can never stand in the way or be an obstacle for the one who is consumed with a desire to know the Lord Jesus. But we are also reminded that you can’t know Him on your terms. You can only know God on His terms!

We see this demonstrated in that Zacchaeus begins his great effort to see Our Lord Jesus and then while he is hanging in the tree, the Lord looks up to him and says to him “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for I must stay at your place today.” Sometimes we say that we want to know God, but we also want that to happen on our terms. However that is not how things should work since God is the sovereign Lord. He should direct us and we should, out of our great love for Him, obey faithfully. Zacchaeus took an amazing first step in his search for the Son of God, but imagine what would have happened if the Lord spoke to him and then Zacchaeus responded differently. If he said “Lord, I apologize but I’m not in the mood today.” Or “Lord, I’m already exhausted from fighting the crowds and climbing this tree so perhaps maybe you would consider coming over tomorrow.” It seems funny but we do this often in our lives. We put off Christ or delay our encounters with Him. We say, I will just spend an hour on facebook or instagram and then I will go read my Bible. But let me binge watch some Netflix and then I will pray for a few seconds before bed. But Zacchaeus is not like us. He shows us what it means to be hungry for God in our lives. He shows us what it means to hear God’s voice and to obey with haste. For this reason we are not surprised that our Lord promised salvation to him and His house because salvation is the restored relationship with Jesus Christ.

St. Nikolai of Zicha writes, ““Today, salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9).
Thus it was spoken by the One Whose word is life and joy and restoration of the righteous. Just as the bleak forest clothes itself into greenery and flowers from the breath of spring, so does every man, regardless of how arid and darkened by sin, becomes fresh and youthful from the nearness of Christ.”

And he continues saying,

“Today, salvation has come to this house” said the Lord upon entering the house of Zacchaeus the sinner. Christ was the salvation that came and Zacchaeus was the house into which He entered. Brethren, each one of us is a house in which sin dwells as long as Christ is distant and to which salvation comes when Christ approaches it. Nevertheless, will Christ approach my house and your house? That depends on us. Behold, He did not arbitrarily enter the house of the sinner Zacchaeus, rather He entered as a most desired guest. Zacchaeus of little stature climbed into a tree in order to see the Lord Jesus with his own eyes. Zacchaeus, therefore, sought him; Zacchaeus desired Him. We must also seek Him in order to find Him and desire Him in order that He would draw nearer to us and, with our spirit, to climb high in order to encounter His glance. Then He will visit our house as He visited the house of Zacchaeus and with Him salvation will come. Draw near to us O Lord, draw near and bring to us Your eternal salvation. To You be glory and thanks always. Amen.”

– St. Nikolai Velimirovich, “Zacchaeus Of Little Stature”

New York, February 19, 2024

Photo: spc.rs     

His Holiness Patriarch Porfirije of the Serbian Orthodox Church arrived in New York City on Friday, February 16, for the start of his second primatial visit to America.

Pat. Porfirije and his entourage were greeted at JFK airport by Archpriest-Stavrophor Živojin Jakovljević, dean of the Cathedral of St. Sava in Manhattan, and Veljko Dobrilović, president of the parish council. He was also welcomed by Serbian children in traditional folk attire with bread and salt, reports the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Photo: spc.rs     

On Saturday, His Holiness visited St. Sava’s Cathedral, which was ravaged by fire on Pascha in 2016. He also visited the cathedral during his visit Patriarch Porfirije celebrates first Liturgy at fire-damaged NYC cathedral in 7 yearsAddressing the administration and faithful of the church, His Holiness called on them to remain faithful amidst their troubles, and even to increase their faith.

“>last year and celebrated the first Liturgy there in seven years.

He noted that considerable progress has been made over the past twelve months.

spc.rs     

His Holiness then celebrated the Divine Liturgy again in the cathedral on Sunday on the third anniversary of his primatial election.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

Sergei Seryubin at the relics of Blessed Andrew of Simbirsk   

The year 2003 raged on. It could be that the year was all smooth sailing for some of you, calmly gliding away, but it was truly stormy in the life of my family.

A wrongful trial for me,¹ the editor of the regional newspaper “Orthodox Simbirsk,” and the imminent danger of spending five years in prison.

I experienced restriction of travel away from my town, an endless series of hours-long interrogations in the local prosecutor’s office, and examinations by experts. Then more interrogations and examinations. It went on like that for a entire year.

Who is responsible for this? The Lord, of course! And I fully acknowledged it

But the Lord prevented it from happening.

I never expected to receive such powerful and comprehensive support! Nightly phone calls coming from everywhere from Kamchatka to Berlin with words of support. Dozens of money transfers by mail, an authorized rally of believers under the governor’s windows, and the prayerful support of Orthodox people throughout Russia.

Once in winter, a man carrying two sacks of potatoes showed up at the doorstep of our apartment. He had driven all the way from Chuvashia along those icy roads for us!

