Holy Apostolic SeeUnited Roman-Ruthenian Church

News of the Holy Apostolic See

Il Nunzio Romano-Ruteno

Римско-Русскій Вѣстникъ

The Roman-Ruthenian Herald is the journalistic service of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia.

Saturday, October 17, 2026

Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia Calls G20 Leaders to Measure Power by Service

Roman-Ruthenian statement issued as the 2026 G20 Interfaith Forum concludes in Salt Lake City

By Staff 

ROME-RUTHENIA, 17 October 2026 (NRom)

His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia has issued a wide-ranging statement to the leaders of the Group of Twenty, calling upon the world’s most powerful governments to exercise political, economic and technological power in the service of the human person and the common good. Entitled The Measure of Power Is Service, the statement was addressed to the heads of state and government of the G20 and “to all people of good will” in advance of the 2026 G20 Leaders’ Summit, scheduled for December 14–15 in Miami. The statement comes as religious leaders, scholars and policymakers conclude the 2026 G20 Interfaith Forum in Salt Lake City, Utah, held October 15–17 under the theme “Resilient Hope, Shared Future.”

At the heart of the message is a simple warning: humanity’s extraordinary material and technological capabilities have not necessarily been accompanied by a corresponding growth in moral wisdom. “Our age possesses powers that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined,” His Holiness writes, pointing to advances in medicine, agriculture, communications, science and industry. Yet war, human trafficking, hunger, displacement and exploitation continue despite the resources available to address them.

“The deepest crisis before the nations is therefore not principally technological or financial,” the Pope declares. “Rather, it is moral and spiritual.”

A message alongside the G20 Interfaith Forum

The statement comes as religious leaders, scholars and policymakers gather in Salt Lake City, Utah, for the 2026 G20 Interfaith Forum, held October 15–17 under the theme “Resilient Hope, Shared Future.” His Holiness had been invited to participate in this year’s Forum as a religious leader, but was unable to attend because of other commitments. 

The G20 Interfaith Forum, commonly known as IF20, was established to bring religious and faith-informed perspectives into discussions surrounding the G20 process. It is not a formal G20 engagement group, but operates as an independent and informally linked forum through which religious leaders, scholars, civil-society representatives and policymakers consider questions that also confront G20 governments. IF20 describes its work as bringing faith-informed insights to global policymaking through dialogue, research and practical recommendations.

The 2026 Forum has focused particularly on questions connected with economic growth and the common good, energy security and the human future in an age of artificial intelligence. Its discussions are intended to contribute recommendations to the wider G20 conversation ahead of the leaders’ meeting later this year.

Issued by Pope Radislav on behalf of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the papal statement addresses many of the same questions occupying this year’s gathering. The statement addresses peace and the moral limits of military power, sovereign debt and international trade, human trafficking, religious freedom, public health, artificial intelligence, education, family life, energy policy and stewardship of creation. Throughout these subjects, the Pope applies a consistent principle: institutions and technologies must be judged according to whether they protect the dignity of the human person and serve the common good.

“Govern as those who must give an account”

The culminating theme of His Holiness's statement is accountability. Political authority, wealth and technological power are not possessions to be exercised without restraint, the Pope says, but trusts for which their holders must ultimately answer before God.

“To the leaders of the G20,” he writes, “remember that the decisions made in halls of government enter homes you will never see and affect persons whose names you will never know.”

He urges leaders to allow prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance to govern political decisions and warns against confusing technological possibility with moral legitimacy or immediate political advantage with the lasting common good.

The title of the statement is drawn from that larger Christian understanding of authority. Christ taught that greatness is found in service, His Holiness observes, and the principle applies not only to personal spirituality but also to public power. “Authority is a sacred trust,” he writes. “Our Lord taught that those who would be greatest must become servants.”

The statement closes not with confidence in political institutions or inevitable human progress, but with Christian hope.

“No economic system will save mankind. No technological achievement will abolish sin. No international institution can establish the Kingdom of God by administrative means,” Pope Radislav writes. “Our hope is in Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

His Holiness concludes by praying that the deliberations surrounding the G20 will be governed by “wisdom rather than ambition, justice rather than advantage, and peace rather than vengeance,” and that those entrusted with great power will remember that they remain servants beneath the sovereignty of God.

____________________

FULL STATEMENT TEXT:  

Радислав Пп. I

THE MEASURE OF POWER IS SERVICE

A Statement of His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy
Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia
To the Heads of State and Government of the Group of Twenty and to All People of Good Will
In Advance of the 2026 G20 Leaders’ Summit

Peace be unto you.

     The leaders of the world’s principal economies will shortly assemble in Miami for the 2026 Summit of the Group of Twenty. They will meet at a moment marked at once by extraordinary human achievement and grave moral danger.

     Our age possesses powers that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined. Knowledge crosses continents almost instantaneously. Medicine has conquered diseases that once brought terror to whole peoples. Human ingenuity has increased the productivity of agriculture, extended communication, transformed industry, and opened new possibilities in science and technology. The nations represented at the G20 command immense material, financial, military, and technological resources. Humanity already possesses many of the means by which hunger may be relieved, disease treated, human labour made fruitful, and suffering diminished. Yet the possession of power is not the same thing as wisdom.

     War continues to destroy cities and families. Men, women, and children are displaced from their homes. Human beings are trafficked and sold. Many labour beneath burdens of debt they can scarcely sustain. Hunger persists amid abundance. The unborn, the elderly, the disabled, the poor, the refugee, the prisoner, and all who possess little worldly influence remain especially vulnerable whenever political or economic calculation is separated from moral responsibility. The deepest crisis before the nations is therefore not principally technological or financial. Rather, it is moral and spiritual. 

     Indeed, whenever power is separated from truth, economic life from justice, liberty from responsibility, technology from wisdom, or political authority from the law of God, even achievements that are good in themselves may become instruments of disorder. The Church possesses the duty to remind rulers and peoples alike that no earthly power is absolute, that man is not the measure of good and evil, and that every authority will answer before God for the manner in which it has been exercised. The greater the power entrusted to a nation, the greater is its responsibility.

