Eva Duarte Perón Declared Servant of God

 

A. DiNardo

BUENOS AIRES 17 April 2026 (NRom)

The Apostolic Office for the Glorification of the Saints of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church has announced that Eva Duarte Perón has been declared a Servant of God by His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia. This designation marks an important step in her cause for canonization, which was formally opened in 2025 and remains ongoing.

The Holy Father’s recognition highlights Perón’s widely acknowledged virtues, particularly her lifelong commitment to the care of the poor and marginalized. Her charitable initiatives and advocacy for social justice have been cited as key elements in evaluating her life of Christian witness.

As a Servant of God, Perón’s life will now undergo further theological and historical examination as part of the Church’s discernment process regarding sainthood. The Apostolic Office emphasized that the cause continues to progress, inviting the faithful to reflect on her example and to support the process through prayer.

Roman-Ruthenian Pope Comments on Profane Images of Christ

ROME-RUTHENIA 15 April 2026 (NRom)

Statement by His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia on recent profane depictions of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 

We are gravely saddened to learn of a recent video, reportedly disseminated by authorities in Iran, in which the Divine Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed in a manner gravely offensive to His sacred dignity.

In this representation, the Redeemer is depicted within a profane and violent scene, unworthy of Him who is meek and humble of heart, and who shall come again not in spectacle, but in justice and majesty.

Such misuse of the sacred image constitutes an offense against religion itself, and cannot be justified under the pretext of political expression or national rivalry.

At the same time, We must recall that the Holy Name and image of Our Lord are never to be employed lightly, irreverently, or as instruments of mere political display by any party whatsoever. For Christ the King is not to be enlisted in the contests of men, nor reduced to a figure of worldly contention, but adored in spirit and in truth.

We therefore condemn all such profanations, from whatever source they may arise, and call upon all men to restore due reverence to the sacred, lest the sense of the divine be further obscured among the nations.

Roman-Ruthenian Pope Reaffirms the Unique Kingship of Christ Amid Irreverent Political Imagery

ROME-RUTHENIA 13 April 2026 (NRom)

Statement by His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia:

Politicians are not the Saviour. Therefore, the Church, as guardian of the honor due to Almighty God, cannot remain silent when the sacred Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ is treated in a manner unbecoming His divine majesty. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, the Eternal Word made flesh, is the sole Redeemer of mankind and the universal King to whom all nations and rulers are subject. His kingship is not metaphorical nor symbolic, but real, supreme, and absolute over all creation.

Therefore, any representation that places a temporal ruler, whether implicitly or explicitly, in the likeness, role, or action proper to Christ the Lord, especially in His divine works such as the healing of the sick, constitutes a grave disorder, regardless of who created the image. Such imagery risks sowing confusion among the faithful, diminishing the reverence owed to the Incarnate Word, and encouraging a spirit akin to idolatry, whereby man looks to earthly power for what belongs to God alone. The Second Commandment forbids not only false worship, but also the irreverent use of holy things. Sacred images exist to elevate the soul to God; they must never be made instruments of worldly ambition or nationalistic exaltation.

The faithful are therefore admonished to reject all tendencies to attribute quasi-messianic significance to any political figure. Put not your trust in princes (Ps. 145:2), but in Christ the King, whose reign is eternal and whose authority admits no rival.

At the same time, we exhort all to respond not with intemperate speech, but with due gravity, charity, and fidelity to the truth. Let reparation be made for offenses against the sacred dignity of Our Lord, and let all renew their allegiance to Him who alone heals, saves, and reigns. Given this, we call upon all the Christian faithful to hold fast to the perennial teaching of the Church, honoring Christ not in word alone, but in rightly ordered worship, reverent devotion, and the submission of both personal and public life to His sovereign rule.

Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.

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.

Statement by His Holiness Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia on the Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in the Middle East and the World

Grave responsibility lies with those who have initiated and sustained actions that fail to meet the moral criteria for just war, particularly those who have chosen to engage in military action far beyond their own borders when diplomatic solutions remained viable, under the decisive direction of a single executive authority. The resulting escalation has significantly contributed to a widening humanitarian crisis, disruption of global energy stability, and cascading economic effects that threaten the most vulnerable populations. Indeed, no nation possesses the authority to dominate the world or to bend the community of nations to its own will. Power does not confer moral license, and global order cannot be justly founded upon the unilateral imposition of one state’s interests over others.

Such actions cannot be understood merely as matters of political strategy or national interest. They must be judged according to the higher moral law that governs the use of force. When military power is exercised absent true necessity as defined in Just War Doctrine, and when it foreseeably produces widespread suffering among civilian populations, it departs from the bounds of legitimate defense and enters into moral disorder.

Equally concerning is the normalization of language and attitudes that treat the use of force, the projection of military power, and even the loss of human life with a casual or dismissive tone. Such detachment from the human cost of war is itself a moral disorder and stands in contradiction to the reverence for life demanded by the Christian conscience.

The present situation in the Middle East further demonstrates the grave danger of normalizing preemptive or discretionary uses of force untethered from strict moral criteria. If such actions are accepted as permissible, the distinction between defense and aggression becomes obscured, and the door is opened to perpetual conflict justified by fear, speculation, or strategic ambition rather than by justice.

