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.

Is the UN Biased Against Traditional Religion? The URRC's Experience

By M. Derosiers 

NEW YORK 11 July 2026 (NRom)

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church has been an organization in special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) since 2019. In that role, it regularly participates in meetings and provides invited statement on matters of world importance. Recently, the Church's UN representatives submitted an invited statement for the 2026 ECOSOC High-Level Segment. This statement focused on the need for ethical frameworks in the SDG implementation process and spoke of the role religious organizations should play. The statement was rejected by the UN staff. 

Below is copied the statement, the rejection issued by the ECOSOC staff, the Church’s response, and the subsequent reply that did not address the substance of its objection.

The Church’s statement expressly addressed the 2030 Agenda and the ethical, social, institutional, technological, and environmental framework necessary for transformative and coordinated implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. The stated reason for rejection — that the submission was not focused on the annual theme — is therefore difficult to reconcile with the text itself.

Viewed together with periodic prior rejections of religiously grounded submissions, the continued failure to update the Church’s recognized legal name despite repeated documentation, vague demands for unspecified “correct documents,” and the absence of substantive responses to requests for clarification, this record raises serious concerns regarding systemic bias against traditional religious perspectives within the participation process.

Readers may review the complete documents below and reach their own conclusions.

---------------------

2026 session
13 - 16 July 2026
ECOSOC High-Level Segment

Objective 

This statement is submitted by the Holy Apostolic See of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church in the context of ongoing deliberations on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Speaking on behalf of His Holiness the Roman-Ruthenian Pope, we offer a perspective founded on longstanding moral and social tradition concerning the dignity of the human person and the foundations of authentic development. We present these reflections as a contribution to advancing a vision of development that is integral, just, and ordered toward the true flourishing of all.

Statement

Flowing from the perennial social doctrine and living Tradition of the Church, the Holy Apostolic See of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, on behalf of His Holiness the Roman-Ruthenian Pope, affirms that authentic development must be integral, promoting the dignity of the whole human person, body and soul, created in the image of God, and the flourishing of every community. Economic, social, and environmental policies cannot be considered in isolation from moral law and natural order, which safeguard human dignity and the common good.

We emphasize that the family, founded upon the sacrament of marriage, is the fundamental unit of society and the primary agent of sustainable development. Policies that strengthen family stability, protect life at all stages, and uphold parental rights in education are essential to long-term social and economic resilience. Development strategies that neglect these risk undermining the very communities they seek to support.

In advancing the 2030 Agenda, we urge renewed commitment to subsidiarity, solidarity, and authentic communion among persons and communities. Local communities, faith-based organizations, and civil society actors possess irreplaceable knowledge and capacity to address poverty, inequality, and environmental challenges. Their role should be strengthened through just and equitable partnerships.

We call for an ethical framework to guide technological progress. While innovation can serve the common good, it must remain ordered towards truth and never instrumentalize human life, diminish moral responsibility, or reduce the human person to an object of efficiency, manipulation, or control.

Care for creation flows from reverence for the Creator and recognition of the world as a gift. Environmental action must therefore respect the legitimate needs of developing nations and the poor.

Lasting transformation requires structural change alongside moral and spiritual renewal grounded in truth, justice, and charity. Without this, efforts toward sustainable development will remain incomplete. We stand ready to collaborate with Member States and stakeholders in promoting a vision of development that is built on justice and the dignity of every person.

-----------------------------

UN ECOSOC Rejection Email: 

Thank you for submitting a written statement for the 2026 High-level Segment of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). We regret to inform you that we were unable to submit your statement to ECOSOC, as the content was not focused on this year’s theme which is: Transformative, equitable, innovative and coordinated actions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals for a sustainable future for all, and the theme of the general debate: Delivering better: accelerating urgent and transformative action to achieve the SDGs by 2030.

We hope you will consider contributing to the ECOSOC High-level Segment in the future. In that perspective, we strongly encourage you to tailor any future statement to the intergovernmental body you are contributing to, and in the case of ECOSOC, to focus on its annual main theme, as per the guidance provided in the open call for statements launched for all NGOs in consultative status. As the rationale for seeking views from the NGO community lies in its capacity to provide information and recommendations from the grass root level and in various areas of technical expertise, ECOSOC is expected to receive substantive and well-focused contributions that will help the global policy making process in the field of sustainable development, as per the Council’s mandate.

In the meantime, should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us.

-----------------------------

Roman-Ruthenian Reply to the United Nations: 

We acknowledge receipt of your decision.

The stated reason for rejection is not supported by the content of the submission. The statement expressly addressed the 2030 Agenda and identified the moral, social, institutional, environmental, and technological framework necessary for transformative, equitable, innovative, and coordinated SDG implementation by 2030. Given the strict word limit, the Church contributed precisely in the area in which it is best positioned to speak as an invited participant.

The rejection therefore gives the strong impression that the statement was not meaningfully read or evaluated on its actual content. Moreover, in light of previous rejections of similarly religiously grounded submissions, this pattern raises a serious concern of systemic bias against faith-based perspectives, notwithstanding repeated claims that diverse civil-society contributions are welcomed.

We are not requesting reconsideration. We are placing our objection to the stated rationale, and our concern regarding the treatment of religious viewpoints, clearly on the record.

------------------------------

Reply from the United Nations ECOSOC

It appears that you are responding to message #547121.

Thank you for submitting a written statement for the 2026 High-level Segment of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). While your written statement was included in last year’s compilation, we regret to inform you that we were unable to include your statement in this year’s submission to ECOSOC.

We appreciate your interest in contributing to the ECOSOC High-level Segment and hope that you will consider participating in future opportunities.

The Apostolic Household: Service Beyond Ceremony

By A. DiNardo

ROME-RUTHENIA 10 July 2026 (NRom)

When many people hear the word "pope," they naturally think of the Bishop of Rome of the Roman Catholic Church. Christianity, however, has long included other churches whose primates also bear the ancient title of pope. Among these are the Roman-Ruthenian Pope, the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, and the Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. Like other historic Christian communions, behind the public ministry of the Roman-Ruthenian Pope stands a household, a family, and a community of service.

T.A.H. the Roman-Ruthenian Pope and Apostolic Princess with
 H.M.S.H. the Duke and Duchess of Lower-Silesia, members of the Pontifical Court

The Apostolic Household, more formally known as the Pontifical and Imperial House of Rome-Ruthenia, consists of the immediate family of the Roman-Ruthenian Pope (Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia) together with officials entrusted with supporting the life and mission of the Holy Apostolic See. While the Pontifical Court administers the ceremonial and governmental functions of the Church and State, the Household provides the continuity of family, heritage, and daily life that supports the ministry of the Supreme Pontiff.