Our search for a defense lawyer resulted in a totally unexpected outcome—two prominent Russian lawyers from Moscow agreed to handle my criminal case absolutely for free! Although they charge tens of thousands of dollars for their services in the capital, they have occasionally provided financial support to our family.

Who gave us all this?! The Lord, of course! And I was fully aware of that. I came to Communion every week throughout that year and prayed in earnest.

***

We were prepared to fight the case for at least two or three years. However, everything was resolved much sooner. Under the “iron grip”, my lawyers convinced the law enforcement officials to put an end to my “case”. The believers among the locals provided powerful support. The decision was unexpected. In the ruling, they wrote, “due to the absence of a crime in the act.”

As a result, the judge reeled off the final document and shot out of the room; all we could see was her long black robe mournfully waving us goodbye at the doorway. She never worked as a judge again from that day onwards. The prosecutor’s office investigator also had to leave his position.

It was a triumph for all of us! We were exultant! The Lord heard our pleas for help and granted us victory!

***

The day of the uncovering of the relics of St. Andrew, 1998   

After I recovered from my feverish struggle, I looked at the church calendar and many things became clear to me. It was June 3, the fifth anniversary of the glorification and finding in Ulyanovsk of the holy relics of Blessed Andrew (Ogorodnikov), Fool-for-Christ and the miracle-worker of Simbirsk, our town’s heavenly patron saint!

In addition, it coincided with the commemoration day of Empress Helen, who is the patron saint of my wife. I alone knew how steadfastly and courageously she held on throughout that year.

Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God from the Church of the Burning Bush The feast of the The Vladimir Mother of GodThe Vladimir Mother of God

“>Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God is also celebrated on June 3. It so happened that a few years before that, one of the parishioners brought an ancient church icon of the Vladimir Mother of God to our local Burning Bush Church. During the years of militant atheism, their family safely kept it from desecration.

Over time, the icon’s background turned completely black and its beautiful enamel patterns became practically invisible. The priests chose to place the icon inside the altar instead of the church nave. Approximately six months before the end of my trial, the icon began to renew itself. The blackness on the background enamel began to disappear as if with the wave of someone’s hand, and the icon gradually appeared in its vibrant original form, right before the astonished priests’ eyes.

My friends bought a beautiful cross for this icon at the Sofrino factory near Moscow, knowing that this feast also fell on June 3. Ever since then, the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God is located, along with its cross, in the narthex of the church above the analogion for confessions.

St Andrew’s reproach

The monument to Blessed Andrew in Ulyanovsk. Scupltor: Igor Smirkin Ten days after my trial ended. My Orthodox friends decided to thank Blessed Andrew for his obvious assistance during my ordeal. They decided to commission our local wood carvers to carve a beautiful pectoral cross with decorations, to be placed over the saint’s tomb. A fundraiser was started for this cause.

One day, while I was busy going through town to meet my friends, I chanced upon Oleg, one of our fundraisers, who was hurriedly walking towards me.

Hello, Sergei! We are collecting money for the cross to be hung above the tomb of Blessed Andrew! Do you want to donate?

When I heard it, I felt equally moved and saddened. It was nice to hear about the ardent support of ordinary people. However, our family has been left practically penniless and I have not yet been offered a job.

I reached into my pocket. A solitary note rustled with a mournful sound. I took it out and looked at it, it was five hundred rubles.

I thought to myself, Not much for a family of four, as “To be sure,” sadly stated. Well, I would have gladly given him a hundred ruble note, but five hundred is too much.

After some consideration, I did give the money to Oleg. With a heavy heart. With much regret…

“Wow, Sergei,” Oleg said with surprise, “your offer was the most generous!”

I could only respond with a peevish and wry smile.

We parted ways and I continued walking. I was only ten minutes away from my friends’ place.

As soon as Natalia saw me at the door of her office, she pulled something out of her desk drawer and handed it to me, “Here, take it, please!”

I only saw that she had a five hundred-ruble note in her hand when I came a little closer! That red one, the very same one…

The streetlight shining from the window blinded me, making it difficult to see anything around me. Only when I came closer did I see that she was holding a five hundred-ruble note! The red one, that very same one…

She said resolutely, “Take it, Seryozha, it’s hard for you and Lena right now,”.

I felt something inside me snap. I sank down on the sofa and thought it over slowly.

““Doesn’t it strike you, my dear Sergei Vyacheslavovich,” I thought spitefully, ‘Did you just get a sharp smack on your head?’ A gentle, fatherly slap.

As a former editor of an Orthodox newspaper, I had known about this particular episode from St. Andrew’s life for seven years. And now I lived to see it materialize and try it on myself:

“Anytime an almsgiver regretted in his heart about a coin he offered to the blessed saint, Andrew would unmistakably locate it in his pocket among other coins and give it back to the giver.”²

I felt ashamed. But I did receive a first-rate lesson!

It has remained firmly in my memory for more than twenty years.