Moreover, the consequences now unfolding extend far beyond any single region or political objective. Disruptions to energy supplies, economic instability, and threats to food security disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable across the world. These are not incidental effects. Rather, they are foreseeable outcomes that must be included in any serious moral evaluation of the decision to use force.

The Church therefore reiterates that the burden of proof for the use of military force remains extraordinarily high. It is not sufficient to assert necessity; it must be demonstrated with clarity and moral certainty. Where such certainty is lacking, and where peaceful alternatives remain, the initiation or continuation of violence cannot be justified.

In this light, all parties are called to cease further escalation and to return to the path of diplomacy and negotiation. True strength is not shown in the capacity to project force, but in the wisdom to restrain it for the sake of justice, peace, and the preservation of human life.

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

Encyclical on Recent Military Escalation and the Christian Duty to Peace of H.A.H. Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia

ROME-RUTHENIA 2 March 2026 (NRom)

RADISLAV PP. I

Pacem et Justitiam in Mundo

To the Bishops, Clergy, and Faithful of Christ, and to All Peoples of Good Will:

I. Prologue: Invocation and Solemn Concern

In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Prince of Peace, We address all the faithful and those entrusted with the governance of nations and remind all that the Lord taught us to love our enemies and to seek reconciliation. Recent military actions resulting in the targeted killing of a foreign head of state and the rapid escalation of hostilities mark a grave and dangerous moment in international affairs.

The Church must proclaim that no nation, however powerful, is exempt from the moral law of God; and no military action, however justified by human reason or supposed political expediency, is always subject to the immutable law of God. When military force is used beyond immediate and proportionate defense, when escalation becomes a reflex rather than a last resort, the conscience of the Christian people must be troubled. Human power, if untempered by virtue, becomes a source of suffering rather than a guardian of justice.

II. The Sanctity of Human Life & The Limits of Power

All men and women are created in the image and likeness of God. No nation, however mighty, no authority, however exalted, may disregard this fundamental truth. The shedding of innocent blood is never permitted, and the deliberate taking of life outside the bounds of legitimate defense is an affront to Almighty God who created all.

The Apostolic Church has, throughout her history, affirmed the right of nations to defend themselves against aggression. Yet she teaches also that such defense must always be proportionate, necessary as a last resort, directed toward the protection of the innocent, and guided by prudence and moral law. Thus, even in the pursuit of security, rulers are bound by conscience and by the divine law.

Furthermore, legitimate defense does not include the normalization of preemptive or expansive violence untethered from clear necessity. The just war doctrine is a severe moral test. It demands certainty of grave and lasting harm, exhaustion of peaceful alternatives, proportionality in response, protection of noncombatants, and a realistic prospect that force will restore order rather than multiply chaos.

History has repeatedly shown that the targeted removal of political leaders rarely produces stability. More often, it unleashes cycles of retaliation, instability, and suffering for civilians. Power without restraint is not strength but temptation.

III. Historical Perspective and the Lessons of the Past

In centuries past, Christians faced grave threats to the faithful and to the pilgrimage to the Holy Places. Some of our forebears, moved by zeal and the urgency of the situation, took part in the Crusades, armed expeditions to defend Christendom and protect the innocent. These acts were conducted under extraordinary circumstances, and even then, the Church emphasized that the blood of innocents could never be justified.

Today, the world is governed by different laws, international norms, and human institutions. Modern military conflicts, though politically complex, are subject to the same moral law: the protection of life, the pursuit of justice, and the promotion of lasting peace must guide the conscience of all peoples.

Again We state that the lesson of history is that the use of force as a habitual instrument of policy, rather than a last resort, tends to inflame hatred, deepen divisions, and multiply suffering. Christians must learn from both the courage and the errors of our ancestors.

IV. The Moral Evaluation of Nations

All nations, great and small, are accountable to God. The Church does not judge political ideology but judges actions according to the natural law and the precepts of the Gospel. When military action is undertaken without clear necessity, when diplomacy is abandoned, or when innocent lives are placed at undue risk, such conduct fails the test of justice. The greater the power wielded, the greater the moral responsibility. Might does not confer moral license.

Furthermore, the faithful must beware of placing their hope in men or political parties rather than in Christ. Political allegiance may never displace conscience. The actions of a favored leader, if morally deficient, remain morally deficient.

Indeed, for generations, powerful nations have justified interventions across the globe in the name of security or freedom. Yet the fruit has often been fractured societies, displaced families, and prolonged instability. If military action becomes habitual and authentic diplomacy becomes secondary, then dominance replaces dialogue, and it becomes difficult if not impossible to meet the strict criteria of just war.

V. The Call to Peace

Christ’s command to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) and His beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9), are not optional guidance for Christians in the public square. These are eternal imperatives.

The Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic Church calls upon all peoples and leaders, therefore, to restrain the use of force except in the gravest necessity; protect the innocent, especially the poor, women, and children; pursue justice through dialogue, negotiation, and mediation; and recognize that true peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of right order rooted in charity and the moral law.

In times of war, let prayer, sacrifice, and works of mercy accompany all action. Let the faithful support refugees, the displaced, and all victims of violence with charity and fidelity.

Let it be remember that the Church defends moral law, the innocent, and the truth that human life, even the life of an adversary, cannot be treated lightly. Every nation will answer to God for the blood shed under its authority.