I. The Human Person and the Moral Order

     Every just social order must begin with the truth about man. The human person is not merely a consumer, worker, voter, taxpayer, migrant, patient, soldier, or unit of production. Man is created in the image and likeness of God. He possesses a rational soul and is called not only to temporal flourishing but ultimately to eternal life. Human dignity is therefore neither invented nor bestowed by the state. It is not conferred by wealth, usefulness, health, intelligence, nationality, or social approval. It comes from the Creator. For this reason, the person must never be reduced to an instrument of political ambition, commercial gain, ideological experimentation, or technological efficiency.

     We must, therefore, remind the governments of the world that the very concept of government exists for the common good. Likewise, economic life exists for man, not man for economic life. Property justly held is legitimate, but possession carries duties. Commerce itself can be noble, but motives of profit cannot absolve injustice. Science is a great good, and indeed its legitimate advance is supported by the Church. Authentic faith has nothing to fear from honest scientific inquiry, for God is the author both of creation and of revelation; conflict arises when either theology or science claims authority beyond its proper competence. The technical possibilities of a particular time and place cannot determine the moral legitimacy of an action. And, freedom so variously defined and so widely invoked is precious. Genuine freedom is ordered toward truth and the good; it is not mere emancipation from every restraint. It is the ability to do what we should rightly do. 

     We must also recall that the first communities of human life are not created by the state. The family, founded upon the marriage of man and woman and ordered toward the mutual good of the spouses and the generation and education of any children, precedes political society. Governments therefore act unjustly when economic or social policies weaken the family, usurp the rightful authority of parents, or make the raising of children increasingly burdensome.

     A sound economy should enable men and women to form households, raise children, care for ageing parents, practise their faith, obtain useful work, and possess sufficient security to exercise the responsibilities proper to free persons. Economic decisions made by those in power in distant offices eventually reach the kitchen table, the workshop, the hospital ward, and the family home. Thus we must remember that the health of a civilisation cannot be measured by production alone, but by its effects upon persons, families, and communities.

II. Peace and the Restraint of Power

     Among the first temporal duties of rulers is the preservation of a just peace. The Church has never taught that peace means the absence of all conflict at any cost. Peoples possess a right to legitimate defence, and civil authority may be obliged to protect the innocent against unjust aggression. Yet the use of armed force remains subject to moral law. Neither national interest nor military advantage can make intrinsically evil acts good.

     Among these restraints are that civilians may not be deliberately targeted and prisoners may not be tortured. Hatred never becomes virtuous because it wears a uniform and proclaims patriotic slogans. Likewise, unjust vengeance must not masquerade as justice as it so often does. 

     The wars afflicting various regions of the world should awaken not triumphalism but sorrow, prayer, and an untiring search for a just settlement. Diplomacy must not be regarded as cowardice, nor negotiation as a prize to be offered only after one’s opponent has been humiliated. At the same time, diplomacy must not become a guise for manipulation or a trap laid to deceive. Negotiations undertaken in bad faith do not serve peace. 

     The nations of the G20 should labour for the protection of civilians, medical workers, refugees, prisoners, seafarers, and humanitarian personnel; for the security of international navigation and civilian infrastructure; and against the use of food, medicine, water, and other necessities of life as weapons against populations. No Christian may forget the words of Our Lord: Blessed are the peacemakers. Peacemaking, however, demands more than sentiment. It requires justice, courage, patience, truthful speech, and the refusal to surrender the soul to hatred.

III. Economic Life, Property, and the Poor

     The Church condemns neither wealth nor enterprise. Honest commerce, private property, investment, craftsmanship, agriculture, and entrepreneurship may all serve the common good. Through them, families are sustained, useful goods are produced, and nations prosper. Yet, property requires stewardship. That stewardship must look beyond the present generation, refusing to sacrifice enduring goods for short-term selfish gain.

     We must also remind the world that the rich man is not an absolute master of what he possesses. The employer may not treat labour merely as a commodity, nor deprive workers of their just wages, an injustice that is truly a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance. Similarly, the state may not absorb every economic activity into itself. Overall, we must remember that the marketplace cannot be treated as though its outcomes were morally self-justifying. Both collectivism and an economic individualism detached from moral restraint misunderstand the human person. The former sacrifices the person to the state; the latter can sacrifice him to appetite and profit.

     Thus, a sound social order protects private property while remembering its social obligations. It defends enterprise while restraining fraud and exploitation. It honours workers without setting class against class, and it assists those in genuine need without unnecessarily destroying personal responsibility, family obligation, local association, or initiative.

     Also, particular attention should be given to the crushing burdens of sovereign debt borne by poorer nations. Financial obligations are real, and justice requires that debts not be lightly dismissed. Yet financial arrangements also become morally disordered when debt service makes it practically impossible for a nation to provide elementary food, medicine, sanitation, education, or infrastructure to its people. Similarly, richer countries commit grave moral error when they arrange international rules in their own favour and exploit weaker nations under a false banner of fairness. This must be remembered by the nations of the G20, to whom much has been entrusted. Creditors and debtors alike have duties in justice. Transparency, honesty, restraint, and responsibility are required on both sides.

     The same principles should guide international trade. Food, fertiliser, medicine, and other necessities should never casually become instruments by which the innocent are punished for political purposes. The command of Christ concerning the hungry, the naked, the stranger, and the sick is not an optional adornment to Christian morality. The corporal works of mercy remain binding. A world rich enough to waste food on a vast scale cannot regard widespread starvation with a clear conscience.

IV. Human Trafficking and the Defence of the Vulnerable

     Among the darkest evils of our age is the buying, selling, coercion, and exploitation of human beings. Trafficking, forced labour, sexual exploitation, and the abuse of the displaced cry out to Heaven for vengeance. They flourish especially where war, corruption, poverty, organised crime, and the dissolution of moral restraints converge. Civil authorities have a grave duty to prosecute traffickers, confiscate the proceeds of their crimes, devote those proceeds where possible to restitution and victim assistance, and protect victims rather than treating them merely as offenders or inconveniences. Businesses likewise bear responsibility for the conditions under which their goods are produced. Cheapness obtained through slavery is not an economic achievement.