As the German bishops meet this week to advance their national reform process, the Vatican has threatened canonical action if they refuse to comply with an order to halt a vote on the statutes of a controversial new committee that had previously been disapproved.

As part of their current Feb. 19-22 general assembly in Augsburg, the roughly 60 members of the German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) attending were scheduled to address the results of their recently concluded “Synodal Path” reform process and vote on the statutes of a “Synodal Committee” that has the task of establishing a new national “Synodal Council.”

However, after receiving a new letter from the Vatican threatening punitive measures, the German bishops’ have apparently put that vote on hold.

A German-langue edition of the letter – dated Feb. 16 and signed by Vatican Secretary of State Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith Argentine Cardinal Victor Fernández, and Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for Bishops American Cardinal Robert Prevost – has been published on the DBK website.

According to an Italian translation of the letter published on Italian news site Settimana News, Parolin, Fernández and Prevost said it was necessary to “express some concerns” and “provide some indications” regarding the vote on the statutes of the Synodal Committee.

These indications, they said, “have been brought to the Holy Father and approved by him.”

Noting that the proposed statutes say the commission’s “first task” is to establish the Synodal Council, the Vatican said this kind of ecclesial body is “not foreseen by current canon law and therefore a resolution of the DBK in this sense would not be valid, with the related legal consequences.”

Citing specific articles of Canon Law, the Vatican said there is no basis for the Synodal Council as conceived by the DBK, “nor has a mandate been issued by the Holy See” to establish it.

“On the contrary, [the Holy See] has expressed itself to the contrary,” the letter says.

The idea for the Synodal Council, a governing body composed of both bishops and laypeople that would permanently oversee the church in Germany, was approved during the fourth plenary assembly of Germany’s “Synodal Path” in September 2022, with the purpose of making “fundamental decisions of supra-diocesan importance.”

That assembly also approved of a “Synodal Committee,” to be co-chaired by Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, and layperson, which had the specific task of establishing the Synodal Council so as to be active by 2026.

In January of last year, the heads of several Vatican major departments wrote a letter to the German bishops vetoing the Synodal Council on grounds that it constituted a new form of ecclesial authority not canonically recognized, and which would essentially usurp the authority of the national bishops’ conference.

In that letter, the Vatican said no bishop was obliged to take part in the Synodal Committee, and they insisted that the German church had no authority to establish a new canonical entity, such as the Synodal Council.

However, during the German bishops’ spring assembly a month later, in March 2023, Bätzing announced that plans would still move forward, and that the Synodal Committee would be formed regardless of the Vatican’s concerns.

Both the Vatican and Pope Francis have repeatedly directly intervened in the German bishops’ synodal process since it was launched in 2019, with the aim of reforming church structures to better respond to the national clerical abuse scandals.

Francis in June 2019 wrote a letter to German Catholics cautioning against placing too much emphasis on “purely structural or bureaucratic reforms.”

In a letter to German theologians and critics of the Synodal Path in November 2023, the pope criticized both the Synodal Council and the Synodal Committee, saying they “cannot be reconciled with the sacramental structure” of the church, and that the initiatives risk fracturing church unity.

The Vatican and the German bishops have organized regular meetings since the German bishops’ November 2022 ad limina visit to Rome, during which a moratorium was proposed for the German synodal process, to continue dialogue amid their disagreements, however, the bishops in the meantime have continued to advance the Synodal Council planning process.

When the Synodal Committee held its inaugural meeting in November 2023, participants approved its statutes, which among other things allows the body to pass resolutions with a simple two-thirds majority, unlike the Synodal Path, which required two-thirds support from both bishops and laypeople to pass resolutions.

With just 23 bishop-members on the committee, after four refused to participate, over half of the body’s 70 members are laypeople, meaning resolutions could theoretically be passed without the approval of any of the country’s bishops.

In its Feb. 16 letter, the Vatican noted that the statutes of the Synodal Committee state that they can only enter into force by a joint resolution of the DBK and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) – an influential lay body comprised of various Catholic organizations in Germany.

The statutes were approved by the ZdK shortly after the Synodal Committee’s November 2023 meeting.

However, the DBK resolution would be problematic, the Vatican said, because it “cannot act as a legal entity in the secular sphere.”

These and other problems were flagged during the German bishops’ 2022 ad limina visit, the Vatican said, noting that these concerns were reiterated in the letter sent by Vatican officials last January with the pope’s specific mandate “not to continue with the establishment of this council.”

“The approval of the statutes of the Synodal Committee would therefore be in contradiction to the instructions of the Holy See issued on the special commission of the Holy Father, and would once again present him with a fiat accompli,” the letter said.

In this regard, the Vatican noted that during a meeting last October, it was decided that the topic of a “supra-diocesan consultative and decision-making body” such as the Synodal Council would be discussed during the next meeting between the DBK and Vatican officials.

“If the statutes of the Synodal Committee are adopted before this meeting, the question arises as to the meaning of this meeting and, more generally, of the ongoing dialogue process,” the letter said.