VI. Conclusion: Trust in Divine Providence

Ours is not a call to despair but to hope. Christ reigns over history, and no human power can escape His providence. Though nations falter and leaders err, the Apostolic Church, proclaiming the timeless and unchanging faith of Christ, remains the moral compass by which all must measure themselves.

Let every bishop, priest, and faithful Christian reaffirm: our ultimate allegiance is to God, our ultimate protection lies in virtue, and our ultimate task is the service of peace.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Star of the Sea and Queen of Peace, intercede for all who suffer in conflict, guide rulers toward justice, and lead the world into the tranquility of lasting peace.

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

The Second Vatican Council and the Crisis of Continuity: How a Pastoral Council Reshaped Roman Catholicism and Why Its Effects Reached Far Beyond the Vatican

Radislav Pp. I Romano-Ruthenicus

Introduction: Why Vatican II Still Matters

From the standpoint of the Apostolic Churches that retained continuity of doctrine and worship without rupture, the Roman Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council nevertheless is an event of both concern and far-reaching effect and influence. Few events in modern Christianity have had consequences as wide-ranging as the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). For Roman Catholics, it marked the most dramatic transformation of ecclesial life in centuries. And, for the Orthodox and the Old Catholics, as well as Protestant Christians, it altered Rome’s posture toward doctrine, worship, and authority in ways that reshaped ecumenical relations and even influenced broader Christian practice.

Supporters of Vatican II often describe it as a “new Pentecost,” intended to breathe new life into the Church. Critics, especially from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective, argue that while the Council did not formally overturn doctrine, it initiated a practical and cultural rupture whose effects have been devastating: collapsing vocations, doctrinal confusion, liturgical disintegration, and a loss of confidence in the Church’s own identity.

Thus, considering the ongoing application of Vatican II and its far-reaching effects, we in the United Roman-Ruthenian Church cannot ignore it. We must answer a simple but serious question: How could a council that officially changed little in doctrine nonetheless change almost everything in practice?

1. What Vatican II Was and Was Not

Vatican II differed from earlier ecumenical councils in a fundamental way. Earlier councils, such as Trent or Vatican I, were convened for purposes such as condemning specific heresies, defining doctrine precisely, and restoring discipline. Vatican II, by contrast, explicitly defined itself as pastoral, not dogmatic. It aimed not to settle doctrinal disputes but to present Roman Catholic teaching in a way that, as it claimed, could be more intelligible to the modern world. This distinction is crucial.

While Vatican II issued no new dogmatic definitions, it nevertheless changed emphases, introduced new theological language, and encouraged adaptation, dialogue, and reform to fit the style of the modern world.

The Council’s documents were often deliberately broad, leaving room for interpretation. That openness, initially seen by some as a strength, became the mechanism by which profound changes followed.

2. The Foundational yet Flawed Assumption: That the Church Needed “Updating”

The idea of aggiornamento (“updating”) presupposed that the Roman Catholic Church, as she existed before the 1960s, was in some sense out of step with the modern world. But this is a flawed premise at the core, for the Church is never supposed to seek to be in sync with the world, but rather is supposed to follow always and everywhere the timeless faith.

Furthermore, their diagnosis is historically questionable. On the eve of Vatican II, seminaries were full, religious orders were flourishing, Roman Catholic schools and parishes were strong, and belief and practice were coherent and unified. This is not to claim that all was perfect, but rather that the Roman Catholic Church’s internal coherence had not yet collapsed.

While the Church faced external pressures from secularism, communism, and egalitarian democracy, internally she was effectively stable. To “update” such a body required more than superficial adjustment. It required rethinking how the Church related to history, culture, and authority itself. This shift in self-understanding would prove decisive.

3. Vocations and the Collapse of Religious Life

Perhaps the most measurable post-conciliar effect was the dramatic collapse in priestly and religious vocations. This was not merely a demographic trend. It followed several concrete changes.

One critical change was that the priesthood was fundamentally reimagined. Traditionally, the Catholic priest, like those of the Apostolic Church in general, was understood primarily as one who offers sacrifice, a mediator between God and man, and a figure set apart, visibly and ritually. Yet, after Vatican II, the priest increasingly came to be described as a “presider” over the community, a facilitator of participation, and a pastoral companion.

The shift may sound subtle, but it altered the fundamental meaning of the vocation at a very profound level. Men do not give their lives for functional roles. They do so for mystery, sacrifice, and transcendence. When the priesthood became less visibly sacrificial and more managerial, vocations declined.

Another related and critical change was that religious life was effectively “renewed” out of existence. Religious orders were urged to reevaluate their charisms, adapt to modern culture, as well as modify habits, enclosure, and asceticism. The result was predictable. Distinctive identities dissolved, contemplative life was marginalized, and community discipline weakened. As religious life became indistinguishable from secular life, its rationale disappeared.

4. Doctrine: Unchanged on Paper, Altered in Practice

Defenders of Vatican II often respond: “But the Church’s teachings did not change.” Formally, this is substantially true. Substantively, it is incomplete.

It must be acknowledged that many bishops and theologians involved in the Council acted with sincere pastoral concern. Yet, the Council moved from Doctrine to “pastoral discernment.” Before Vatican II, doctrine determined pastoral practice, as it historically has throughout the Apostolic Church. Yet, after Vatican II, pastoral concerns increasingly reshaped how doctrine was applied, emphasized, or even explained. This reversal had enormous consequences. Moral absolutes became “ideals,” sin was reframed as psychological brokenness, and judgment, hell, and conversion receded from preaching.