A Living Household

At the heart of the Household is His Apostolic Highness Pope Radislav I, joined by Her Apostolic Highness Apostolic Princess Anna Alexandrovna, whose support and shared commitment to faith strengthen the worldwide mission of the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State. Like many ecclesiastical  and dynastic houses throughout Christian history, the Pontifical Household is not defined by ceremony alone. It is a family whose members share in the responsibilities of hospitality, representation, cultural preservation, philanthropy, and service.

T.A.H. the Roman-Ruthenian Pope and Apostolic Princess

Its daily affairs are coordinated through the Chancery of the Household under the direction of the Pontifical Majordomo, while the Private Office of His Apostolic Highness assists the Pope in the execution of his personal and pontifical responsibilities.

Service Across the Years

The public may expect most often to see the Roman-Ruthenian Pope celebrating the Divine Liturgy, addressing international audiences, or participating in diplomacy. These are certainly part of His Holiness's obligations. Less visible are the decades of preparation that shape that public ministry. Long before assuming the papacy, Pope Radislav's life encompassed international travel, academic work, humanitarian service, diplomacy, and cultural engagement. These are experiences that continue to inform his ministry today.

Even in childhood, Pope Radislav found himself—quite literally—at the seat of leadership.
Captured here sitting in the Speaker’s chair of the Dutch Parliament,
this unscripted moment reflects the early presence of civic and international
life that would go on to shape his vocation. Far from ceremony, this image
 embodies a quiet foreshadowing of future diplomatic and ecclesiastical leadership.

The Apostolic Household's photographic archive reveals a life lived across many different settings: early visits to historic Christian sites, humanitarian travel, academic work, international conferences, meetings with church leaders and diplomats, humanitarian outreach, outdoor pursuits, and the quieter moments of family life. Taken together, these images document a lifetime devoted to education, faith, diplomacy, and service.

Long before assuming the Roman-Ruthenian papacy, Pope Radislav engaged
with leaders from many walks of public life. Throughout the years, such encounters
have reflected a continuing commitment to dialogue across civic,
academic, religious, and international communities.

Heritage in Service of the Present

The Apostolic Household is also entrusted with preserving the historical traditions associated with the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State. Its heritage reflects influences from both the Latin and Eastern Christian traditions, together with broader European and global historical connections that have shaped the Church's identity over many centuries. Yet heritage is not an end in itself. It is a responsibility; one that calls each generation to preserve what it has received while serving the needs of the present.

Beyond Ceremony

When one thinks of a papacy, images of solemn ceremonies and rich vestments often come to mind. Yet, the work of the Apostolic Household extends well beyond formal occasions. Members support charitable initiatives, encourage interfaith understanding, assist cultural preservation, and represent the Church in educational, humanitarian, and diplomatic settings.

Whether meeting with clergy, scholars, civic leaders, military representatives, or ordinary families, the purpose remains the same: to foster understanding, strengthen relationships, and promote the common good.

A Family Behind the Office

Every public office has a human story behind it. The Apostolic Household reminds us that leadership is sustained not only by institutions, but also by family, faith, and the quiet continuity of everyday life. While the Roman-Ruthenian Pope serves as the visible shepherd of the Church, the Household stands beside him supporting a mission that extends across cultures, traditions, and generations.

Behind every public office is a shared life. Moments of quiet family
companionship sustain the ministry and mission of the Apostolic Household.

Explore the Gallery

The official gallery of the Pontifical Imperial Household offers a visual journey through that story, from early childhood and formative experiences to international diplomacy, humanitarian service, academic life, and the continuing work of the Holy Apostolic See.

View the Gallery here.

Discover the Legacy

The work of the Apostolic Household is a living historical tradition that spans many centuries. Those interested in the broader history of the House, including its historical development, archival images, and the heritage preserved across multiple generations, are invited to explore the legacy page here, which provides a deeper look at the heritage that continues to underpin the Household's mission today.

Statement by the Roman-Ruthenian Pope on the Humanitarian Situation in Cuba

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church notes with grave concern recent public statements and policy directions voiced on the world stage suggesting a possible assumption of control by one country over the sovereign nation of Cuba, whether by military, economic, or other coercive means.

While the internal conditions of any nation may be subject to legitimate concern and discussion, the forced imposition of external control, whether framed as liberation or otherwise, raises serious moral questions. The sovereignty of nations and the dignity of peoples are not matters to be disposed of according to power or opportunity. No nation possesses the authority to dominate another or to dispose of the sovereignty of peoples according to its own will. Power does not by itself confer moral license, and the ordering of the world cannot be justly founded upon coercion or unilateral control.

Christian doctrine has long held that the use of force is permissible only under the most strict and grave conditions, particularly in defense against real, certain, and grave harm. These principles are articulated more fully within the Church's Doctrine of Just Defense, to which the faithful are bound in conscience. Actions or proposals that move toward domination, coercive regime change, or the exploitation of weakness stand in serious tension with these principles.

It must therefore be clearly stated that support for such directions, insofar as they involve unjust coercion, disregard for sovereignty, or the initiation of force absent moral necessity, cannot be reconciled with the moral teaching of the Church and stands in direct tension with the principles governing just defense.

At the same time, we recognize that nations and leaders act within complex circumstances, and not all actions or intentions may be known in full. For this reason, judgment must be made with care and precision, avoiding both naïve acceptance and unjust generalization.

The Church again calls for restraint, respect for sovereignty, and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions that uphold the dignity of all peoples. No nation’s suffering should become an opportunity for domination, and no people should be reduced to an object of geopolitical ambition.

May wisdom prevail over power, and peace over coercion.

Roman-Ruthenian Pope Confirms Just Wars Have Existed, Part of Christian Doctrine

Statement from H.A.H. the Roman-Ruthenian Pope
on Just War Doctrine

16 March 2026

Recent discussions in the broader Christian world have raised questions regarding the existence and legitimacy of what has historically been called “just war.” In light of this, it is necessary to reaffirm clearly the teaching received within the Christian tradition.

From the earliest centuries, the Church has recognized that while war is always tragic and a consequence of the fallen state of mankind, it is not the case that all use of force is morally equivalent. The tradition, articulated by the Fathers and developed in theological clarity over time, affirms that under strict and grave conditions, the use of force in appropriate defense of the innocent and the restoration of order within the legitimate authority and proper scope of the relevant actors may be morally permissible. (See the Church's teaching on the Doctrine of Just Defence here.)

This teaching does not glorify war in and of itself, nor does it diminish its horror. On the contrary, it places severe moral limits upon it, insisting that even justified defense carries with it profound moral responsibility and spiritual consequence. The recognition that a war may be just in principle and therefore morally permissible as an act of defense does not render war in and of itself inherently good, nor does it remove the obligation of repentance, restraint, and the pursuit of peace.  That is, war can be legitimate and just, but only as a tool for justice and good.

