Bartholomew knew there was animosity on the part of the self-proclaimed Nazis in Ukraine against the legitimate Orthodox Church and he exploited it. The suffering monks at Lavra Caves are the result.
No one is OK with this. No one.
There is a reason there must be but one Church in any given region. It is to avoid exactly this. But Bartholomew doesn’t care. He takes what he wants, always settling for the “knock off.” Never the real thing because God won’t give it to him.
Why does this NOT embarrass the Greeks? Why don’t they do something? There is something unseemly about Elpi yucking it up at the White House when the monk’s very lives hang in the balance.
Bartholomew created a situation where there are two metropolitans, same title, both heads: One an unordained, schismatic; the other by all accounts a saint. A saint who has headed the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, elected by secret ballot as the Kiev metropolitan See, the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. . .
In 2014.
Let that sink in: Bartholomew gave an unordained, schismatic the title that rightly belongs to an existing, canonically elected and universally recognized, saintly primate.
Why would he do that if it weren’t to undermine Metropolitan Onufriy and the canonical Church? He put the UOC on the warpath of self-acknowledged Nazi. Literally. The Fourth Reich in Ukraine about whom much is being written.
And he did it to weaken the Russian Orthodox Church. His vitriol against the Russian Church is positively palpable. It makes me want to cringe. He thinks he is persuading people, but people know the voice of a shepherd and it’s not someone who talks like that about the canonical Church.
He, too, is now a schismatic and at some point someone is going to say it officially: Bartholomew caused a major schism and if he does what he’s already announced he’s going to do in 2025, he will cause the GREATEST SCHISM in the Church’s history.
Instead of uniting the two churches and healing the rift between them, he’s going to be throwing both he and Frankie, and all who follow them, outside the Church and that door may never open again. He cannot do what he wants without the support of his brother bishops and have it mean anything. He doesn’t have it. All but a few have distanced themselves from him.
The Orthodox are going to have to discern who is telling the truth here and who isn’t because they’ll no longer find anything on Google that remotely resembles reality. The history of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is all but being erased.
It was Bartholomew who told Epiphany that Metropolitan Onufriy was out and he was in.
But there are two problems with this: (1) The greater Church recognizes only Metropolitan Onufriy, not Epiphany, and (2) the OCU never received true autocephaly. The OCU can’t make a move without Bartholomew according to their tomos. Epiphany is not the head of anything no matter how it looks and he is undoubtedly feeling the squeeze. It is Bartholomew’s faux church.
Bartholomew’s foray into another bishop’s territory fueled an already tense situation by pitting a State sanctioned church against the canonical Church. That’s why it is impossible for the UOC to distance themselves (enough) from the Russians to please Zelensky and that’s why the lives of the poor monks at the Lavra Caves are in jeopardy.
If Bartholomew had not intervened, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, recognized by the whole Church in its own right, would not be on the line any more than the Catholic Church is on the line.
Bartholomew could call off the dogs; say a single word on behalf of the monks. But he wouldn’t lift a finger help the canonical Church.
Ask yourself, what bishop hurts the canonical Church that much and then ignores the pain he has caused?
The correct answer: A soon to be deposed one.
For the good of the Church the sooner the better before he is able to do more damage than he has already caused.
Just as almost every heresy and schism throughout Church history has come bearing the name of it’s originator, the heresy/schism of Bartholomew needs to as well.
Fanariotism, Bartholomism, etc.
The more the heresy the associated with a name, the easier it is to pinpoint.
https://theduran.com/zelensky-ruins-spiritual-basics-of-the-ukrainian-society-leading-it-to-degradation/
We see the fruit of the EPs actions. He reminds me of another Bishop, Met. Sergius; also a heretic, who usurped authority of the right and holy Bishop Peter, undermining the Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Church by his loyalty to the Soviets.
Sadly, Met. Sergius has been memorialized by the MP, instead of repenting, by putting a monument up near Arzamas.
How can the MP, in Moscow, not His Beatitude Onuphry, complain that the Nazis are persecuting the Church, when they still support the persecution of the Church by the Soviets?
Lord have mercy on the UOC.
Orthodox North Macedonia sends 12 Mi-24 attack helicopters to Ukraine
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1641496864921903113?s=20
“The cry of this letter must be heard by all, and may Bartholomew of Istanbul find repentance, as may we all. The letter speaks for itself, may you the reader hear the cry of your suffering brothers and sisters in Ukraine.”
https://inklesspen.blog/2023/03/30/the-open-appeal-of-the-faithful-of-the-zaporozhye-diocese-of-the-ukrainian-orthodox-church-uoc-to-patriarch-bartholomew-of-constantinople/
Bartholomew has the deaths of hundreds of thousands of souls on his hands whether directly or indirectly by his actions in Ukraine.