Now, no dogma was denied, for to do so would have created an internal crisis. But the hierarchy of truths was reordered. What the Church stopped emphasizing, the faithful largely stopped believing. One need not formally deny or modify dogma or doctrine to render it effectively removed or modified through example and practice.

5. Liturgy: The Engine of Change

Nothing shaped post-conciliar Roman Catholicism more than the transformation of the liturgy. The traditional Tridentine Rite (often simply referred to as “the Latin Mass”) emphasized sacrifice, was oriented toward God (literally and symbolically), and formed belief through reverence, silence, and continuity. On the other hand, the so-called “reformed” liturgy emphasized comprehensibility, participation, and community expression. While these goals were not necessarily illegitimate, the execution led to the loss of sacred language, an horizontal focus, and a dramatic break from inherited worship.

And indeed there was no need, for the traditional liturgy itself involved participation and community expression, and it was made comprehensible through education and practice. The issue was that this participation, community expression, and comprehensibility was not in line with the modernist ideals that the reformers sought.

Most importantly, because worship forms belief (lex orandi, lex credendi), the liturgical rupture catechized generations into a different understanding of Christianity. That new understanding was less sacrificial, less transcendent, more immanent.

6. Broad Impact

Many things changed as the result of Vatican II. For example, a necessary result was a reduction in doctrinal clarity. Truth was reframed as something approached together rather than possessed and proclaimed. This shift in epistemology arguably converged with Anglican liturgical reforms and mainline Protestant theology, as well as a broader Christian move toward inclusivity over doctrinal clarity. Ironically, the Vatican adopted patterns already weakening other Christian bodies, and those patterns had already proven corrosive. When modernist concepts such as theological subjectivism, relativized truth, and historicism over revelation came to the Vatican, it was like pouring petrol on a bonfire.

7. Vatican II as an Ideological Boundary

Today, Vatican II functions less as an ecumenical council among others and more as a litmus test. To question its fruits is often treated as disobedience, fear of modernity, and rejection of the Spirit. This result is often seen even within the broader Apostolic Church and some Protestant communities. To question Vatican II’s principles, even among non-Roman Catholics, is often to be viewed as being stuck in the past, a nostalgic antiquarian, or focused on the wrong things rather than whatever they define as the common good.

This is why, in the Vatican Church, ancient liturgical forms are highly restricted, pre-conciliar theology and those professing it are viewed with suspicion, and tradition is tolerated only as an aesthetic preference (and then only to a point). Vatican II has become a meta-principle: not simply something to be interpreted, but something that interprets everything else.

8. Why the Vatican Hierarchy Appears “Trapped”

Many Roman Catholic leaders sincerely believe in Vatican II, not merely as a historical council, but as the foundation of the modern Church’s legitimacy. To admit that its implementation failed would feel like admitting pastoral error or even undermining authority, calling decades of governance into question.

Thus, the response to crisis is often “More Vatican II.” It is proclaimed that the council was not flawed, but they merely need “better implementation” or “greater openness.” Such a paradigm cannot be questioned because it defines the system itself.

9. Conclusion: Continuity or Rupture?

From the perspective of the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic Church, and indeed also from a traditional Catholic perspective, the problem is not Vatican II’s texts alone, but the spirit of rupture they enabled. Christianity is not sustained by relevance, adaptation, or dialogue, but by continuity, sacrifice, and fidelity to what has been handed down. This is what the United Roman-Ruthenian Church was given in unbroken succession to maintain. We would sincerely hope our brethren in the Roman Communion would do likewise, for when inheritance gives way to experimentation, institutions may survive, but they lose their soul.

The ongoing debate over Vatican II is therefore not about nostalgia versus progress. It is about whether Christianity understands itself as something received or something reconstructed. That question affects not only the Roman Catholics directly impacted by Vatican II, but all Christians facing modernity’s pressure to change in order to survive. Yet, history suggests the opposite is true.

On Power, Law, and Moral Accountability: Patriarchal Letter of HAH the Roman-Ruthenian Pope

RADISLAV PP. I 

Patriarchal Letter: On Power, Law, and Moral Accountability

In every age, nations are tempted to clothe power in the language of righteousness. When a state claims the right to act beyond natural law, beyond treaty, and beyond the limits it demands others observe, it does not reveal moral clarity but moral disorder. The Christian tradition has never taught that might alone makes right. On the contrary, the greater a nation’s power, the greater its obligation to restraint, justice, and fidelity to law. Power is not self-justifying; it is accountable before history, before humanity, and before God. 

The Church has long taught that law among nations, treaties, and recognized norms exist not as mere constructs to observe when convenient, but as moral instruments intended to restrain violence and preserve order, insofar as they reflect authentic justice and the natural law. When states honor these norms selectively, invoking them when useful and discarding them when obstructive, they corrode the very moral framework they claim to defend. Such behavior erodes trust, destabilizes regions, and invites retaliation under the same logic. Indeed, no nation may declare itself inherently righteous, appealing to a self-defined conception of the good, in order to legitimize whatever actions it chooses. That constitutes arrogance. When a nation proceeds further, denying that other nations may claim the same moral license, such reasoning also becomes hypocrisy. What one power claims for itself today, others will claim tomorrow. 