     The home also must be protected from violence. No appeal to family honour, reputation, political loyalty, or social embarrassment can justify concealing serious abuse. Authority exists to protect those entrusted to it. The true defence of the family therefore requires fidelity, chastity, sacrifice, paternal and maternal responsibility, protection of children, care for the elderly, and justice toward every vulnerable member of the household.

V. Religious Freedom and the Rights of the Church

     Among the fundamental duties of civil authority is respect for the rightful freedom of religion. Man has duties toward God that no state may usurp. The state must therefore neither compel religious belief nor prevent the Church from carrying out those works which belong properly to her mission. The faithful must remain free to worship God, teach the faith, establish churches and charitable institutions, educate their children according to conscience, and bear public witness to moral truth.

     Yet, religious liberty does not mean that all religious claims are equally true. Truth and error do not possess the same rights in themselves. However, persons possess dignity, and authentic faith cannot be produced by coercion. The civil order must therefore seek peace and justice without pretending that religious conviction is merely a private preference to be hidden from public life. Our own Roman-Ruthenian inheritance bears witness to the possibility of legitimate diversity within true communion. Unity does not demand the extinction of every distinction.

     The same principle has significance for the peace of nations. Men may live beside those whose religious convictions they do not share without surrendering their own faith or denying the dignity of their neighbour. Authentic dialogue requires truthfulness. It does not require indifferentism.

VI. Health, Medicine, and the Limits of Emergency Power

     The care of the sick is among the clearest duties of Christian charity and a legitimate concern of public authority. The Ebola emergency in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including its spread into Uganda, has again shown that disease advances most quickly where conflict, displacement, fragile institutions, and mistrust have already wounded a people. The danger faced by seafarers and civilian commerce around the Strait of Hormuz likewise demonstrates how regional violence can place distant households at risk through disruptions of food, energy, and trade. These events are different in character, yet both reveal the cost of waiting until a crisis crosses borders before treating it as a common responsibility.

     It must also be made clear that disease most cruelly afflicts communities already weakened by poverty, war, poor sanitation, or inadequate medical care. Nations capable of helping such populations should do so.

     Yet the dignity of the person must remain paramount even in times of emergency. Fear does not suspend the moral law. Extraordinary governmental powers must remain proportionate to genuine necessity and must not quietly become permanent instruments of control. 

     Also, public health depends upon trust, and trust is earned through truthfulness. Officials should therefore communicate honestly about uncertainty, permit responsible questioning and correction, and respect the proper rights and duties of families, physicians, religious bodies, and local communities. Medicine remains a service to the human person. It must never become a means of treating the human body as raw material or of redefining the good of the patient according to convenience, ideology, or economic utility.

VII. Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Human Reason

     Artificial intelligence is one of the most powerful tools developed in our time. Properly governed, it may assist physicians, farmers, scientists, teachers, engineers, and countless others. Yet, no machine is a human person. Thus, no synthetic system bears the image of God, and neither does it possess an immortal soul, conscience, moral agency, or supernatural destiny. A machine may learn from human-generated data, process information, and convey knowledge or insights derived from human wisdom. Its operations nevertheless remain instrumental, while the broader consequences of increasingly capable systems are still emerging and require careful study.

     Consequently, in terms of responsibility, to say that an algorithm made a decision is never a sufficient moral answer, particularly when the phrase is used to absolve those who designed, authorised, deployed, or relied upon it. Where decisions concern life, liberty, medicine, employment, justice, warfare, or the welfare of children, responsible human judgment must remain present. This principle is not novel. As with every instrument, moral responsibility remains with the human beings who design, direct, and employ it.

     Technology must also respect legitimate privacy and must not be used to establish forms of surveillance and manipulation incompatible with human dignity. Children in particular should be guarded against systems deliberately designed to exploit weakness, encourage addiction, imitate intimate relationships deceptively, or expose the young to sexual corruption. Nor should lethal force be delegated to machines in such a way that no human person remains morally responsible for the decision to take life.

     Artificial intelligence threatens human dignity when convenience displaces judgment, conscience, memory, responsibility, and genuine human relationship. What diminishes man’s rational and moral nature cannot rightly be called progress.

VIII. Education and the Formation of the Young

     Children are entrusted principally to their parents, not to the state or the market. Education should form the intellect in truth, the will in virtue, and the young person in responsible freedom. It should cultivate reason, discipline, knowledge, reverence, intellectual honesty, and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. The young should certainly be prepared to understand the technological world they inherit. But they also require what no machine can supply: family life, friendship, silence, prayer, good books, play, discipline, contact with nature, craftsmanship, and the example of adults who live virtuously. 

     Furthermore, a civilisation that captures children’s attention for commercial gain and then wonders why they cannot concentrate has failed in stewardship. Parents must therefore be strengthened, not displaced. Teachers should assist the family in education rather than treating parental authority as an obstacle to be overcome.

IX. Creation and the Responsible Use of the Earth

     We reaffirm the truth that the earth is the Lord’s. Man therefore possesses creation neither as an idol to be worshipped nor as a storehouse to be consumed without measure. He is commanded to cultivate and govern it responsibly. Reliable energy, agriculture, transportation, industry, and development are genuine human goods. Poor nations must not be condemned to permanent poverty in the name of policies devised by those who already enjoy abundance.

     At the same time, needless pollution, reckless destruction, and the wasteful exhaustion of resources violate our responsibility toward neighbours and descendants. Prudence rejects both indifference and fanaticism.

     Energy policy should seek reliability, affordability, human development, responsible conservation, and reasonable care for future generations. Particular concern is owed to poor households, which often bear the greatest burden when wealthy societies adopt policies whose costs they themselves can easily absorb. Christian stewardship is neither the worship of nature nor the licence to ravage it. It is gratitude expressed through responsible dominion.