The Vatican asked the DBK to take the contents of the letter into consideration and voiced hope that the letter would also be considered during the DBK’s general assembly this week.

A spokesman for the bishops’ conference told German agency KNA confirmed that a meeting between members of the Roman Curia and the DBK is currently on the schedule but did not disclose when that meeting would take place.

The Synodal Committee is currently scheduled to hold its second plenary meeting in June, however, it is unclear if that meeting will in fact be held given the Vatican’s most recent letter.

Cairo, February 19, 2024

Pat. Theodoros of Alexandria. Photo: Romfea The Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria ruled on Friday, February 16, to defrock the Russian Orthodox Church’s second African Exarch.

After an extensive discussion on “the issue of the Russian Church’s encroachment on the spiritual and pastoral jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria on the African continent,” the Holy Synod resolved to defrock His Grace Bishop Konstantin of Zaraisk, according to the Synodal report published by Romfea.

The report states that Bp. Konstantin, who was appointed acting Patriarchal Exarch of Africa by the Russian Holy Synod on Head of Russian Church’s African Exarchate released from his positionMetropolitan Leonid of Klin, who was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church’s African Exarchate from the time it was established in December 2021, was released from this position yesterday by the Russian Holy Synod.

“>October 11, had settled for some time in Cairo, on the territory of the Archdiocese of Alexandria, where he committed a series of canonical offenses, including “encroachment on the jurisdiction of an ancient throne, distribution of antimensia, buying off native clergy, even defrocked clergy, factionalism, ethno-phyletism, etc.”

Bp. Konstantin commented simply: “The fact of the matter is that I am a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. I am subordinate to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia as his vicar and to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church as any of its bishops.”

Recall that the Alexandrian Synod ruled to defrock the first African Exarch, Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, in Patriarch Theodoros stops commemorating Patriarch Kirill, Russian Exarch declared defrocked by AlexandriaToday’s decision from Alexandria marks the first time another primate has ceased commemorating Pat. Kirill.

“>November 2022 for the same offenses, though the Russian Church formally Russian Synod rejects Alexandria’s defrocking of Russian hierarch and clergyDue to Pat. Theodoros’ communion with schismatics and “proceeding from the universally recognized principle rooted in the canons and Tradition of the non-jurisdiction of the clergy of one autocephalous Church to the court of another autocephalous Church,” the Russian Holy Synod ruled yesterday to consider the defrocking of Met. Leonid and the other Russian clergy “as having no canonical force and invalid.””>rejects this decision. However, he was recently released from all his positions by the Russian Synod and awaits ecclesiastical trial for irregularities connected with his release from the All Saints Church in Moscow that serves as the headquarters for the Exarchate and the handing over of control to his successor.

Patriarchate of Alexandria rules to defrock two Russian priestsThe priests were tried in absentia. Fr. Andrei has already returned to Russia, while Fr. George remains in Africa but did not appear at the trial.

“>In February 2022, the Alexandrian Synod also ruled to defrock Archpriests George Maximov and Andrei Novikov, the two most active priests of the Russian Exarchate in Africa.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

The second assembly of the Synod of Bishops on synodality will meet Oct. 2-27 and will be preceded by several formal studies coordinated by the synod general secretariat working with various offices of the Roman Curia.

The Vatican announced the dates for the assembly Feb. 17, indicating that the desire of some synod members to spend less time in Rome was not accepted. The fall assembly will be preceded by a retreat for members Sept. 30-Oct. 1, the Vatican said.

And in response to a formal call by members of the first assembly of the synod, Pope Francis has agreed to the establishment of “study groups that will initiate, with a synodal method, the in-depth study of some of the themes that emerged.”

In a chirograph, or brief papal document, released Feb. 17, the pope said that “these study groups are to be established by mutual agreement between the competent dicasteries of the Roman Curia and the General Secretariat of the Synod, which is entrusted with coordination.”

However, the papal note did not list the topics to be studied nor the members of the groups. The synod office said it hoped the approved groups and their members could be announced by mid-March.

Pope Francis’ note focused on the obligation of the offices of the Roman Curia to work with the synod since both bodies, though distinct, are established “to promote in a synodal spirit the mutual relations of the bishops and of the particular Churches over which they preside, among themselves and in communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

In their synthesis report at the end of the first synod assembly, members voted to ask Pope Francis for several studies before the 2024 assembly, including on “the terminological and conceptual understanding of the notion and practice of synodality” itself; and another study on “the canonical implications of synodality,” conducted by “an intercontinental special commission of theological and canonical experts.”

Synod members also called for further theological study on the permanent diaconate and said, “theological and pastoral research on the access of women to the diaconate should be continued, benefiting from consideration of the results of the commissions specially established by the Holy Father, and from the theological, historical and exegetical research already undertaken.”

“If possible,” members said, “the results of this research should be presented to the next session of the assembly.”