From a Christian perspective, the use of force beyond one’s borders, including the seizure of persons or the exercise of coercive authority over another nation, must be judged not by slogans, political alignment, or claimed outcomes, but by objective moral principles. The Gospel grants no nation a messianic role. No state, however powerful, is the Kingdom of God. When governments presume moral exemption for themselves while condemning identical actions by rivals, they fall into hypocrisy, which Our Lord condemned with particular severity.

The Church’s tradition of just governance and just war is exacting, not permissive. It requires legitimate authority exercised within moral and legal bounds; a just cause involving actual and grave injustice; right intention ordered to justice rather than dominance; true necessity, exercised as a last resort; proportionality in means and consequences; and respect for the innocent and for sovereignty rightly understood. These criteria are not rhetorical ideals but binding moral conditions. They are cumulative, not optional.

Claims of a generalized, speculative, or remote “threat” do not meet the Christian standard for just cause. Likewise, criminal activity in and of itself does not rise to the level of a cause for military action. Furthermore, fear, strategic advantage, or anticipated future risk, however sincerely asserted, do not justify coercive force in Orthodox and Catholic moral theology. While preemptive action can be legitimate under just war doctrine, preemptive action based simply on conjecture belongs to modern security doctrine, not to the Christian tradition. Likewise, merely preventative action is never doctrinally permissible. Where necessity is absent, force becomes expedience; where expedience governs, justice under God is already compromised.

Equally grave is the corruption of moral judgment that arises from double standards. When a state excuses for itself what it condemns in others, it implicitly declares that law binds only the weak, while practical legitimacy devolves into a question of "who can" rather than "who may." Such reasoning does not merely weaken credibility; it dissolves the very concept of justice. In Christian moral reasoning, hypocrisy is not a secondary flaw but a decisive one, because it replaces principled judgment with tribal loyalty and power with permission.

The Church, therefore, must speak clearly even when her voice is unwelcome. She is aligned with no empire, bloc, political party, or ideology. She stands with law over lawlessness, with restraint over domination, and with repentance over self-congratulation. The faithful must resist the temptation to excuse immoral actions simply because they are committed by those we favor or fear to criticize. Before God, there is no double standard.

Finally, we must remember that nations, like individuals, will be judged not only by the evils they oppose, but by the means they employ. History is unkind to those who imagine themselves exempt from the rules they impose on others. The Church prays for the conversion of rulers, that humility, justice, and the fear of God may not only dwell in their hearts reflected in their policies. For when law is trampled and power is unchecked, it is always the poor, the voiceless, and the innocent who suffer first.

May we have the courage to name injustice wherever it appears, the wisdom to distinguish authority from domination, and the faith to believe that obedience to God’s law is never weakness, but the only path to true peace.

United Roman-Ruthenian Church Announces Historic Concordat Between the Russian and Yugoslavian Branches of the Order of St. John

H.R.H. Sire Rubén, Royal Protector
of the Order of St. John

By A. DiNardo 

ROME-RUTHENIA 17 November 2025 (NRom)

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church today formally announced the signing of a historic concordat between the Russian branch of the Hospitaller Order of St. John, led by His Highness Don Basilio Calì, Prince of Rhodes, Grand Master, and the Russian-Yugoslavian branch of the Order of St. John, maintained under the ecclesiastical protection of the Church. 

The concordat was solemnly signed earlier this month by His Apostolic Highness Prince-Bishop Radislav I, Roman-Ruthenian Pope, Sovereign of the Russian-Yugoslavian Order of St. John, and His Royal Highness Sire Rubén (Esteve IV), Chief of the Merovingian Dynasty, Royal Protector of both historic branches of the Order.

Church officials described the agreement as “a reaffirmation of historical legitimacy, fraternity, and continuity” within the ancient chivalric tradition rooted in the Crusader Knights of St. John.

H.I.M. Tsar Pavel I of Russia as Grand Master of the Knights of Malta

A Renewal of a Shared Heritage

The cooperation between the Russian obedience and the Yugoslavian obedience (also known as Russian-Yugoslavian) represents a reunion of two lines that share a common origin in the upheavals following the fall of Malta in 1798. When Tsar Pavel I gave sanctuary to the displaced Knights of St. John, he established the order under his sovereign authority, becoming the first Orthodox Grand Master in the Order’s history. That tradition endured within the Romanov dynasty (the order later being known as a Grand Priory in Russia) until the early twentieth century, when Tsar Nikolai II placed the care and continuity of the Order under the Royal House of Yugoslavia. King Peter II later renewed the statutes of the Yugoslavian continuation in 1964 while in exile.

H.M. King Peter II of Yugoslavia

In the complex history of the Russian–Yugoslavian succession of the Order of St. John, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church ultimately became the principal steward of the line descending from King Peter II. His Apostolic Highness Pope Radislav I had long held the rank of Bailiff Grand Cross under the authority derived from King Peter II’s statutes, and had also been admitted to a Russian successor branch recognized by Prince Trubetskoi, who served as Lieutenant Grand Master in the time of Peter II. While various modern bodies claim heritage from the original Knights Hospitaller of St. John, including from the Russian and Yugoslavian traditions, what can be clearly affirmed is that the branch maintained within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church is the only continuation that unites both the Peter II succession and the Trubetskoi connection under a single, traceable line of authority supported by the ecclesiastical endorsement of the Orthodox Old Catholic Roman-Ruthenian Pope. In this sense, the Church’s custodianship represents not exclusivity, but the responsible preservation of the specific lineage entrusted to it.