He has the persecution of canonical Orthodoxy on his hands.
He has the murder and abuse of priests on his hands.
He has been anathematized by the laity of the Church, and eventually he will be anathematized officially by the Church as a whole like every other schismatic and heretic throughout Church history.
Well, perhaps we are finally getting some blunt commentary from a bishop about the criminal Arhondonis.
You are not a good shepherd: believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Zaporizhia appealed to the head of the Phanar
https://spzh.news/ru/news/72827-vy-ne-dobryj-pastyr-verujushchie-upts-zaporozhja-obratilis-k-hlave-fanara
The time long ago passed for Arhondonis and his cabal to be not only excommunicated, but subject to a formal statement of anathema. (To the extent anathema is a greater or more penal act than excommunication.)
The service on the Sunday of Orthodoxy reiterates and re-proclaims anathema to the ancient heresies — and in some Russian parishes expounds on them. However, is there an Orthodox service associated with the proclamation of anathema of a specific person? Or is it simply a proclamation from a synod or first hierarch? (It does not seem to be something exclusively left to a Council.) The Russians did something like that with Filaret.
Given what His Intergalacticness has done, is doing, and has failed to do, frankly, there’s something that appears to be quite appropriate and proper with what apparently was the Roman method: the ringing of a bell, the slamming of a book, and the snuffing out of candles, collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.
One way or another, damnation to Arhondonis.
This is the kind of letter we need to see.
Because of what’s happening in Ukraine It seems the whole Church, laity and hierarchy, is finally waking up. Over the past week we have seen several hierarchs speaking out and speaking up and FINALLY naming Bartholomew directly.
I get the sense that we are finally about to see the overt condemnation of Bartholomew by the Church.
Patriarch Illia asking Bartholomew to speak out was his way of publicly asking for clarification, if Bartholomew doesn’t then Patriarch Illia has the right to call him out more severely like Patriarch Porfirije did.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/this-week-in-ukraine-soldiers-storm-orthodox-monastery-arrest-priest-during-service-cut-off-access-to-sacred-caves-close-three-orthodox-churches/
😢
What is the process by which such a scoundrel as this is deposed?
It takes a single bishop to call a spiritual court from what I understand.
I just wish that Russia would get on with its cleanup project and this would all go away. Russia has amassed a huge army around the Ukraine and are just waiting on favorable conditions to use it. God willing, that will be soon. Can’t come soon enough.
There will be no 2025 “reunion.” I think such speculations are not helpful, and rank up there with Jehovah’s Witness predictions. “This time, it will happen….” It’s a distraction. The WCC, like the UN, was born from the idealism of the post-World War II period, and the movers and shakers in that movement were spiritually formed in that element. What we are actually seeing, is the death of that “dream.”
HAH Bartholomew, like Patriarch Kyrill, is isolated. Multi-polarity is coming back into being, and that includes the Church. The other Churches are tired of the EP-MP binary, and it wouldn’t surprise me that things escalate to the point that BOTH are condemned in a future Council. The Moscow Patriarchate is still holding on, like the EP did in the 19th Century when events shattered their canonical territory into multiple pieces. The same forces that did this in the 19th Century are at work now. Moscow will have to let Ukraine go. It will never be as it was, and to think so is foolhardy. The UOC will receive a real Tomos, it is just a question from who. I think it would be great if there was no “Tomos,” that Churches just started commemorating Metropolitan Onuphry and that was that. DC overplayed its hand, but so did Moscow. I said before that I can’t stomach Russian Messianism, as it is a pseudo-Orthodox version of the American original. Why are we looking to anoint a King? The lament of the Prophet Samuel echoes to this day. Instead of snickering on Twitter and toasting Putin, why are we not rending our garments?
Interesting insights. I of course disagree with much of your analysis but under that you argue in good faith.
I will say that your final thought however is no longer operable as we are seeing the collapse of republicanism.
George,
Israel received a King because of its sins. That is the main point of the story that often gets lost. I have no doubt that we will also receive a King because of our sins. I’m not going to pretend it is a good thing. That God raised up good kings despite ourselves is not necessarily an endorsement but rather a concession, that we are weak and venal. Perhaps that is the great folly of republicanism—it is the belief that we can rule ourselves in a God-pleasing manner.
I think those wanting a monarchy would do well to remember Julian the Apostate, the Iconoclast Emperors, Ivan the Terrible, and Peter “the Great.” It is never going to go the way we think, and then we grumble against God for giving us what we want. I am reminded of a great anecdote from the book Everyday Saints, with a spiritual father dismissing Russian monarchists: “Give them another Czar and they would shoot him again in a week!”