After a request of the women’s International Union of Superiors General, Pope Francis established a commission to study the historic identity and role of women deacons. The commission worked from 2016 to 2019, and the pope gave a report on it to the superiors general, but it was not made public. He set up a second commission in 2020 after the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon; its results have not been published either.

The assembly of the synod on synodality also said, “We believe the time has come for a revision of the 1978 document ‘Mutuae Relationes,’ regarding the relationships between bishops and religious in the Church. We propose that this revision be completed in a synodal manner, consulting all involved.”

On several occasions after his election in 2013, Pope Francis said he had asked the dicastery for religious to revise “Mutuae Relationes,” a set of directives issued jointly with the then-Congregation for Bishops in 1978 to provide guidance to bishops and religious in their relationship. Pope Francis has said the norms need revision to ensure religious are not treated simply as employees or human resources for a diocese and to ensure that the orders’ autonomy does not lead them to activities in conflict with a local church.

The synod assembly also called for “a thorough review of formation for ordained ministry in view of the missionary and synodal dimensions of the Church.” Assembly members said that involves “reviewing the ‘Ratio Fundamentalis’ that determines how formation is structured.”

The “Ratio Fundamentalis” was last updated in late 2016 and provides guidelines for preparing men for the Latin-rite priesthood and ensuring their continuing education, training and support.

Kiev, February 19, 2024

Photo: news.church.ua     

On Friday, February 16, the press service of the Holy Dormition-Kiev Caves Lavra published a statement in response to a propagandistic report that Ukrainian authorities sent to the United Nations to justify and deny its persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In its statement, the Lavra explains the government’s deceptions and describes the truth of the situation surrounding the Lavra and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a whole.

The statement reads in full:

On January 22, 2024, the state of Ukraine, represented by its ministries and agencies, responded to the communication statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Conscience and Religion, the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association regarding cases of violations of the rights of believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including:

• the issues pertaining to ownership of churches and buildings of the Kiev Caves Lavra;

• the existence of coercion or discriminatory influence upon the monks living at the Lavra;

• the legality, reasonableness, and necessity of taking decisions to deprive the Holy Dormition Monastery of the UOC of the right to use churches and other property;

• manifestations of hatred and the actual investigation into cases of violations of the rights of UOC believers by the law enforcement system of Ukraine.

Having examined the response by the ministries and agencies of Ukraine, we, the monks of the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves Lavra / Men’s Monastery / of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, cannot but conclude that this response contains inaccurate information, is incomplete, and attests attempts by the Government of Ukraine, represented by the relevant ministries, to conceal the facts of violations of the rights of believers of the UOC and to mislead members of the international community.

The assertions made by the state of Ukraine, represented by the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine, that the history of the use of the Kiev Caves Lavra (hereinafter also referred to as “the Lavra”) by the men’s monastery of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (hereinafter also referred to as “the Monastery”) began in 2013, with the conclusion of the Agreement No. 2 of 19 July 2013 on the Free Use of Religious Buildings and Other State-Owned Property by a Religious Organization, are not true.

The Monastery has owned the Lavra, has been present thereat, and has been using its buildings not since 2013, but for about 1,000 years, since its founding in 1051 by the monks Anthony and Theodosius in the caves near the summer princely residence of Berestove near Kiev.

Only in the 20th century, in the times of the Soviet Union, was the Lavra transferred into state ownership under state acts.

The year 1988 became the year of the monastery’s revival, and in 1988 and in the 1990s, several legal acts were adopted to transfer the Lavra to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, with the right of the Church to restore, conserve, and repair the transferred buildings and structures, as well as to improve the territory whereon they are located. These permits have not been cancelled to date and are in force.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that all the legal acts on the transfer of property and agreements on the transfer of churches and other buildings to religious organizations of the UOC for free use were based on the principle of restitution (return) of Church property previously confiscated by the Soviet authorities.

In particular, this principle was enshrined in the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” of April 23, 1991. The presidential decree dated 4 March 1992 No. 125/92 “On Measures to Return Religious Property to Religious Organizations” provided for the transfer of religious buildings to religious communities throughout 1992-1993 in the form of ownership or free use.

Later, the Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the Protection of the Property of Religious Communities No. 1556 (2002) suggested that religious institutions whose property had been nationalized in the past should be guaranteed restitution of this property within a certain period of time, or, if it was not possible, fair compensation, and that care should be taken to prevent the privatization of nationalized Church property (paragraph 8).

Thus, state bodies of Ukraine were obliged to take measures for transferring religious buildings and structures to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on an irreversible basis, as required by the principle of restitution, which, in turn, rules out depriving the Monastery of the Lavra, terminating the relevant use agreements, and returning the Lavra into state ownership.

Pursuant to Order No. 651 dated 16 July 2013 by the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine, the National Kiev-Pechersk Historical and Cultural Preserve and the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves Lavra (Men’s Monastery) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church concluded Agreement No. 2 dated 19 July 2013 on the Free Use of Religious Buildings and Other State-Owned Property by a Religious Organization.