H.R.H. Sire Rubén, Royal Protector, at the Magistral
Palace of the Russian obedience of the
Order of St. John located in Malta

The related Russian branch, under Grand Master Don Basilio Calì, preserves the active charitable and chivalric dimension of the legacy. The new concordat formally links the two living continuations of the same historic institution, recognizing shared roots, mutual legitimacy, and a commitment to safeguarding the Order’s heritage for future generations.

Also, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church recognizes that the centuries-long history of the Knights of St. John has resulted in several successor bodies around the world, each preserving aspects of the Order’s charitable and chivalric mission. While the Church maintains its own historic Russian-Yugoslavian continuation, it affirms respect and Christian fraternity toward all legitimate traditions descending from the ancient Hospitaller heritage. The concordat announced today is thus not exclusive in spirit, but stands as a testament to unity, mutual goodwill, and shared devotion to the timeless ideals of the Order.

First page of the concordat document

Details of the Concordat

The concordat establishes mutual recognition between the two branches as continuations of the historic Russian and Yugoslavian tradition of the Order of St. John. It also appoints H.R.H. Sire Rubén (Esteve IV) as the Royal Protector of both obediences.

Church officials emphasized that, while the Russian-Yugoslavian branch remains primarily custodial and honorary in nature, the concordat allows deeper cooperation with the active charitable works of the Russian branch.

Significance of the Agreement

The concordat marks one of the most meaningful developments in the Order’s modern history. For the first time in decades, the two obediences that stem from the same Russian and Yugoslavian inheritance have formally affirmed a shared mission of Fides, Caritas, et Servitium (Faith, Charity, and Service).

Its significance includes a restoration of unity in a divided legacy. The Order’s survival through political turmoil—from Napoleon’s conquest to the Bolshevik Revolution and the fall of Yugoslavia—left multiple lines of succession. The new agreement strengthens unity among the legitimate continuations of the Russian tradition. And, the concordat ensures that this distinctive heritage is preserved both spiritually (through the Church) and actively (through the Russian branch).

With both branches under the Royal Merovingian Dynasty’s patronage and, for the Yugoslavian branch, the sovereignty of the Roman-Ruthenian Pope, the Order gains renewed stability. 

Statements from Church Leadership

In remarks following the signing, Pope Radislav I stated that the agreement “honors the memory of Tsar Pavel I and King Peter II, and solidifies the shared vocation of the Order across its historic branches.” He noted that the Church remains committed to preserving the Order’s legacy with dignity and fidelity.

H.R.H. Sire Rubén, Royal Protector of both branches, praised the concordat and stated that for him “it will be a great honor to accept this responsibility.”

An Enduring Mission

The Order of St. John, from its origins in the medieval Hospitaller tradition to its Russian and Yugoslavian chapters, has remained steadfast in its dedication to Christian charity and chivalric service. The 2025 concordat reaffirms that legacy, ensuring that both the active and custodial aspects of the Order continue to work in harmony, preserving a tradition that has endured for nearly a thousand years.

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.

New Patriarchal Letter on Christian Duty released by Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia

By Staff

ROME-RUTHENIA 10 October 2025 (NRom)

In a recently-released patriarchal letter entitled In omni generatione, His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Prince-Bishop Radislav I, Roman-Ruthenian Pope, Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, offers a strong and compelling reminder of the Church’s eternal mission amid the shifting sands of politics and national identity. Speaking with the authority of the Apostolic tradition, His Holiness warns against the seductions of nationalism and partisanship that threaten to entangle the Bride of Christ in worldly loyalties. Instead, His Holiness calls clergy and faithful alike to reaffirm their true citizenship in the Kingdom of God, where mercy triumphs over power and truth stands above ideology. This letter serves as both a rebuke and a beacon, urging believers to remain steadfast, compassionate, and unafraid as witnesses to a faith that transcends every earthly empire.

_____________

Complete text of the Patriarchal Letter In Omni Generatione:
(Text in Latin and Old Russian follow)

In every generation, the Church must remind the world that our first allegiance is not to any flag, party, or political philosophy, but to the Kingdom of God. Nations rise and fall, parties change their colors and slogans, yet Christ alone is constant. When the Church forgets this, when she lets herself be caught in the nets of nationalism or ideology, she loses her prophetic voice and becomes merely an echo in the world’s discordant symphony. 

     Clergy especially are called to shun party and partisan politics, for political parties merely seek to use the Church for their own ends. They try to convince the faithful that they alone are the right Chris-tian path, but quickly turn when the Church disagrees, even often suggesting that the party or the nation or a political leader is the true litmus test of religious authority and legitimacy. It is, we must always remember, the Church that proclaims what is Christian, moral, and ethical — and that Church is One, Holy, Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic. In some countries, those not of the apostolic faith proclaim to speak for what is Christian, so often creating a bizarre blend of pseudo-Christianity, politics, and nationalism. Stranger still is that often those of the apostolic faith, seeking a Christian society, follow along, ceding their Apostolic birthright to others. This must be al-ways and everywhere avoided, and we must be ever-vigilant against it. This must be always and everywhere avoided, and we must be vig-ilant to keep the Bride of Christ free from worldly entanglements.