X. Authority, Accountability, and Judgment

     The world is rich in declarations and poor in fulfilled promises. Governments should therefore be willing to answer publicly for the consequences of their policies. Economic success must be judged not only by aggregate wealth but by whether ordinary people can work, marry, raise children, find housing, obtain necessary care, worship freely, and live without fear of violence or destitution.

     Thus We also affirm that there is a judgment higher than public accountability. Every ruler, legislator, financier, general, employer, and ecclesiastical superior remains a creature before God. Authority is a sacred trust. Our Lord taught that those who would be greatest must become servants. This is not counsel that can be relegated to private devotion. Instead, it is a judgment upon every form of worldly power.

     To the leaders of the G20, therefore, We say: remember that the decisions made in halls of government enter homes you will never see and affect persons whose names you will never know. Let prudence govern calculation. Let justice give each his due. Let fortitude resist both cowardice and cruelty. Let temperance restrain the appetite for wealth, power, honour, and domination. Do not mistake what is technologically possible for what is morally permissible. Do not sacrifice permanent goods for immediate political advantage. Do not call evil good because doing so is profitable. Do not forget the poor because they possess little influence. Do not imagine that nations escape the judgment under which every human person stands. 

XI. Christian Hope

     Christian hope is neither political optimism nor confidence in inevitable human progress. No economic system will save mankind. No technological achievement will abolish sin. No international institution can establish the Kingdom of God by administrative means.

     Therefore, We affirm the sacred truth that our hope is in Our Lord Jesus Christ. 

     Yet Christian hope never permits indifference toward temporal suffering. Precisely because the Christian knows that history belongs to God, he may labour for justice without making an idol of political success, serve the suffering without despair, and seek peace without believing that peace can be built upon falsehood.

     Throughout the world, much quiet good endures. Parents sacrifice for children. Priests and religious serve forgotten communities. Physicians we never see care for the sick we do not know. Farmers whom we never meet cultivate the land to produce the food that we eat. Sailors upon the oceans sustain commerce, bringing us the goods on which we rely. Teachers in countless schoolhouses in cities and villages alike instruct, even amid poverty and war. Christians and other people of goodwill shelter the displaced, feed the hungry, resist corruption, and reconcile enemies. The world rarely notices such acts. Almighty God does, for He sees all.

     To rulers, We say: govern as those who must give an account. To men of commerce and technology, We say: use your gifts in service of man rather than reducing man to an instrument of profit. To religious leaders, We say: do not exchange prophetic truth for proximity to worldly power. To families, workers, teachers, physicians, soldiers, and all people of goodwill, We say: remain faithful in the duties placed immediately before you. Civilisation is renewed not first by slogans and empty promises. It is renewed by virtue and built by a resolute faith.

     May the deliberations of the leaders gathered for the G20 be governed by wisdom rather than ambition, justice rather than advantage, and peace rather than vengeance. May those who hold great power remember that they remain servants beneath the sovereignty of Almighty God. May the Most Holy Mother of God, Queen of Peace, intercede for the suffering, console those who mourn, protect the innocent, and obtain the conversion of hearts hardened by hatred and pride.

     And may Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, before whose judgment every earthly power must finally stand, teach the nations to use authority in justice, wealth in charity, knowledge in wisdom, and freedom in obedience to truth. To Him be honour and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Given at Rome-Ruthenia, in the House of Saints Peter, Andrew, Stephen, and Mark, in the year of Our Lord two thousand twenty-six.

Радислав Пп. I

RADISLAV PP. I ROMANO-RUTHENICUS 
POPE AND PRINCE-BISHOP OF ROME-RUTHENIA


Friday, October 2, 2026

Roman-Ruthenian Autonomous Missionary Province Established for Cameroon and Central Africa

Archbishop Mvondo,
Primate of Cameroon and Central Africa

By A. DiNardo

YAOUNDÉ 02 October 2026 (NRom)

A new ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the Autonomous Missionary Province of Cameroon and Central Africa, has been established by decree of His Apostolic Highness, the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia. The newly constituted missionary province will have its Primatial Archdiocese in Yaoundé, Cameroon, which will serve as the principal ecclesiastical see for its work in Cameroon and the wider Central African region. The Province is also admitted as a full member of the Apostolic Congregation of the Consistory. 

His Excellency Bishop Pierre Marie Mvondo, of the Congregation of Mary and of the Holy Apostles of Jesus, has been appointed Primate of the Autonomous Missionary Province. In connection with his appointment as primate, Monsignor Mvondo has also been granted the personal rank and dignity of Archbishop. The establishment of the province provides a formal ecclesiastical structure for the continuation and development of its missionary, pastoral, and sacramental ministry throughout the region. 

Liturgy in a parish in Cameroon.
The province identifies its episcopal succession with the Thục line of apostolic succession and will continue to celebrate and preserve the Roman Rite tradition. Its spiritual and pastoral life will also be shaped by a Franciscan charism, emphasizing missionary service, simplicity, fraternity, prayer, and care for the communities entrusted to its ministry.

From its primatial see in Yaoundé, the new province is expected to coordinate missionary activity, strengthen clergy and religious formation, support local communities, and foster the development of its ecclesiastical presence across Cameroon and Central Africa.

The decree marks a new stage in the organization of the church's missionary work in the region, placing the province under the primatial leadership of Archbishop Pierre Marie Mvondo while maintaining its Roman liturgical heritage and Franciscan spiritual identity.

Tuesday, September 15, 2026

Archbishop Jonathan Kyangasha Appointed Cardinal Priest of S. Apollinare

H.Em. Cardinal Kyangasha
By A. DiNardo

ROME-RUTHENIA 15 September 2026 (NRom)

His Illustrious Highness Archbishop Jonathan Kyangasha has been appointed Cardinal Priest of S. Apollinare by His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia, marking a new chapter in the Archbishop’s service within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and its Holy Apostolic See.