So, this Agreement was concluded before the restitution, before the return of the religious property into the ownership by the Monastery.

It means that the state of Ukraine was supposed to carry out restitution of church buildings and property, but instead entered into an indefinite Agreement on the use of the Lavra by the Monastery, and later not only initiated its unjustified termination, clearly on political motives, but also resorted to outright persecution of the UOC and all her organizations in Ukraine.

Thus, by Decree No. 820/2022 dated 1 December 2022 by the President of Ukraine, the decision by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine was enacted, according to which the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in general, and the Monastery in particular, were deliberately, without trial and investigation, recognized as religious organizations affiliated with centers of influence in the Russian Federation, as well as guilty of subversive activities. A specific task was set—to evict the monks from the Monastery, and this task began to be implemented.

The deprivation of the Monastery of the right to use the Lavra was accompanied by harassment of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in general and the Monastery in particular both in the mass media and by high-ranking officials and state bodies. They repeatedly and systematically made public statements such as that the UOC is an “enemy Moscow Church,” she has no place in Ukraine, and the Monastery should be freed from “Moscow priests.”

The Monastery is a Church institution at which a male community lives and operates, consisting of monastic men united by vows of chastity, selflessness, and obedience, who have devoted themselves to prayer, work, and devout life. Currently, 144 monks and 20 novices live in the monastery, and Ukrainian state bodies are trying to unlawfully evict them.

Draft laws to ban the activities of the UOC have been registered at the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Ukrainian Parliament).

On 1 December 2022, another religious denomination, the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” which is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, registered a religious organization called “The Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Lavra” as a monastery within the OCU. In January 2023, the authorities ensured that the first divine services of the OCU denomination were held at the Lavra’s Dormition Cathedral, which used to belong to the UOC Monastery. In February 2023, the authorities ensured that services of the OCU denomination were held at the Lavra’s Refectory Church, which also formerly belonged to the UOC Monastery. Officials of state bodies informed the mass media that divine services at the Lavra’s churches would thenceforth be allowed to be held by denominations upon approval and under the control of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy.

Seizures of UOC churches in favor of the OCU, including with the use of violence, which are, in fact, raider seizures, have already been going on for a few years, and the state does not respond to them in any way, but rather seems to encourage them.

In December 2022, personal sanctions were imposed on the Abbot of the Monastery, Metropolitan Pavel of Vyshhorod and Chornobyl (Petro Dmitrovich Lebed), without a court decision, in violation of the Constitution of Ukraine. He has been banned from using any assets and forbidden from carrying out a number of other actions, which effectively makes it impossible for him to properly perform his functions as Abbot.

Also, criminal proceedings No. 22021000000000185 of June 8, 2021 were initiated against Metropolitan Pavel for allegedly committing criminal offences under Part 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine) and Part 2 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (incitement of religious enmity). The case No. 757/47508/23-k on bringing him to criminal responsibility is currently being considered by the Pechersk District Court of Kiev.

Despite the absence of reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence, Metropolitan Pavel was subjected to measures of restraint during the pre-trial investigation: round-the-clock house arrest (from 01 April 2023 to 14 July 2023), detention (from July 14, 2023 to August 7, 2023), and bail. At present, Metropolitan Pavel is under an obligation not to leave the settlement wherein he lives (the village of Voronkev, Kiev Province).

At the same time, similar reports from the UOC and the Monastery, filed in relation to numerous facts of obvious deliberate actions by members of the OCU, so-called “OCU activists,” and state and public figures aimed at inciting actual religious enmity and hatred, at humiliating national honor and dignity, and at insulting citizens’ feelings in respect to their religious convictions, as well as to facts of torture of people and commission of violent acts, are left without response and are not investigated by the law enforcement agencies of Ukraine. Such reports are often not even registered on the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.

The above-mentioned Decree No. 820/2022 dated 1 December 2022 by the President of Ukraine also initiated a so-called “religious examination” (the methodology for which is not set forth in any legal act of Ukraine) concerning the UOC. Predictably, the UOC has been recognized as having ties with and controlled by the Moscow Patriarchate without any grounds. The results of this examination are presently being challenged in court.

The above actions of the state of Ukraine contradict a number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter also referred to as “the ECHR”) on the inadmissibility of state interference in the activities of the Church and the inadmissibility of persecution of religious organizations and discrimination against some religious organizations in relation to others (Les témoins de Jéhovah de Moscou v. Russia; Centre biblique de la république de Tchouvachie v. Russia, § 54; Leela Förderkreis e. V. et al. v. Germany, § 84; Sviato-Mykhaïlivska Parafiya v. Ukraine, § 150; Lautsi et al. v. Italy [GC], § 60; Église métropolitaine de Bessarabie et al. v. Moldova, § 117; Vergos vs. Greece, § 34, and other cases).