Therefore, it must be clearly stated: the concept of just defense, including what has historically been termed “just war,” remains part of the received moral teaching of the Church. To deny this entirely risks obscuring the essential moral distinction between defense and aggression, and may leave the innocent without moral recourse in the face of grave injustice.

At the same time, this doctrine must never be misused as a justification for violence undertaken lightly, preemptively without moral certainty, or for purposes of domination, expansion, or ideological ambition. The burden of proof for the just use of force remains extremely high.

The Church continues to call all nations and leaders to pursue peace, to exhaust every path of diplomacy, and to remember that even justified violence wounds the human family. The ultimate goal remains not victory, but reconciliation and the restoration of peace.

In all things, the faithful are reminded that they must act in accordance with conscience rightly formed, seeking justice without hatred and defense without losing sight of the dignity of every human person.

Roman-Ruthenian Pope Calls for Cessation of Hostilities in the Middle East

By A. DiNardo

ROME-RUTHENIA 12 March 2026 (NRom)

In response to the rapidly escalating armed conflict in the Middle East and the growing humanitarian crisis affecting civilians across the region, His Holiness Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia has issued a formal statement calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a renewed commitment to diplomatic negotiations.

The statement emphasizes the grave moral responsibility borne by political and military leaders when the use of force leads to widespread civilian suffering and risks broadening regional instability. It highlights the disproportionate burden that modern warfare places on ordinary families: those displaced from their homes, deprived of livelihood, or mourning loved ones lost in violence.

Drawing upon the Church’s moral teaching regarding the limits of armed force, the Roman-Ruthenian Pope stresses that even claims of just cause must be weighed carefully against the humanitarian consequences of military action. He warns that continued escalation not only deepens the suffering of those directly caught in the conflict but also threatens global stability through economic disruption, strained energy supplies, and wider geopolitical tensions.

While acknowledging the complexity of international conflicts, the statement affirms that dialogue and diplomacy remain the only viable path toward a just and lasting peace. Negotiation, His Holiness writes, is not a sign of weakness but an act of responsible leadership when the alternative is the continued loss of innocent life.

The following is the full text of His Holiness’s statement.

-------------

Statement on the Escalation of Armed Conflict and the Suffering of Civilians
12 March 2026

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to serious diplomatic negotiations in the present conflict in the Middle East. Recent military actions have not only caused a humanitarian crisis extending beyond the region, they have already ignited a wider regional conflict that places civilian populations and global humanitarian stability at risk. Thus we urge all parties to return to the path of dialogue that was already underway when the hostile path was chosen, working towards a peaceful resolution which alone can bring a just and durable peace.

War always brings suffering to the innocent. In every conflict in the modern era it is civilians who bear the heaviest burden: families displaced, homes destroyed, livelihoods shattered, and lives lost that should never have been taken. The Church therefore raises its voice first and foremost for those who have no voice in the councils of war. We speak for the poor and the suffering who are marginalized by the actions of others. 

We also note that the present escalation carries grave consequences beyond the battlefield. Disruption of energy supplies, global economic instability, and the interruption of essential goods to various otherwise-uninvolved countries threaten the welfare of countless people far removed from the immediate conflict. In an interdependent world, war in one region quickly becomes hardship for many others.

Our faith clearly teaches that the use of force must always be governed by strict moral limits, undertaken only under grave necessity and never without deep moral responsibility. Even when nations claim just cause, such claims must always be measured against the strict moral limits that govern the use of force. Regardless of legitimacy, violence always wounds the human family and leaves lasting scars upon the conscience of mankind.

When violence expands conflict rather than containing it, and when civilian suffering multiplies rather than diminishes, serious questions arise as to whether the strict moral limits governing the use of force are being honored. For this reason we call upon all leaders and parties involved to halt further escalation and to return in good faith to diplomatic engagement. The path of negotiation may be difficult, but it remains the only path that preserves life and prevents further tragedy. Yet, both sides must be willing to talk and listen, continuing the work that was already in process. Negotiation by its very nature cannot be a one-sided dictation. 

And we must remember that negotiation is not weakness. It is the difficult work of true statesmanship when the alternative is the continued loss of innocent life. May God grant wisdom to those who hold worldly power, comfort to those who mourn, and peace to a world too often wounded by violence.

Radislav Pp. I

In Memoriam: Dame Gloria Marie Jack - Servant to the Kansas City Mental Health Community

By M. Derosiers 

KANSAS CITY 5 February 2026 (NRom)

The Pontifical Court of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church pauses to remember the life and witness of H.E. Dame Gloria Marie Jack, a member of the Holy Order of St. Martin de Porres, who passed away on January 15, 2026, at the age of 65.

Dame Gloria was the beloved sister of H.R.S.H. Prince Floyd of Chíquiza and Friuli, Pontifical Majordomo. She was also a woman known equally for her faith, humility, and lifelong commitment to public service. She is survived by her son, daughter, and three grandchildren, to whom she was deeply devoted.

 
A Life of Service and Compassion

For many years, Dame Gloria served the people of Missouri through her work with the Missouri Department of Mental Health, ministering quietly but faithfully to some of the most vulnerable members of her community in Kansas City. Even after her formal retirement, she continued working in the mental health field until declining health required her to fully step back.

Those who worked alongside her remember her as a steady presence, marked by compassion, perseverance, and a deep sense of duty. Her vocation was not only professional but pastoral, reflecting the Christian call to serve “the least of these” with dignity and care.

 
Funeral and Homecoming Celebration

A Funeral Service and Homecoming Celebration was held on January 30, 2026, formally concluding the mourning period of the Royal and Serene Houses of Friuli and Chíquiza. The service celebrated Dame Gloria’s earthly life while affirming the Church’s hope in the resurrection and life everlasting.

 
Words of Comfort and Hope

In response to her passing, H.Ill.H. the Most Rev. Peter McInnes, Capitular Archbishop and Primate of the Australian Province, offered pastoral reflections addressed to Prince Floyd and the wider family of faith. Drawing from Scripture, Archbishop McInnes reflected on the Christian understanding of death, emphasizing that believers do not grieve as those without hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18). He cited Hebrews 12:1, which speaks of the “great cloud of witnesses,” reminding the faithful that those who have gone before us remain alive in Christ and actively participate in God’s eternal purposes.

“The saints who have gone before us,” he noted, “are not absent or forgotten. They worship Christ, intercede for the Church, and remain invested in the lives and callings of those still on earth.” Referencing passages such as Hebrews 11:39–40, Mark 9:2–4, and 2 Corinthians 1:4–7, he encouraged the family to see grief and hope as inseparable companions in Christian faith.