Archbishop Kyangasha serves as Primate of the Reformed Anglican Church and the Province of Uganda and is a member of the Apostolic Congregation of the Consistory. The Consistory is the senior-most prefecture of the Roman-Ruthenian Curia and is charged with supporting the pastoral mission of the Roman-Ruthenian Pope through oversight and support of patriarchates, primatial sees, provinces and dioceses in communion with the United Roman-Ruthenian Church. The Reformed Anglican Church and the Province of Uganda is among the principal territorial jurisdictions.

The appointment gives Archbishop Kyangasha the cardinalatial title of Cardinal Priest of S. Apollinare, one of the titular churches assigned to Cardinal Priests within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church’s College of Cardinals. The Church’s official register of cardinalatial titles lists S. Apollinare alongside such titles as S. Agnese in Agone, S. Carlo ai Catinari, S. Martino ai Monti and S. Salvatore in Lauro.

An Ancient Roman Title

The historic Church of Sant’Apollinare stands in Rome’s Rione Ponte, between Piazza Navona and Palazzo Altemps. Its origins reach back to the early Middle Ages, with its foundation traditionally dated to between the seventh and eighth centuries. It is dedicated to St. Apollinaris, who, according to tradition, accompanied St. Peter from Antioch to Rome and later became the first bishop of Ravenna.

The original church was probably associated with a community of Byzantine-rite monks who had fled Constantinople amid the iconoclastic persecutions associated with Emperor Leo III the Isaurian. Centuries later, Pope Benedict XIV of Rome ordered the church rebuilt from its foundations. The reconstruction, undertaken between 1742 and 1748 according to designs by architect Ferdinando Fuga, produced the building substantially known today.

The ancient dedication gives particular historical symbolism to Archbishop Kyangasha’s new cardinalatial title, linking his service to the memory of a saint whose ministry, according to tradition, connected the apostolic mission of St. Peter in Rome with the early Christian See of Ravenna. In keeping with the historic character of Roman titular clergy, the cardinalatial title establishes an honorary association with the church and does not entail direct responsibility for its parochial administration or pastoral service.

Service in the College of Cardinals

Within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the College of Cardinals serves as the senior council of the Holy Apostolic See and as the senior-most section of the Patriarchal Chapter. Its members assist the Roman-Ruthenian Pope in questions concerning doctrine, ecclesiastical governance and the long-term stewardship of the Church’s spiritual and temporal patrimony.

The cardinalatial office is more than an honorary dignity. Cardinals exercise advisory, deliberative and juridical responsibilities and may also be entrusted with offices in the Roman-Ruthenian Curia and Pontifical Court. They are drawn principally from bishops and senior clergy distinguished by service, learning and fidelity, while certain lower cardinalatial ranks may also be conferred upon younger clergy formed in service to the Holy Apostolic See.

Members of the College additionally bear responsibilities concerning the continuity of the Holy Apostolic See. Under the Church’s canonical system, Cardinals are Pontifical Electors by right and, together with other designated electors of the Pontifical Court, participate in the election or confirmation of a successor when the See becomes vacant.

For Cardinal Kyangasha, appointment to the College therefore brings both a historic ecclesiastical dignity and additional responsibilities within the governing life of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church. His elevation also places renewed attention on the Church’s relationship with the Reformed Anglican Church and the Province of Uganda through the Apostolic Congregation of the Consistory, underscoring the role of its primatial jurisdictions in the wider communion.

The appointment joins the ancient symbolism of S. Apollinare with contemporary episcopal service in Africa and the broader life of the Holy Apostolic See, demonstrating the College of Cardinals’ stated mission of preserving continuity in apostolic governance while assisting the Roman-Ruthenian Pope in the pastoral and institutional stewardship of the Church.

Monday, September 14, 2026

New Pontifical Majordomo Appointed to the Pontifical Court

H.E. Marquis Hunter Lisle of Orsha
Pontifical Majordomo

By Staff

ROME-RUTHENIA 14 September 2026 (NRom)

The office of Pontifical Majordomo, one of the Palatine offices of the Pontifical Court and charged with leadership of the Chancery of the Apostolic Household, has recently passed to a new incumbent.

On 10 September 2026, H.R.S.H. Floyd Jack, Prince of Friuli and Chíquiza submitted to His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia a request to retire from the offices of Pontifical Majordomo, Commander of the Pontifical Airborne Guard of Honour, Pontifical Aide-de-Camp, and his commissions in the Air and Naval Guards. Having considered the petition, His Holiness granted the requested permission, effective 14 September 2026. Prince Floyd served as Pontifical Majordomo from 2022 to 2026.
Prince Floyd Jack,
outgoing Majordomo

His Holiness has appointed H.E. Marquis Hunter Lisle of Orsha to succeed Prince Floyd as Pontifical Majordomo, effective 14 September 2026. The Marquis has served in the Church for many years. A prominent businessman, he is also highly involved in charitable and humanitarian service. He holds the Most Holy Pontifical Orders of Christ and the Eagle, the highest honor of the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State, is a member of the Noble Company, the Master of the Horse in the Pontifical Walsingham Guard, and hold various other distinctions. In the Pontifical Court, he was previously a Pontifical Parafreniere.

As Pontifical Majordomo, Marquis Lisle assumes one of the historic Palatine offices of the Pontifical Court and the corresponding responsibility for leadership of the Chancery of the Pontifical & Imperial Household (also known as the Apostolic Household). The office serves within the immediate institutional life of the Apostolic Household and assists in maintaining the order, dignity, continuity, and proper administration of the Household of the Roman-Ruthenian Pontiff.

The Holy Apostolic See extends its congratulations and good wishes to Marquis Lisle upon assuming this responsibility and looks forward to his service in support of the Apostolic Household and the wider mission of the Church.

Christian Service Within the Apostolic Church

Such transitions are good times to reflect upon the meaning of Christian service.