     Now, it is not a sin to love one’s homeland, whether it is the place you were born or a land of your ethnic heritage. Love of culture, land, and heritage can be holy in proper measure and when it reflects di-vine charity — in which case it stems from the Christian command to love one's neighbour. But when love becomes pride, and pride be-comes contempt for others, then the nation itself has become an idol. We see it when leaders speak of power more than mercy, and when policy is made without compassion. We see it when people start to think ill on the other side of a border rather than seeing in them the face of Christ. The Gospel does not ask us to make the world in our own image. Rather, it asks us to see Christ in the stranger, the sick, the poor, and the immigrant — for "I was a stranger, and you wel-comed me." 

     Too often, political life today has become a theater of anger, where winning is valued more than wisdom and cruelty is mistaken for strength. The Church must not imitate this spirit, and the faithful must not be drawn into such behavior. Moreover, the faithful must not consider such behavior to be the authentic Christian path. We are not to be the chaplains of any earthly empire, but the conscience of all.

     Our calling is to stand where others fear to stand: between ene-mies, among the suffering, within the storms that always arise. We do not speak with labels such as liberals or conservatives, right-wing or left-wing, but as Christians — Apostolic, Orthodox, Catholic Christians. We are to love truth more than empty, worldly victory, mercy more than comfort, and God more than ever-fleeting nations.

     The Church existed before any kingdom, empire, or republic, and will endure when all have passed away. So many rulers over time have pledged the destruction of the Church on earth, and yet here we stand. We have outlasted every single one of them and will continue to do so. The Church cannot be destroyed, and when it looks dire and the church stands at a precipice, Christ and His Holy Church will conquer. Therefore, let us live as citizens of heaven, faithful, compas-sionate, and unafraid. And let us pray for the conversion of all secular leaders and all people to the Holy Faith of Christ.

______________________________

     In omni generatione, Ecclesia mundum admonere debet primam nostram fidelitatem non ad ullam vexilli formam, factionem, aut philosophiam politicam pertinere, sed ad Regnum Dei. Gentes sur-gunt et cadunt, factiones mutant colores ac clamores suos, Christus autem solus manet immutabilis. Cum Ecclesia hoc obliviscitur, cum se ipsam implicari sinit retibus nationalismi aut ideologiae, vocem suam propheticam amittit, et fit tantum echo in symphonia mundi dissonante.

     Praesertim clerici vocantur ut partium politicarum consortia de-vitent, quippe quae Ecclesiam ad suos fines uti tantum velint. Saepe persuadere conantur fidelibus se solos esse veram viam Christianam, sed statim se vertunt, cum Ecclesia dissentit, etiam suadentes fac-tionem, nationem, aut ducem politicorum esse verum criterium aucto-ritatis ac legitimitatis religionis. Meminisse semper oportet Ecclesiam esse quae definit quid sit vere Christianum, morale, et honestum — eamque Ecclesiam unam, sanctam, apostolicam, orthodoxam et ca-tholicam esse.

     In quibusdam nationibus, quae fide apostolica carent, sibi vindicant loqui pro Christiano nomine, saepe monstrum quoddam pseudo-Christianitatis, politicae et nationalismi conficientes. Mirabilius etiam est quod nonnumquam fideles apostolici, Christianam societatem quaerentes, his consentientes nativum suum apostolicum ius aliis tradunt. Hoc semper et ubique vitandum est, atque oportet nos sem-per vigilare, ne Sponsa Christi vinculis mundanis implicetur.

     Non peccatum est patriam diligere, sive sit terra nativitatis, sive gentis originis. Amor culturae, terrae, ac hereditatis sanctus esse potest, si modum servat et caritatem divinam reflectit, ex praecepto Christiano quod iubet nos proximum diligere. Sed cum amor in su-perbiam vertitur, et superbia in contemptum aliorum, tunc ipsa natio idolum facta est. Id cernimus cum duces de potestate plus quam de misericordia loquuntur, et cum consilia sine compassione statuuntur. Id cernimus etiam cum homines trans fines alios suspectos habere incipiunt, nec amplius in eis vultum Christi agnoscunt. Evangelium non mandat ut mundum ad nostram imaginem fingamus, sed ut Christum in peregrino, in aegroto, in paupere, in advena videamus: “Hospes eram, et suscepistis me.”

     Nimis saepe vita politica hodierna facta est theatrum irae, ubi vincere plus valet quam sapientia, et crudelitas pro fortitudine habe-tur. Ecclesia hunc spiritum imitari nequit, nec fideles tali morum ra-tione decipi debent. Quin etiam, tales mores numquam pro via Chris-tiana habendi sunt. Non sumus cappellani cuiuslibet imperii ter-restris, sed conscientia omnium.

     Vocationem habemus stare ubi alii timent stare: inter inimicos, inter dolentes, in mediis tempestatibus quae semper oriuntur. Non loquimur titulis liberalium aut conservativorum, dexterae aut sinis-trae, sed tamquam Christiani — Apostolici, Orthodoxi, Catholici. Veritatem plus quam inanem victoriam, misericordiam plus quam commodum, Deum plus quam caduca regna diligere debemus.