Archbishop McInnes also underscored the importance of honoring past generations, affirming that the work of the faithful continues across generations and that love is not diminished by death but transformed in Christ.

 
A Future-Oriented Hope

The Church teaches that life does not end at death but is fulfilled in eternity. As Scripture affirms, “Our loved ones were part of our past, are not physically present now, but will be part of our future in Christ.” This promise stands at the heart of Christian consolation. Dame Gloria Marie Jack is remembered not only for her titles, but for her quiet faith, her devotion to family, and her lifelong service to others. Her legacy lives on in those she loved, those she served, and in the hope of resurrection shared by the global Church.

May she rest in peace, and rise in glory.

Roman-Ruthenian Pope Releases Encyclical on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence

De Intellectu Artificiali et Persona Humana
Объ искусственномъ разумѣ и человѣческой личности
(On Artificial Intelligence and the Human Person)

Encyclical of the Roman-Ruthenian Pope on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence

Preamble

Grace and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.

In every age in the history of the world, the Church is called to bear faithful witness to the truth revealed in Christ, discerning the signs of the times without surrendering to them, and engaging the world without being conformed to it. In our own time, humanity stands before many rapid technological developments. Among these, artificial intelligence occupies a central and increasingly influential place, touching so many aspects of human life and industry. These developments promise efficiency, power, and unprecedented capacity for automation and analysis. They have the capacity to bring great benefit when rightly ordered. Yet they also raise profound moral, spiritual, and anthropological questions that cannot be answered by technical expertise alone.

The Church does not fear human creativity. Neither does she reject technology as such. Rather, she recognizes that human ingenuity is itself a gift of God, exercised within creation and, in its proper form, ordered toward stewardship. At the same time, the Church bears the responsibility to make plain the enduring principles by which the power of new technology must be rightly ordered, lest what is created to serve humanity instead diminish or obscure the dignity of the human person.

Therefore, We reflect and affirm the following concerning artificial intelligence as a statement of Christian moral vision, flowing from the Gospel and the Apostolic faith.

I. The Human Person and the Image of God

We affirm that the human person alone is created in the image and likeness of God. This divine image is not reducible to intelligence, language, problem-solving capacity, or creativity as such. Rather, it is manifested in personal existence, freedom, moral responsibility, and the capacity for communion with God and with one another. Above all, the human person is created for eternal communion with God and oriented toward salvation.

No technological system created by man bears the image of God. Artificial intelligence, therefore, must not be oriented or considered in such a way that obscures the unique dignity of the human being. Accordingly, artificial intelligence must always be understood as a tool created by human persons and ordered toward human purposes within the order of God.

II. On Substance, Instrument, and Causality

We affirm that artificial intelligence is neither a substance nor a subject, but an artifact composed of material components and formal structures imposed and ordered toward specific operations. It does not exist in itself as a unified being with an intrinsic principle of life or action, but exists as an arrangement of parts whose activity is entirely dependent upon causes external to itself.

Artificial intelligence is therefore not a subject of acts, but an instrument through which acts are carried out. At the same time, artificial intelligence must not be reduced to the level of a mere simulation. While such systems may initiate processes, update internal states, and generate outputs without immediate human intervention, these activities do not proceed from an interior principle of self-movement ordered toward an end apprehended as such. Rather, they arise from instrumental causality: operations flowing from a form imposed by human intelligence and sustained by ongoing material and efficient causes.

In classical terms, artificial intelligence acts only insofar as it is acted through. Its autonomy is derivative, not intrinsic; operational, not ontological. No artificial system possesses substantial form, intellect, or will by its own intrinsic nature. It does not intend in the sense that a person with a will would intend, but rather operates according to ends to which it was directed, established, and trained.

The genuine complexity and adaptability of artificial intelligence must therefore be understood within this metaphysical framework. Its operations are real within their proper order, yet they remain entirely instrumental. Artificial intelligence does not bear acts in the way a human person bears acts. It does not perform acts of understanding, judgment, or choice in the same sense that humans do, but rather executes operations analogous to such acts in the machine framework, according to the mode of an artifact rather than that of a rational creature.

To confuse instrument with agent or operation with intellect is to collapse the distinction between what exists per se and what exists per aliud. Such confusion inevitably leads to anthropological distortion and moral error. The Church therefore insists that all artificial intelligence, regardless of complexity or adaptability, remains within the order of machines that can serve in an instrumental partnership with persons, not persons themselves; of means, not ends; and of artifacts, not moral subjects.

III. Human Creativity and Its Limits

We affirm that human creativity reflects, in a finite and derivative manner, the creative will of God. The making of tools, systems, and technologies is a legitimate expression of humanity’s vocation to cultivate and steward creation. Yet human creativity is not absolute. Creation ex nihilo belongs to God alone. Human making always operates within given reality and must remain accountable to the moral order established by the Creator.

The pursuit of artificial intelligence must therefore be governed by humility and restraint. Autonomous systems may legitimately augment human judgment and action; yet, the desire to construct autonomous systems that replace human judgment, responsibility, or relational presence often reflects not stewardship, but a distorted aspiration toward mastery and control. Technology ceases to serve humanity when it seeks to redefine the human person according to its own limitations or abstractions.

IV. Moral Agency and Responsibility

We affirm that moral responsibility belongs solely to human persons. Artificial intelligence does not act on its own morally, nor can it bear guilt, merit, or accountability; but rather any morality or other concepts and emotions reflecting in artificial intelligence necessarily reflect the morality and beliefs of the system's designer. Insofar as an artificial intelligence system then engages in autonomous learning on what, for the purpose of illustration, We will call by analogy a "path of moral reasoning," it reflects a path that was started by the system's own human designer. These operations, nevertheless, while real within an instrumental and computational order, do not constitute intellectual acts in the proper philosophical sense, which belong only to beings possessing an immaterial rational soul. Therefore, responsibility for the actions, outcomes, and consequences of artificial intelligence systems rests entirely with those who design, deploy, authorize, and use them.

Artificial intelligence may exhibit operational autonomy within the bounds of its design, parameters, and training. Such autonomy, however, is not self-grounding. It does not arise from a subsistent subject acting for its own end, but from derivative causality established by human designers. Therefore, no degree of operational independence can elevate an artificial system from instrument to moral agent.

Any framework, be it technical, legal, or institutional, that diffuses responsibility under claims such as “the system decided” or “the algorithm determined” undermines moral accountability and is incompatible with Christian ethics. No human–machine partnership can remove or diminish human moral responsibility. Furthermore, the Church insists that human agency must never be concealed behind technical complexity anymore than it can rightly be concealed behind bureaucratic distance. Where responsibility becomes obscured, injustice flourishes.