Ukraine, while declaring its desire to join the European Union, does not comply with even the basic principles of the rule of law and does not implement judgments of the ECHR, which are a source of law in Ukraine.

The refusal of the state of Ukraine to extend the contractual relations for the use of the Lavra and the early termination of the Agreement in an attempt to evict the monks of the Monastery is a violation of the above-mentioned decisions of the ECHR, for the Monastery is the owner of the Lavra and has the right of “legitimate expectation” that the property use agreements will be prolonged as an integral part of the property right—until the issue of the restitution of this object and its return to the Monastery is resolved.

At present, court proceedings are underway to challenge the unlawful eviction of the Monastery from the Lavra, the court decisions have not come into effect, and the consideration of the appeals against them are ongoing.

Based on the foregoing, in connection with numerous violations of the right to freedom of conscience and religion in Ukraine and the discriminatory policies towards believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves Lavra / Men’s Monastery / of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has decided to:

1. Publish this statement as a refutation of the information given by ministries and agencies of Ukraine on 22 January 2024, which was provided to the UN Special Rapporteurs as a response to their communication statement AL UKR 1/23.

2. Bring to the attention of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of conscience and religion, the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association the position of the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves Lavra / Men’s Monastery / of Ukrainian Orthodox Church regarding the inaccurate and discriminatory nature of the information provided by the ministries and agencies of Ukraine.

3. Appeal to international human rights organizations, including the human rights association Church Against Xenophobia and Religious Discrimination and the non-governmental organization Public Advocacy with the initiative to organize an information campaign and legal proceedings for protecting the rights of the residents and believers of the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves Lavra / Men’s Monastery / of Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the international level, given the numerous facts of manifestations of hatred and of a systematic persecution of hierarchs and believers of the UOC and the ineffectiveness of the investigation by the law enforcement system of Ukraine into reports filed by clergymen and believers of the Holy Dormition Kiev Caves Lavra / Men’s Monastery / of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on offences committed against them.

Follow OrthoChristian on Twitter, Vkontakte, Telegram, WhatsApp, MeWe, and Gab!

If Christ is near, death is defeated

The Revelation of the Apostle John is the last book of the New Testament. The New Testament is not one book, but a collection of twenty-seven books. The last book, the Revelation of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, was also the last to be written. It’s a prophetic text that speaks about future events, about events that are taking place, and about events that have already happened, explaining them in a peculiar way, through images, visions, inspiration, and the use of symbols. The holy Apostle John, while on Patmos, saw what God showed him. If you’ve been to the island of Patmos, you know there is still the cave where the Apostle John, while in prayer, saw the revelation described in the book of Revelation.

The cave of the Revelation, Patmos, Greece     

The word “apocalypse” means “to remove the veil from that which is hidden, that which is in darkness, that which is covered.” It’s the appearance of things, events, and messages that God wants to convey to man. And this revelation was given by God to the Apostle John because we needed to know it. Why do we need to know it? The path of this world is linear; it leads to an end. Christ told us about the end of the world; He told the world that it will end one day.

Certain events and signs will occur before the end, and it’s important for us Christians to be very attentive: Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation (Mt. 26:41). This is the message of Christ. Why is He talking about temptation? Because the closer we get to the end, the more false christs and false prophets will appear. Heresies will multiply, and many people will appear posing as prophets, people of God, saints, and those who receive messages from God.

What will all these false prophets be looking for? They will draw the people after themselves. It’s very dangerous, because it’s not just bodily harm. For example, someone can kill us, they can chop off our heads. This evil will affect only our body. Sooner or later, we’re going to die. If they cut our heads off a few years earlier, the world won’t collapse. But if we lose our soul, that’s eternal destruction. If we’re tempted, it’s for all eternity. It’s better for a man to die, to harm his body, than to lose his soul. But false prophets, false christs, false messiahs seek to destroy our souls, to lead us astray from the true path.

The pursuit of truth isn’t some kind of ideology—it’s the Church. Christ made His Church the pillar and ground of truth (Tim. 3:15). The Body of Christ is the Church (all of us, not just the bishops, priests, and deacons), just as the Apostles and saints organized and handed it down to us. And the Church is the keeper of the truth, the keeper of the books of the New Testament. But the books of the New Testament have no value unless their truth is sealed by the Church. The Church chose twenty-seven books and said they contain the truth, and they constitute the God-inspired books of Holy Scripture.

In the epistles of St. Athanasios the Great, we read that, according to the decisions of the Councils of bishops of the Church taking place at that time, many books of Holy Scripture (a few in particular, including Revelation) weren’t accepted by individual Local Churches. Some of the Local Churches believed that the Revelation of St. John the Theologian didn’t belong to the collection of the books of the New Testament, like the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews. Nowhere does it say that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, or that the Gospel of Mark was written by the Apostle Mark. It was the Church that sealed that this text belongs to St. Mark, this one to St. John, this one to St. Paul. The Church established this.