Christian service is fundamentally a vocation under God, but within the visible Church such vocation is discerned and exercised within the ecclesiastical order established by Christ for the governance of the faithful. The Holy Spirit was given by Christ to the Church, and the authority entrusted by Christ to the Apostles continues through the Apostolic ministry of the Church. For this reason, personal prayer, conviction, and spiritual discernment have always held an honored place in Christian life, while the interpretation, meaning, and ecclesiastical consequences of such discernment remain subject to the proper authority and order of the Church. A claimed prompting from God is not self-validating, nor does personal conviction of divine guidance by itself supersede the ecclesiastical order through which the Church discerns and governs.

The hierarchy established by Christ continues to exercise its ministry and authority in His Name today. Within that Apostolic order, Christians are deployed to service not in isolation from the Church, but in communion with her and in obedience to the lawful authority entrusted with her governance. Personal discernment may lead a Christian to seek a new form of service, just as it may lead one to seek release from responsibilities previously undertaken; but where ecclesiastical office is concerned, that discernment finds its proper expression within the order of the Church.

Personal discernment and ecclesiastical obedience are therefore not opposing principles, but complementary dimensions of life within the Apostolic Church. The individual brings prayer, conscience, gifts, and discernment; the Church, exercising the authority entrusted to her, discerns and orders their ecclesiastical expression. In this way, Christian service remains at once personal and ecclesial—freely offered to God and faithfully exercised within the order of His Church.

Friday, September 11, 2026

One Office, Two Dimensions: Understanding Petrine Governance in the United Roman-Ruthenian Church

H.H. Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia
By M. Derosiers

ROME-RUTHENIA 11 September 2026 (NRom)

For some Christians, the name of St. Peter immediately brings to mind Rome; for others, Antioch. Indeed, more than one ecclesiastical tradition today understands itself as preserving a Petrine succession or inheritance.

Within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the Eastern Roman Church with Latin heritage, Petrine authority is understood in a particularly comprehensive way. Its Supreme Pontiff, His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia, stands within both a jurisdictional Petrine succession and a temporal Petrine succession. These are distinct dimensions of an inherited office, and together they help explain the distinctive governance of the Roman-Ruthenian Church.

The distinction is important. Spiritually and jurisdictionally, the Roman-Ruthenian Church preserves a Latin Orthodox succession of the Petrine office within its own autocephalous jurisdiction. At the same time, it preserves a temporal patrimony historically associated with St. Peter and the Roman papacy. Neither should be confused with the Church's patriarchal succession or several lines of sacramental apostolic succession through episcopal consecration.

Here “Latin Orthodox” denotes the Church's Western and Roman ecclesiastical inheritance rather than an exclusively Latin liturgical identity. The principal Roman-Ruthenian rite is the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine Rite, based principally upon the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while incorporating elements of the historic Tridentine tradition; the Church also preserves other Eastern and Western rites.

Understanding these distinctions makes the structure—and the historical continuity—of Roman-Ruthenian papal governance considerably easier to understand.

The Latin Orthodox Petrine Succession

St. Peter the Apostle
The Petrine succession of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church is principally jurisdictional. It is distinct from the Church's several lines of apostolic succession through episcopal consecration, which provide sacramental continuity with St. Peter, St. Andrew, and other Apostles.

The Latin Orthodox Petrine succession concerns something more particular: the transmission and exercise of the Petrine office within a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The Church traces this jurisdictional succession through the historic Roman line. In the modern period, that common Petrine inheritance is expressed through distinct jurisdictions: the Roman Catholic succession continuing within the Roman See, the ancient Petrine inheritances associated particularly with Antioch, and the Roman-Ruthenian, or Latin Orthodox, succession continuing within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church.

For Rome-Ruthenia, an important modern point in that history came in 2014 with the ecclesiastical recognition of the present Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia as Coadjutor of the Roman Pope, together with full papal authority within his own jurisdiction. This entered an already-existing ecclesiastical inheritance and contributed to the development of the present form of Roman-Ruthenian governance.

Accordingly, the Roman-Ruthenian Petrine succession is not presented merely as episcopal ancestry. It is understood as a jurisdictional continuation of Petrine authority within the autonomous Latin Orthodox ecclesiastical body in which that authority was received.

This jurisdictional inheritance also explains why the antiquity of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church cannot be measured simply from the dates upon which its present name, administrative structure, or constituent bodies assumed their contemporary form. Ecclesiastical institutions throughout Christian history have developed, united, divided, reorganized, and adopted new forms of governance while preserving the jurisdictions and offices from which they descend.

In the Roman-Ruthenian understanding, therefore, the Church is not a modern ecclesiastical body possessing merely an ancient episcopal genealogy. Through jurisdictional succession, it inherits the continuity of an ancient ecclesiastical office and jurisdiction dating to 33 AD and is therefore a distinct and unbroken continuation of the original Christian Church. Its contemporary institutional form expresses that inheritance; it does not create it.

This is why the distinction between sacramental and jurisdictional succession is fundamental. Apostolic succession answers the question, “From whom were its bishops consecrated?” Jurisdictional succession answers the different question, “What ecclesiastical authority and office does this Church continue?” In Rome-Ruthenia, the answer to the latter reaches through its Latin Orthodox Petrine inheritance into the ancient Petrine Church itself.

The Church's published succession of Supreme Pontiffs illustrates this understanding directly. The historic succession from St. Peter is presented as a common Petrine inheritance, after which the contemporary lines are shown in parallel: the Roman-Ruthenian Latin Orthodox succession, presently represented by Pope Radislav I, and the continuing Roman Catholic succession of the Roman See by the Vatican.

Mar Ignatius Peter III, Syrian Orthodox
Patriarch of Antioch, successor of
St. Peter and direct Patriarchal
ancestor of the modern
Roman-Ruthenian Church
Parallel Petrine inheritances are not foreign to the wider history of Apostolic Christianity. St. Peter's ministry has never been associated historically with Rome alone. Antioch likewise traces its apostolic foundation to Peter, and several contemporary churches preserve successions associated with that ancient Petrine See. Alexandria, meanwhile, preserves within Orthodoxy its own ancient papal title.