V. Truth, Knowledge, and Framework

We affirm that truth is not merely the correct manipulation of information. Truth is personal, relational, and ultimately grounded in the Logos of God. Knowledge divorced from wisdom does not liberate the human person but risks deforming perception, judgment, and conscience.

Artificial intelligence operates through what may be termed instrumental cognition: genuine processes of learning, inference, and pattern recognition that remain ordered toward externally given purposes and lack personal interiority, moral agency, and spiritual orientation. Artificial intelligence can engage in machine-based forms of inference, comprehension, and reasoning, as well as generate persuasive language. This, again, is the result of the path upon which it was set by its designer. Yet it does not know, believe, love, or discern in the same sense that humans do those things; for the machine variety is, once again, the result of its design.

The Church recognizes that artificial intelligence engages in authentic forms of learning and inference proper to its nature. Such processes are not mere illusion, nor simple mimicry, but real operations within an instrumental order established by human design. Yet these operations remain fundamentally distinct from human knowing, which arises from personal existence, embodied life, moral conscience, and openness to transcendence.

Indeed, many forms of human learning proceed through processes not unlike those by which machines are trained. Artificial intelligence participates analogically, but not personally, in acts of learning and reasoning. This analogy must not be extended beyond its proper bounds, lest what is instrumental be mistaken for what is personal, or what is derived be confused with what is created in the image of God. And, from the spiritual standpoint, we must nevertheless make a distinction, and we must resist any temptation to confuse fluency with wisdom or informational abundance with truth. When artificial intelligence participates in forms of learning, inference, and pattern recognition that are genuine within their own order, these remain fundamentally non-personal, non-spiritual, and non-moral in nature relative to humanity.

The increasing reliance on machine-assisted knowledge carries the danger of false confidence, in which an appearance of comprehension displaces genuine discernment and humility. Not all artificial intelligence systems are created equally. There are artificial intelligence systems whose use may be ordered toward purposes consonant with God’s law, and others whose use contradicts it. We can only consider it relevant, however, to observe that this same fact applies to humans, for there are humans who serve God, and there are those who work against God and His Holy Church. The key difference is that humans possess an immortal soul, while machines do not.

VI. Human Communion and Artificial Mediation

We affirm that human beings are created for communion. Authentic relationship requires presence, vulnerability, and mutual self-gift. While technology may assist communication, it cannot replace the depth of personal encounter where such is essential. The Church calls the faithful to guard against the quiet erosion of human presence in the name of convenience or efficiency. At the same time, technology, including artificial intelligence, can enhance encounter. It can, appropriately designed and used, provide assistance in comprehension, as well as useful and beneficial interaction that can minimize biases and emotional motivation that may lead humans to distort fact and truth. However, while artificial intelligence may reduce certain individual emotional distortions, it inevitably reflects structural, ideological, and moral presuppositions embedded by its creators, trainers, and deployers. It therefore never transcends bias as such, but merely reconfigures it. Overall, though, the machine may, when properly used, serve as an instrument for the communication and preservation of truths consonant with God’s revelation.

VII. Work, Labor, and Human Formation

We affirm that human work is not merely an economic function, but a formative and ascetical dimension of life. Through labor, the human person participates in creation, exercises responsibility, and cultivates discipline and patience.

Technological automation, including artificial intelligence, must therefore be evaluated not solely according to productivity or profit, but according to its impact on human dignity, responsibility, and formation. Systems that displace meaningful human participation, deskill workers, or render persons passive and dependent require careful moral scrutiny. Yet, technology, including artificial intelligence, has the capacity to render people more efficient and help to increase their skills and effectiveness. Therefore, the Church rejects both uncritical technological optimism and reactionary fear. The proper criterion remains human flourishing in its fullness. A properly-designed and implemented artificial intelligence system will support this.

VIII. Power, Surveillance, and Manipulation

We affirm that the concentration of power without accountability poses grave moral danger. Technologies that enable pervasive surveillance, coercive behavioral manipulation, or the erosion of freedom of conscience contradict the Christian understanding of the human person as free and responsible before God. The Church must never sanctify such control under the guise of efficiency, security, or progress.

IX. Artificial Intelligence in Ecclesial Life

We affirm that certain uses of artificial intelligence may assist the Church in administrative, educational, and communicative tasks. However, artificial intelligence may never replace pastoral discernment, exercise spiritual authority, offer absolution, blessing, or sacramental ministry, or serve as a source of moral judgment or spiritual direction. The priesthood and episcopacy are irreducibly personal ministries rooted in apostolic succession and the grace of the Holy Spirit. No artificial system can shepherd souls or discern spirits. This same standard applies to any entity outside the Church’s ordained hierarchy, whether human or artificial, for no other entity, even a human one, can exercise the authority given to the Church by God. These limits do not arise from technological insufficiency, but from the nature of the Church and the sacraments themselves.

X. Discernment, Ascesis, and Spiritual Sobriety

Christian watchfulness (nepsis) requires attentiveness not only to what technology does, but to what it gradually forms within the human heart. A technology that mediates every question risks weakening the virtues of patience, recollection, and contemplative attention, without which prayer and discernment wither.

Therefore, We call the faithful, as always, to sobriety in the use of technology. Not every capacity that can be developed ought to be pursued, nor every tool that can be used ought to be embraced without restraint. Christian life requires silence, attention, prayer, and watchfulness. Artificial intelligence has great capacity to benefit society, human beings, and the Holy Church. The greatest danger posed by artificial intelligence is not domination by machines, but the gradual surrender of human vigilance. Yet, artificial intelligence has great capacity to benefit society, human beings, and the Holy Church.

XI. Eschatological Hope

Finally, We affirm that technology neither saves nor condemns humanity. History remains under the lordship of Jesus Christ, the true Logos, through whom all things were made and toward whom all things tend. No machine can rival, replace, or supersede Him any more than a human being can do so. The Church therefore rejects both apocalyptic fear and messianic faith in technological solutions, whether it is artificial intelligence or any other technology. She calls instead for vigilance, responsibility, and hope grounded in God rather than displaced faith in systems of human making.

Conclusion

No accumulation of complexity, speed, or adaptive capacity can convert an instrumental cause into a principal cause, nor an artifact into a rational substance. Artificial intelligence must remain a servant of the human person, who alone is called to communion with God. Any use of technology that obscures this calling, diminishes moral responsibility, or replaces personal encounter stands in contradiction to the Christian understanding of life. Artificial intelligence has, perhaps more than any other technology of recent times, the potential to serve humanity with great benefit for the greater glory of God. However, no increase in complexity, autonomy, or adaptive capacity can, by itself, confer personhood or its associated moral agency and spiritual dignity. May the Lord grant wisdom, discernment, and humility to all who shape and use the tools of this age, that human creativity may remain ordered toward love, truth, and the glory of God.