There have been heresies since the first year after the Ascension of the Lord to Heaven and the beginning of the Apostolic preaching. The heretics tried to remake Apostolic Tradition according to their own perception and way of thinking. What did they do? They wrote texts and said this text was written, for example, by the Apostle Paul. And in those times, how could they figure out who wrote it? They signed it from St. Paul, from St. John, from St. Thomas, and offered them to Christians—the so-called apocryphal gospels that everyone’s afraid of.

The apocryphal gospels are mainly texts written by heretics, mostly Gnostics (a heresy in the early years of the Church’s existence, which greatly confused people at those times). They wrote texts, signing them with the names of the Apostles—St. James, St. Thomas, St. Paul, and distributed them among Christians, causing great confusion. Christians did not know the precise authorship of many texts.. Are they true? Are they authentic? It was a mess. The Church said then: “We accept as true only those texts that were written by the disciples of Christ, based on the view of the disciples of the Apostles.” There were disciples of the Apostles who were still alive then—St. Polycarp, St. Ignatios, and other successors of the Apostles who know what their teachers spoke about.

Today we often hear nonsense and even blasphemy attributed to St. Paisios. I lived by him for sixteen years and never heard such things from him. But someone who came to him once, or maybe didn’t even see him, is writing all kinds of stuff about him. But those of us who were close to him, listened to him, and knew what he spoke about, can judge whether Elder Paisios said all these absurdities that are attributed to him. Even during his lifetime people would come and say, “Elder Paisios said the war will start in three days!” He didn’t say anything like that, but these words were passed around orally.

St. Paisios     

Once a man came to him and said: “Geronda, in Athens we heard that the war is starting. Is that true?”

“Okay, and what are you thinking about doing if a war breaks out?”

“It’d be good to know if a war is starting. Then we’d go buy more of everything.”

“What do you plan to buy?”

“Milk, salt.”

“My dear, if the war starts, you’re going to go drink milk? Are you going to go cook something to eat? If a war breaks out, your mind’s going to turn to food and you’re going to rejoice that your cupboards are full? And if you don’t stock up on anything, will you feel like you’re in danger? What are you thinking?”

People often distorted the meaning of his words. One time a man came and visited him and said in their diocese they had such and such a bishop. The Elder said he knew him. Then this man went to the bishop and said,“I went to Elder Paisios and he said he knows you, and how wonderful you are!” But the Elder didn’t say anything like that.

Another time, a monk, a bit of a loafer, simple, intrusive, somewhat rude, came to see him in his kallyvia. He came and sat with Geronda for hours. The Elder got upset and asked him: “Since you have no questions, give me ten minutes to be in silence and pray.” The monk continued to sit and ask him about the weather, whether it would rain, whether the tomatoes would grow, whether the grapes would ripen. Did Geronda have time for such things? But he didn’t want to upset the monk. Then he invited him to go to church together and read the Psalter. The monk sat down in the church and the Elder went to read the Psalter. He only had one lung, so from time to time he would stop to take a deep breath. A man came up to the window of the church, and the Elder indicated to him to wait a little. This lazy monk left and then sent the Elder a letter. Listen to what he wrote: “It wasn’t enough for you that you kept me at your place for so many hours, I lost so much of my time, but you also considered me to be possessed, took me to the church to read the Psalter over me, and then threatened me.”

Now it’s easy to make a statement, to tell people that you have nothing to do with this person, this theory, this news. You can inform society through the internet, radio, television, newspapers, and defend the truth. In the time of the Apostles, there was a serious problem in the Church until the era of St. Basil the Great: Heretics would write something, sign it with the names of saints, distribute their texts amongst the faithful, and this caused great confusion.

Book of Leviticus, fragments of a second-century manuscript The Church said: “We accept nothing but what the Apostles, their successors, and the disciples of their successors taught us.” Thus appeared what the Church calls Apostolic Tradition. Who were the eyewitnesses of Christ? The Apostles. What the Apostles said is correct. Thus it was possible to gather the teachings of the Church and determine the canons of truth of the texts of Sacred Scripture. People could say these books are true, authentic, God-bearing, they make up the New and Old Testaments.

In this way, the Church resolved this difficult problem, which found its final conclusion in the epistles of St. Athanasios the Great. This is one of the answers to Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and everyone who says today: “We recognize only the Holy Scriptures, but not the Church and its Tradition.” But what are they saying? The Sacred Scriptures were determined by the Church, whichsaid that they were Divinely inspired. St. Athanasios and the assembly of bishops said it. So how can you accept only the books that the Church chose while rejecting the Church itself? It’s absurd. The Church has established the authority and truth of Scripture. The Church is the seal of truth. The Church puts its seal on what is true and does not recognize what is false or falsified. The only reliable way of understanding and distinguishing what Christ said to us about false prophets, false messiahs, and false christs is the Church, the ark of truth and salvation.

To be continued…