The Roman-Ruthenian succession belongs within this broader apostolic landscape, in which more than one jurisdiction may preserve a Petrine inheritance without thereby becoming the same jurisdiction or exercising the same ecclesiastical office.

For this reason, the Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church is described as the Latin Orthodox successor of St. Peter. The description refers not simply to episcopal descent from the Apostles, but specifically to the Petrine ministry understood to have been received jurisdictionally and continued within the Roman-Ruthenian Holy Apostolic See.

Sergei, Patriarch of Moscow, one of
the Patriarchal ancestors of the
United Roman-Ruthenian Church, as
well as a prominent figure in
its Apostolic succession
This jurisdictional succession exists alongside a much broader sacramental inheritance. Roman-Ruthenian bishops possess apostolic successions derived through both Western and Eastern Churches, while the Church's patriarchal ancestry incorporates Roman, Russian, Syrian, Greek, American, and other traditions.

The distinction may therefore be stated simply: Apostolic succession provides sacramental continuity from the Apostles. The Latin Orthodox Petrine succession provides jurisdictional continuity of the Petrine office within Rome-Ruthenia.

Together they form the ecclesiastical foundation of Roman-Ruthenian papal governance.

The Temporal Succession of Peter

Pope St. Pius IX, known as the
Pope King, he was the last
governing sovereign
of the Papal States

The second dimension is temporal.

For centuries, the historic Roman papacy possessed not only ecclesiastical jurisdiction but a temporal patrimony. Roman Pontiffs governed territories, exercised sovereign prerogatives, and possessed temporal dignities that became intertwined with the political and cultural inheritance of Christian Rome.

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church understands part of this historic temporal inheritance to have passed into its custody through historical succession, including its direct succession from Pope St. Leo X, the interconnected inheritance of the Holy Roman world, and subsequent acts of recognition and transmission.

This temporal succession must be distinguished from both sacramental apostolic succession and ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The Church's published temporal succession records St. Leo X within this inherited line and follows the Roman sequence into the modern period. It records St. John Paul II's relinquishment of the broader temporal claims of the Roman Papacy apart from Vatican City, followed by St. Benedict XVI's relinquishment of the patriarchal office, and identifies Pope Radislav I as the succeeding bearer of the Roman-Ruthenian temporal inheritance. Importantly, Rome-Ruthenia makes no claim to Vatican City, whose sovereignty remains with the modern Roman Pontiff.

Thus, the expression “temporal successor of St. Peter” has a specific meaning in Roman-Ruthenian usage. It refers to custody of the historic non-sacramental patrimony associated with the Petrine office—its sovereign, dynastic, cultural, heraldic, and temporal inheritance.

That patrimony is joined within Rome-Ruthenia to the historic inheritance of Ruthenia, or Old Rus', giving the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia its distinctive name and character.

One Office, Two Dimensions

Roman-Ruthenian papal governance becomes considerably clearer when these dimensions are viewed together. 

Spiritually and jurisdictionally, the Roman-Ruthenian Pope stands within the Church's Latin Orthodox Petrine succession and exercises the Petrine ministry within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church.

Temporally, the Supreme Pontiff serves as custodian of historical patrimony inherited through the Roman and Ruthenian successions.

These do not constitute two competing pontiffs or two separate rulers. They are distinct dimensions united in one Roman-Ruthenian office.

The Roman-Ruthenian Pope therefore holds what the Church understands as a sacred trust. As visible head of the Church, he safeguards its apostolic ministry and embodies its Petrine and patriarchal governance. As Prince-Bishop and temporal custodian, he also preserves an historical patrimony inherited through the Roman and Ruthenian traditions.

This is one reason Roman-Ruthenian governance cannot be understood adequately simply by comparing its offices with the administrative structure of another contemporary church. Its constitution reflects an older conception of Christian governance in which apostolic, patriarchal, jurisdictional, and temporal inheritances can converge within a single ecclesiastical office.

Nor does the present organizational form of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church constitute the beginning of those inheritances. Names, constitutions, administrative arrangements, and institutional structures belong to particular periods of history. Succession is what carries an office and jurisdiction through those changes.

The contemporary Church therefore understands itself not as having recreated an ancient institution, but as continuing inherited ecclesiastical authority as a continuation of the original Christian Church in its present Roman-Ruthenian form.

Custodia Petri — The Custody of Peter

At the heart of Roman-Ruthenian Petrine governance is the principle of custodianship.
Custodi Petri
Art by PGP Media

The keys of St. Peter signify not merely dignity, but responsibility: the preservation of the Apostolic faith, continuity of ecclesiastical ministry, and faithful custody of the spiritual and historical patrimony entrusted to the Church.

Within Rome-Ruthenia, that responsibility is expressed through three related but distinct forms of continuity.

Apostolic succession provides sacramental continuity of the episcopate from the Apostles.

The Latin Orthodox Petrine succession provides jurisdictional continuity of the Petrine office within the Roman-Ruthenian Church.

Temporal succession preserves the historical temporal patrimony associated with St. Peter, the Roman papacy, and the wider Roman-Ruthenian inheritance.

The office of Pope and Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia brings these inheritances together. Sacramentally, its present holder stands within the broader apostolic succession of the Church. Spiritually and jurisdictionally, he stands within its Latin Orthodox Petrine succession. Temporally, he serves as custodian of the historical Petrine patrimony preserved within the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia.

This is the meaning of the Roman-Ruthenian principle Custodia Petri — the Custody of Peter.

Christian history has repeatedly witnessed jurisdictions divide, institutions develop, churches unite, empires disappear, borders shift, and ecclesiastical structures assume new forms. Succession is one of the principal means by which continuity is maintained through such changes. In the Roman-Ruthenian understanding, what passes through succession is not merely a collection of names and titles, but office, responsibility, patrimony, jurisdiction, and inherited authority.