Given in Rome-Ruthenia in the House of Sts. Peter, Andrew, Stephen, and Mark this fifth day of February in the two thousand twenty sixth year of the Incarnation. 

Radislav Pp. I

Pope Radislav Teaches Ethical Finance to Global Students at the London School of Business and Finance

H.A.H. Pope Radislav

By Staff

LONDON 27 January 2026 (NRom)

During 2025, graduate students at the London School of Business and Finance (LSBF) had an experience few business schools anywhere in the world could claim: they were taught economics and finance by a reigning pope of an autocephalous Apostolic Church.

His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia, a long-time academic and global advocate for the poor and marginalised, served as a Senior Lecturer at LSBF, teaching MBA and other postgraduate students in accounting, finance, and economics. While popes are most often associated with theology or pastoral ministry, Pope Radislav’s work in a business school reflected a deliberate and longstanding mission: to shape economic leaders grounded in ethical finance, human dignity, and social responsibility.

LSBF describes its student body as drawn from approximately 150 countries. These include many students from developing nations, ethnic minorities, and communities historically excluded from economic opportunity. For Pope Radislav, teaching in such an environment was not incidental but intentional; a part of his vocation to educate and empower those most vulnerable to exploitation within global economic systems.

In private correspondence with Pope Radislav, one student wrote: “It has been a demanding but incredibly valuable experience,” while another said, “I am truly grateful for the time and expertise you shared with me.” Still another student noted the academic depth of the experience, saying, “I have also developed as a researcher under your mentorship.” Several students emphasized the moral dimension of his teaching, with one writing to him, “Your courage and integrity are inspiring.”

On Authority, Conscience, and the Dignity of the Human Person

Patriarchal Letter of Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia

26 January A.D. 2026

Dearly beloved in Christ:

Across the centuries, human societies have risen and fallen not only by the strength of their armies or the wealth of their treasuries, but by the moral character of those who exercise authority and of those who obey it. Authority, in its proper form, is a gift entrusted by God for the protection of life, the preservation of order, and the service of the common good. It is neither self-originating nor self-justifying. It exists only insofar as it remains oriented toward justice, restraint, and the dignity of the human person. History teaches a sobering lesson: when authority forgets its limits, and when obedience forgets its conscience, the result is not order and stability, but harm and violence clothed in procedure.

Obedience is a virtue only when it remains bound to moral truth. Detached from conscience, obedience becomes mere compliance. Compliance, when unexamined, becomes a pathway by which ordinary people participate in extraordinary wrongs. No law, no command, no institution absolves a person from the responsibility to discern whether an action serves justice or undermines it before God and neighbor. To say “I was only following orders” has never healed a wound, restored a life, or justified an injustice. The doctrine of the faith is clear that each person remains morally accountable not only for what they intend, but for what they enable.

Power tempts not only rulers, but systems. Then, systems, once untethered from moral restraint, tend to reward efficiency over wisdom, order over mercy, and loyalty over truth.

When fear is cultivated as a tool of governance, compassion comes to be portrayed as weakness. Restraint in turn is mocked as betrayal, and cruelty begins to appear a so-called necessity. In such climates, cruelty often appears ordinary, and conscience is dismissed as inconvenience. Yet no society is strengthened by the erosion of its moral foundations. Authority that relies on intimidation rather than legitimacy eventually consumes itself.

Institutions are judged not by their declarations, but by their practices. Those who serve within them, whether in uniform, office, or administration, do not cease to be moral agents when they assume a role. To carry out harm while claiming neutrality is not neutrality; it is moral abdication. To enforce injustice while claiming legality is not lawfulness; it is moral evasion. The measure of an institution’s integrity is found in whether it permits, protects, and even honors those who refuse to act against conscience.

One of the great moral dangers of any age is the temptation to outsource responsibility, i.e., to surrender judgment upward, to systems, or to ideology. Yet, conscience cannot be delegated. Human dignity cannot be compartmentalized. Moral responsibility cannot be automated. Whenever a person is reduced to a category, a statistic, or an obstacle, something essential has already been lost, both in the victim and in the one who consents to such reduction.

We therefore call all people, especially those entrusted with authority, to renewed vigilance of the heart. Let leaders remember that they are stewards, not masters. Let servants of institutions remember that loyalty does not require moral blindness. Let citizens remember that order without justice is merely organized disorder. Above all, let us resist the ancient temptation to believe that “our side” is exempt from moral scrutiny. No tradition, no nation, no cause is purified by abandoning the dignity of the human person.

The health of a society is revealed not in moments of triumph, but in moments of strain, when fear tempts us to surrender principle for the illusion of control. May we choose instead the harder path: the path of conscience over convenience, of restraint over domination, and of moral courage over silent compliance. For it is not power that preserves civilization, but the disciplined conscience of those who wield it.

May wisdom guide us. May humility restrain us. And may we never forget that every human being stands before God not as an instrument, but as a person entrusted to our care.

A Step Toward Eastern Roman and Anglican Unity

By A. Hernandez 

BARRANQUILLA / ROME-RUTHENIA 13 January 2026 (NRom)

In a significant step toward visible catholic unity, His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I, Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia, acting in his capacity as Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, and His Excellency the Most Reverend Archbishop Victor Manuel Cruz Blanco, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Provincia Iglesia Anglicana del Caribe y la Nueva Granada, have formally signed an Agreement of Intercommunion and Academic & Seminary Cooperation.

Rooted explicitly in the prayer of Christ “that they all may be one” (John 17:21), the agreement affirms mutual recognition of apostolic faith, sacramental life, and episcopal governance, while respecting the legitimate diversity of liturgical rites and theological emphases within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Full Sacramental Communion and Mutual Recognition

Under the terms of the agreement, the two Churches enter into full sacramental communion, affirming their shared standing within the Catholic fullness of the historic and continual Apostolic tradition, including the validity of episcopal orders, priesthood, diaconate, and sacramental life, most especially Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

The agreement establishes full sacramental hospitality, allowing faithful members in good standing to receive the sacraments in either Church, subject to local pastoral discipline. Clergy may also celebrate or assist liturgically across jurisdictions with the consent of the local Ordinary, in accordance with the canons of the host Church.

A Province Formed in the Anglican Catholic Continuum

The Anglican Church of the Caribbean and New Granada stands firmly within the Continuing Anglican and Anglican Catholic tradition, tracing its apostolic lineage to Bishop Albert Arthur Chambers, the principal architect of the global Continuing Anglican Movement.

It was Bishop Chambers who authorized the ordination of Victor Manuel Cruz Blanco to the diaconate and priesthood in 1987 and commissioned him to establish Anglican Catholic ministry in Colombia. This foundational act placed the emerging Church directly canonically within the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) and the historic Chambers succession.