     Ecclesia ante omnia regna, imperia, ac res publicas exstitit, et per-severabit cum omnia haec transierint. Tot principes per tempora in-teritum Ecclesiae minati sunt, et tamen adhuc stamus. Omnes illos superavimus, et superaturi sumus. Ecclesia destrui non potest; et cum omnia desperata videntur, cum ipsa ad praecipitium stare videtur, Christus et Ecclesia eius sancta triumphabunt.

     Ergo vivamus ut cives caeli, fideles, misericordes, et intrepidi. Et oremus pro conversione omnium ducum saecularium ac totius populi ad Sanctam Fidem Christi.

_____________________________

     Въ каждомъ родѣ и племени Церковь обязана напоминать міру, яко первѣйшее наше послушаніе должно быть не знаме-ни, не партіи, не политическому мудрованію, но Царствію Божію. Царства возстаютъ и падаютъ, партіи изменяютъ свои цвѣта и лозунги, но Христосъ Единъ пребываетъ неизмененъ. Когда же Церковь забываетъ сіе и дозволяетъ себѣ быть уловленною въ сѣти национализма или идеологіи, тогда она утрачиваетъ свой пророческій гласъ и становится токмо от-звукoмъ въ раздвоенномъ гомонѣ міра.

     Особливо же духовенство призывается отвращатися отъ партійности и политическихъ влеченій, понеже партіи ищутъ лишь употребити Церковь въ своихъ тщеславныхъ намѣреніяхъ. Они стараются убѣдити вѣрныхъ, яко только они хранятъ истинный христіанскій путь, но вскоре отвра-щаются, аще Церковь не согласна съ ними, и нередко дерза-ютъ утверждати, яко партія, или народъ, или властелинъ по-литическій — суть мѣрила истинной вѣры и законности. Все-гда же подобаетъ памятовати, яко Церковь есть та, яже воз-вѣщаетъ, что есть христіанское, нравственное и благочести-вое, и та Церковь — Едина, Святая, Соборная и Апостольская. Въ некіихъ странахъ иные, не держащіеся апостольской вѣры, осмѣливаются глаголати отъ имени христіанства, создавая странное смешеніе ложнаго благочестія, политикі и национа-лизма. Еще же страннѣе то, яко иногда и сыны вѣры апо-стольской, желая устроити общество христіанское, следуютъ за ними, уступая свое апостольское достояніе чуждымъ. Сего подобаетъ всегда и всюду избѣгати и бодрствовати, да не бу-детъ Невѣста Христова связана мірскими узами.

     Не есть грѣхъ — любити Отечество, будь то земля, въ коей кто родился, или страна отеческаго рода. Любовь къ куль-турѣ, къ землѣ и къ наследію можетъ быти свята, аще пребу-детъ въ должной мѣрѣ и отражаетъ любовь Божію; ибо тогда она проистекаетъ изъ заповѣди Христовой — любити ближ-няго своего. Но когда любовь обращается въ гордыню, а гор-дыня — въ презрѣніе къ инымъ, тогда народъ самъ становит-ся идоломъ. Мы видимъ сіе, когда вожди глаголютъ болѣе о силѣ, нежели о милосердіи, и когда уставы творятся безъ со-страданія. Мы видимъ сіе, когда человѣцы начинаютъ по-мышляти зло о тѣхъ, что за границею, не видя въ нихъ образа Христова. Євангеліе не заповѣдуетъ намъ творити міръ по своему образу; оно велитъ узревати Христа въ странствую-щемъ, въ болящемъ, въ нищемъ и пришельцѣ, понеже рече-но: «Былъ есмь странникъ, и пріяхосте Мя».

     Слишкомъ часто нынѣшняя политическая жизнь становит-ся позорищемъ гнѣва, идеже побѣда цѣнится болѣе, нежели мудрость, и жестокость почитается силою. Церковь не должна подражати сему духу, и вѣрніи да не увлекаются таковыми нравами. Еще паче — да не почитаютъ сіе истиннымъ путемъ христіанскимъ. Мы не должны быти капелланами какова-либо земнаго царства, но совѣстью всякаго.

     Призваніе наше — стояти тамъ, идеже иные боятся стояти: между врагами, среди страждущихъ, въ мразѣ бурь мірскихъ. Мы не глаголемъ языкомъ партійнымъ — ни либеральныхъ, ни консервативныхъ, ни десныхъ, ни лѣвыхъ, — но яко христіане: Апостольскіе, Православные, Соборные. Мы долж-ны любити Истину болѣе, нежели тщетную побѣду мірскую, милость — болѣе, нежели покой, и Бога — болѣе, нежели су-етныя царства земныя.

     Церковь существовала прежде всякаго царства, имперіи или республики и пребудетъ, когда всѣ они прейдутъ. Многіе властители во времена различныя клялись истребити Цер-ковь на земли, и вотъ — мы стоимъ нынѣ. Мы пережили ихъ всѣхъ и пребудемъ впредь. Церковь не можетъ быть разру-шена, и даже когда видится, яко она стоитъ на краю бездны, Христосъ и Святая Его Церковь восторжествуютъ. Сего ради да живемъ яко граждане Небеснаго Царства — вѣрніи, мило-стивіи и безстрашніи. И да молимся о просвѣщеніи всѣхъ вла-стителей мірскихъ и всѣхъ человѣковъ ко Святѣй Вѣрѣ Хри-стовой.