The distinction is consequently central to understanding the Church itself. Ancient apostolic orders demonstrate sacramental continuity. Ancient traditions demonstrate historical continuity. But jurisdictional inheritance establishes institutional continuity: the living connection between a contemporary ecclesiastical body and the office and authority it succeeds.

In the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, that continuity is embodied today in Pope Radislav I: Latin Orthodox successor in the jurisdictional Petrine line, apostolic successor through the episcopate, temporal successor to the historic Petrine patrimony, and custodian of the Roman-Ruthenian Apostolic tradition.

_______________
A note on names: Radislav Romanovich Johnson is the legally registered name of Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia. His ecclesiastical and public name, Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia, is formally documented in his United States passport under the United States Department of State’s “known as” endorsement. He previously published and taught under the name Rutherford Johnson. Further biographical information is available on his official biography.

Wednesday, September 9, 2026

Holy Apostolic See releases new Manual of the Roman-Ruthenian Curia

By M. Derosiers 

ROME-RUTHENIA 9 September 2026 (NRom)

The Holy Apostolic See of Rome-Ruthenia promulgated on Sept. 9 the Manuale Curiae Romano-Ruthenicae, a comprehensive manual setting out norms for service, conduct, precedence, discipline and administration within the Roman-Ruthenian Curia, Pontifical Court and Apostolic Household. The new manual is the product of extensive work over time to gather, organize and clarify principles already governing curial and household service. Rather than introducing a new philosophy of ecclesiastical administration, it draws together traditional standards of fidelity, obedience, discretion, proper hierarchy, personal conduct and responsible exercise of office in a single reference intended for practical use.

Its 21 sections address matters ranging from rank and obedience, confidentiality, dress and protocol to office work, financial integrity, public speech, ceremonial practice, promotion, discipline and the duties of officials during a vacancy of the Holy Apostolic See. The manual also applies these longstanding principles to contemporary circumstances, including electronic records, passwords, remote work and secure communications.

A recurring principle throughout the document is that proximity to authority does not itself confer authority. Officials are instructed to respect the competence of their offices, established channels of administration and the distinction between personal access and jurisdiction. The manual likewise stresses that ecclesiastical dignity is a responsibility rather than a personal possession or means of advancement.

In this sense, the promulgation represents not the creation of a new system but the codification and convenient presentation of an existing tradition of curial service. By bringing those principles together in one document, the Holy Apostolic See has sought to provide clergy and lay officials alike with a clear and readily accessible guide for the faithful, orderly and dignified exercise of their duties. The manual concludes by describing curial office as a trust exercised for the honor of God, the good government of the Church and State, and the assistance of the Sovereign Pontiff.

The full text is available here. 

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Four Clergymen named Fellows of the Pontifical College of Chaplains

A. DiNardo

ROME-RUTHENIA 20 July 2026

New honor of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church recognizes sustained and meritorious service in chaplaincy, spiritual care, humanitarian ministry, and related pastoral fields

The Pontifical College of Chaplains of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church has announced the first recipients of its newly established fellowship, an honor recognizing distinguished service in chaplaincy, spiritual care, institutional ministry, and related works of mercy. His Holiness the Roman-Ruthenian Pope conferred the first four fellowships upon the Rev. Elliott Francis, TOR Mar; the Rev. Archpriest Guy Mackey, OPA; and H.Ill.H. the Most Rev. Peter McInnes. A fourth fellowship was awarded posthumously to H.E. the Rt. Rev. Archabbot Anthony Giunta, TOR Mar. The four recipients are the inaugural members of the College and may use the postnominal letters FPCCh.

Example of the 16"x20" brevet issued to
Fellows of the Pontifical College of Chaplains.

Established as a collegiate body of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the Pontifical College of Chaplains recognizes people who have rendered significant, sustained, or meritorious service in chaplaincy and associated pastoral fields. These areas include spiritual care, institutional ministry, humanitarian service, veterans’ ministry, emergency response, and bereavement support.

Archabbot Giunta’s ministry included service as a hospital, police, sheriff’s department, fire service, and United States Coast Guard chaplain. The posthumous honor recognizes the breadth of his pastoral work among people facing illness, danger, bereavement, public emergencies, and the particular demands of uniformed service.

Admission to the College may be granted by petition, nomination, or appointment. The College has a single grade of membership: Fellow of the Pontifical College of Chaplains. And, although established within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the fellowship is not restricted to people serving within its canonical structure. Recipients may also belong to other Christian churches, reflecting the frequently ecumenical nature of chaplaincy and institutional pastoral care.

Fellows may include clergy and members of religious orders. The College’s statutes nevertheless maintain a distinction between fellowship and the ecclesiastical office of chaplain. The title and function of “Chaplain,” in the proper ecclesiastical sense, remain reserved for members of the clergy.

The College may also recognize religious and laypeople whose work supports or closely accompanies chaplaincy. These may include Religious Sisters in Pastoral Service and Laymen or Laywomen in Pastoral Service who are qualified and active in spiritual care, humanitarian assistance, institutional visitation, bereavement ministry, veterans’ support, emergency-response service, or similar works. Their admission as Fellows recognizes the importance of their contributions without implying that they hold the ecclesiastical title or office of chaplain.

The establishment of the fellowship draws attention to forms of ministry that are often conducted away from the public eye. Chaplains and pastoral-care workers routinely serve in hospitals, hospices, military and veterans’ institutions, law-enforcement agencies, fire departments, emergency-response organizations, correctional settings, and other environments in which individuals and families may be experiencing crisis, trauma, loss, or profound uncertainty. 

Through the fellowship, the Pontifical College of Chaplains seeks to honor both formal chaplaincy and the wider network of pastoral and humanitarian service that supports people during some of the most difficult moments of their lives. The inaugural appointments of Francis, Mackey, McInnes, and Giunta establish the foundation of the new College and its stated commitment to recognizing sustained service, pastoral dedication, and works of mercy across ecclesiastical and institutional settings.