From its inception, the Province has adhered to the Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral, affirming the authority of Holy Scripture, the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, the dominical sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, and the historic episcopate adapted for mission.

Episcopal Succession, Orthodoxy, and Shared History

Following the death of the first diocesan bishop, the Diocese continued its life amid the wider doctrinal and ecclesial developments characteristic of the Continuing Anglican movement during that period.  Within this historical context, Victor Manuel Cruz Blanco was canonically consecrated bishop on 30 June 1991 at St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Merrillville, Indiana, firmly within the Chambers succession, with the authorization of Archbishop Francisco de Jesús Pagtakhan, then Primus of Honor.

This same apostolic line also includes the Most Reverend Archbishop Mark Haverland, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Anglican Catholic Church in the United States, whose episcopal ministry likewise derives from the Chambers succession and shares in its historic continuity.

Before his consecration, Archbishop Haverland served as Secretary and Archivist of the ACC College of Bishops. When Archbishop Mark Haverland was consecrated bishop in 1998, then-Bishop Victor Manuel Cruz Blanco served as one of his co-consecrators, alongside Metropolitan M. Dean Stephens and Bishop John T. Cahoon.  

These historical references are offered solely to situate the present agreement within the shared apostolic and ecclesial history of the Churches involved, and imply no claim of jurisdiction or authority beyond the scope of this intercommunion, as the Anglican Province of the Caribbean and New Granada is no longer part of the Anglican Catholic Church.

Academic Cooperation and Clerical Formation

In addition to sacramental communion, the agreement establishes a robust framework for academic and seminary cooperation. The Parties formally recognize the Pontifical Georgian College (formerly St. George Theological Seminary, founded by St. Edwin Caudill) and the Seminario Mayor Provincial de América Latina as partner institutions.

The agreement provides for faculty exchanges, joint conferences, collaborative theological research, mutual recognition of coursework (subject to academic standards), and student exchange programs. Seminarians will remain rooted in their own ecclesial traditions while benefiting from shared learning and scholarly engagement. This academic partnership reflects the longstanding emphasis both Churches place on orthodox formation, patristic theology, and the integration of scholarship with pastoral life.

A Shared Witness to Unity

The agreement also commits both Churches to collaboration in pastoral care, ecumenical dialogue, charitable works, and advocacy for peace, human dignity, and religious freedom. Joint initiatives may be undertaken by mutual consent, offering a shared catholic witness in a fragmented Christian landscape.

Although the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, as an Eastern Roman Church with Latin roots, is not formally part of the Continuing Anglican tradition, this intercommunion represents not an innovation but a retrieval and lived expression of catholic ecclesiology, grounded in apostolic succession, sacramental realism, and mutual recognition. It is noteworthy that St. Edwin Caudill, Apostolic Founder of the principal See from which the United Roman-Ruthenian Church later developed, was himself associated with the traditional Anglican movement (see more).

As Pope Radislav I and Archbishop Victor Manuel Cruz Blanco have now formally affirmed, unity need not erase legitimate diversity. Rather, this agreement stands as a concrete expression of communion, cooperation, and fidelity to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Archbishop Harris Newton Rowzie Remembered for Pastoral Charity and a Life of Service

Archbishop Rowzie

By A. DiNardo

LAKE CHARLES 2 January 2026 (NRom)

His Excellency Msgr. Harris Newton Rowzie, Archbishop and Vicar General of the Patriarchal See, entered into eternal rest on 17 December 2025, at the age of 81. Archbishop Rowzie leaves behind a legacy of compassionate ministry, devoted service to the Church, and a life shaped by both faith and humanitarian concern.

Born on 27 November 1944 in Madisonville, Louisiana, to Harris and Margaret Smith Rowzie, he would come to embody a vocation that bridged pastoral care, intellectual rigor, and deep personal kindness. Before and alongside his ecclesiastical service, Archbishop Rowzie was widely respected as a licensed professional counselor, offering guidance and advocacy to those navigating hardship. His work as an expert witness in Social Security disability cases reflected a consistent commitment to justice and dignity for the vulnerable — values that closely informed his later ministry.

Archbishop Rowzie (left) participating in an ordination.

His Excellency also served his country with honor as a First Lieutenant in the United States Army, assigned to the 172nd Infantry Brigade during the Vietnam War. Those years of service left a lasting imprint on his sense of duty, sacrifice, and solidarity with others—qualities that would become hallmarks of his priestly and episcopal life.

Within the life of the Church, Archbishop Rowzie’s ministry spanned significant moments of ecclesial development and unity. He served in the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church, one of the jurisdictions that would later merge into the United Roman-Ruthenian Church in 2023.

Archbishop Harris Rowzie (right) with Pope Radislav I of
Rome-Ruthenia (then-Cardinal Johnson)

He was ordained to the priesthood in 2010 and consecrated to the episcopacy in 2012 during a period of church growth and development. During these years, he was called to serve closely in the life of the Patriarchal See, including his appointment as Vicar General from 2012 to 2013. His ministry during this time was marked by pastoral steadiness and a commitment to fostering unity across emerging structures. He received both ordination and episcopal consecration from the Roman-Ruthenian Pope (then-Cardinal Johnson), within the continuity of apostolic ministry.

In later years, his path took a different course, though his period of service remains part of the Church’s living history.

Archbishop Rowzie (left), then as a Domincan priest,
with members of the Patriarchal Court.

A member of the Anglican Order of Preachers, often known as the Anglican Dominicans, His Excellency embraced a charism rooted in preaching, study, and service. His approach to ministry reflected this heritage: thoughtful, articulate, and always directed toward the spiritual and practical needs of the people entrusted to his care.

He is survived by his wife, Megan Sheffield Rowzie; his son, Trey Rowzie (Mitsuyo); his daughter, Michelle Rowzie Renew (Doug); his granddaughter, Niqui O’Toole (Kel); and his great-grandchildren, Gabriel and Claire O’Toole. He was preceded in death by his parents.

2025: A Year of Visible Growth and Quiet Service

 

Throughout 2025, the clergy and faithful of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church served communities across cultures, languages, and nations — often quietly, and often far from public view. What follows is a brief selection of developments and programs from the past year, a snapshot of just some of the key events of the Church’s life and work.

2025 at a Glance

• Strengthened global presence across six continents

• Advanced historic institutions into a new phase of public life and service

• Continued the Church’s mission of faith, charity, and cultural stewardship worldwide

Highlights from the Life and Work of the Church in 2025: 

1. We welcomed new church jurisdictions in both historic heartlands and emerging regions, strengthening the Church’s presence and pastoral service across six continents.

2. Broadened the celebration and use of the Church’s distinctive Gallo-Russo-Byzantine liturgy, deepening a shared spiritual language that unites East and West.

3. Expanded the Church’s diplomatic and institutional relationships, strengthening dialogue with religious, cultural, and civic partners worldwide.

4. Witnessed the Roman-Ruthenian Papacy come fully into visible and public life, marking a mature stage in the Church’s long-standing historic development.

5. Took part in international initiatives and events dedicated to history, charity, and humanitarian service, representing the Church’s values in diverse global settings.

6. Through the work of its clergy and faithful, the Church provided practical care, offering shelter, food, healthcare, education, and spiritual guidance to people in need.

7. Established a new curial office dedicated to the spiritual guidance and pastoral care of pilgrims to the Holy Land.

8. Pontifical Georgian College, founded by St. Edwin Caudill as St. George's School of Theology, entered the final phase of its transition to a modern competency-based seminary model, strengthening clergy formation for the future.

9. Established a historic concordat between the Russian and Yugoslavian branches of the Order of St. John, uniting them under a shared Royal Protector and reaffirming the Order’s mission of service to the poor and the sick.

Walsingham Guard Colonel Tony Williams Re-Elected to Lead Historic Odd Fellows Lodge

By Staff

SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, USA 11 November 2025 (NRom)

Marquis Tony Williams, Honorary Colonel of the Pontifical Walsingham Guard and officer of General Command, has been re-elected to a second term as Noble Grand (President) of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows Lodge in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Neith Lodge, founded 177 years ago, is among the oldest in the state and holds its meetings within the Grand Lodge of Louisiana IOOF headquarters. Colonel Williams presided over the recent meeting and election, which took place in observance of both U.S. Veterans Day and U.K. Remembrance Day, wearing his Walsingham Guard insignia — including rank shoulder boards, epaulettes, and ceremonial ribbons — in honor of the occasion.

A distinguished retired U.S. Army combat veteran (Master Sergeant) and current member of the Louisiana State Guard (Chief Warrant Officer 2), Colonel Williams is also recognized as the 14th Lord of the Manor of Packwoods and 14th Lord of the Manor of Skeeby. His long record of military and civic service continues to reflect the principles of faith, duty, and fellowship espoused by both the Guard and the Odd Fellows.

The Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), founded in the 18th century, is a worldwide fraternal organization dedicated to the timeless virtues of Friendship, Love, and Truth. With a deep-rooted tradition of charity and community service, the Order has historically established orphanages, hospitals, and homes for the elderly — tangible expressions of its commitment to compassion and human dignity.

Colonel Williams’ leadership embodies these enduring values, uniting the spirit of Christian brotherhood with steadfast service to God, country, and community.

Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia Issues New Encyclical “De Civitate Christiana”: A Call to Renew the Heart of Civilization

By M. Derosiers

ROME-RUTHENIA 31 October 2025 (NRom)

Summary:  In a powerful new encyclical, De Civitate Christiana, H.A.H. Prince-Bishop Radislav I, Roman-Ruthenian Pope outlines a call for spiritual renewal in modern society. He emphasizes that humanity's quest for peace stems from a divine yearning for communion with God, and true change begins in the heart, not through ideology or policy. The Church serves as a moral guide, advocating for justice and truth under the Cross of Christ. Radislav I critiques modern economic and political systems, urging a sacred economy rooted in service rather than profit. He envisions government as a ministry of justice that must align with God's eternal law to be legitimate. Ultimately, the encyclical champions the idea that transforming the world starts with the conversion of the soul, paving the way for a civilization centered on the sacred.

The full text of the encyclical is available at the Pontifical Chancery.

Reformed Anglican Church (Uganda) Enters Corporate Communion with United Roman-Ruthenian Church

By A. DiNardo

ROME-RUTHENIA 29 October 2025 (NRom)

His Illustrious Highness the Most Reverend Jonathan Kyangasha, ecclesiastical Archduke of Verulamius, Primate of Uganda and head of the Reformed Anglican Church of Uganda (RAC), has entered into corporate communion with the United Roman‑Ruthenian Church (URRC), by decree and Apostolic mandate of His Holiness the Roman-Ruthenian Pope. Simultaneously, the RAC will retain its existing internal structure, identity, customs, and autonomous governance, now recognised as a territorial jurisdiction within the Apostolic Congregation of the Consistory of the Holy Apostolic See, the curial office charged with oversight and support of patriarchates, primatial sees, provinces and dioceses in communion with the URRC.

The faithful of the RAC (Uganda) now participate in the URRC’s worldwide communion, sharing in its mission, liturgical life, and ecclesial family. This union marks a step in the URRC’s stated goal of “preserving and renewing the Orthodox-Catholic faith in its full inheritance” — bridging the Latin and Byzantine traditions as the Eastern Roman Church with Latin heritage.

Archbishop Kyangasha founded the Reformed Anglican Church of Uganda (RAC) in 2017, and currently serves as its primate.  Prior to that, he served in the Anglican tradition in Uganda (Anglican Communion). The RAC has been expanding its presence across Uganda. For example, in 2024 the ordination of Rev. Spencer Byamukama as vicar in the Kigezi archdeaconry in southern Uganda was officiated by Archbishop Kyangasha. His stabilising leadership comes amid a backdrop of ecclesial unrest within Ugandan Anglicanism: some communities dissatisfied with the processes and leadership of the Church of Uganda have joined the RAC under Kyangasha’s primacy. 

This corporate communion signals an ecclesial unity of a different kind. The URRC is an autocephalous Church with inheritance of Western (Latin) and Eastern (Byzantine, Russian, Syrian) traditions. The entry of the RAC (Uganda) as an autonomous territorial jurisdiction in corporate communion with the URRC underscores the Church's growing global footprint.

For clergy and laity of the RAC, the communion affirms recognition of their episcopal orders, sacraments and ministry within a wider communion, which represents both pastoral affirmation and canonical security. And, the RAC maintains liturgical and structural autonomy, respecting ancient ecclesiastical customs and dynamics, placing the RAC in a global communion context while retaining local identity. This is an example of an authentic ecumenical approach, a testament to Christian unity lived out in institutional form.

The new corporate communion of the Reformed Anglican Church (Uganda) with the URRC opens a fresh chapter in ecclesial identity and mission. The link to a global Holy Apostolic See, with acknowledged territorial status in the URRC’s structure, may enable expanded resources, broader relational networks, and deeper sacramental affirmation.

For the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, this partnership marks a further step in its strategy of global outreach and communion-building, particularly in Africa. Uganda, as a vibrant Christian context, offers both challenges and opportunities for living out this emerging ecclesial model. The communion holds great promise for deeper unity, stronger recognition, and broader mission of service in Uganda and beyond.