I think Orthodoxy is moving towards a truly Post-Imperial framework. How that ultimately shakes out, I don’t know. It is messy, but if multi-polarity truly comes, it will be in every respect. “No more Romes” is an idea that is gaining traction, I think.
“Perhaps …the great folly of republicanism…is the belief
that we can rule ourselves in a God-pleasing manner.”
The first Emperor pretended to be a Republican.
Of his successor, the chief priests proclaimed:
“We have no king but Caesar” [John 19:15 KJV].
RE: “Now why would Russia and China state they want to do that?”
To answer your question, I’m not sure they would as they’re both committed to BRICS. The UN 2030 Agenda is not mentioned anywhere that I can find.
Your quote comes from Edward Slavsquat. (Award-winning dispatches from COVID Russia)
Slavsquat remarked that the: “The Kremlin helpfully published a list of fourteen agreements inked during Xi’s visit. Unhelpfully, the Kremlin did not include the relevant texts/statements that correspond to each agreement. So we did a bit of digging—with mixed results.”
So under Slavsquat’s highlights, where this quote is found, is the quote the result of his “digging?” Because if you pull up the actual document and look for key words like “Global Development” or the “UN” they don’t come up.
The only thing having to do with the United Nations is this: “The Parties reaffirm their commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . . .” This would make sense as both China and Russia are part of the Paris Agreement. Do I agree? No.
The Global Development Initiative sort of dovetails with the goals of BRICS so this isn’t a surprise.
Do these things make them satanists? Not particularly.
http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/5920
All this other stuff about the “uniting of the ‘poles’ into a one world government,” the “subjection by one of two (or three) spheres of influence – East or West,” . and “the power of the satanic elite” are opinions that I don’t think you can tangibly tie to anything specifically they endorsed. They appear to be doing what makes sense to them for their counties. As far as I know, they’re not trying to subjugate us. At least not overtly like in Agenda 2030. They influence us in different ways, of course, but not by practicing satanism, moving us into 15-minute cities, contaminating our food and water supply, making us eat bugs, and selling us on digital currency and social credit scores. They can’t because we won’t allow it.
As far as I know, what we think of as satanism is not in either of their countries to the degree it is in the West and Ukraine. Some Chinese believe in entities like ghosts or fox spirits, but in Christianity we believe in demons so I don’t think of this as “satanism;” just wrong thinking.
I’m sure there are satanists everywhere, including in Russia, but I suspect Russia has fewer of them; certainly fewer than us. At this point, anything is a step us for us.
You replied to my comment but did not post it. Well here is the official document where you can find the exact quote I posted, Edward Slavsquat provided the link in his article to it, and translated it directly from here: http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/5920?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
In the original Russian it reads as follows (you can find this about halfway through the document):
“Российская Сторона позитивно оценивает «Инициативу в области глобального развития», продолжит участвовать в работе Группы друзей в ее поддержку. Стороны будут и далее побуждать международное сообщество фокусироваться на вопросах развития и увеличивать свой вклад в него, будут совместно способствовать успешному проведению Саммита ООН по целям в области устойчивого развития, обеспечивая скорейшую реализацию Повестки дня ООН в области устойчивого развития до 2030 года.”
Then resubmit it.
If I may add this point regarding “subjugating” America: back in the early 60s, Nikita Khruschev, then General Secretary of the USSR said words to this effect:
“Your grandchildren will be living under Communism.”
I’d say he was right. Regardless, we did it to ourselves. As per Lincoln’s prophecy back in the 1830s, when he accurately pointed out that no foreign empire would be able to “water their horses in the Ohio River,” America would only crumble from within.
Ironically, it is both China and Russia are showing us a way out of the satanic stranglehold we are under. Will we take it? Let’s hope so.
I’m assuming you read my comment which pointed out that yes, UN Agenda 2030 is explicitly endorsed in the Kremlin document. The English translation in the Slavsquat article is accurate. I have no idea why my comments are not being posted. I think I was respectful and offered a different perspective, as well as some information I don’t think most people here are aware of. The question, however uncomfortable, remains – why is Russia and China officially promising to implement UN Agenda 2030?
We posted your comment. I did a word search on the document and I didn’t see Agenda 2030.
Well, there must be a problem with your word search, because as I showed you, it’s right there in black and white in the document.
Повестка дня ООН в области устойчивого развития до 2030 года = The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
The United Nations (Организация Объединенных Наций) is mentioned numerous times in the document. I can verify for you as a Russian speaker that the translated excerpts from the Edward Slavsquat article are accurate. You seemed to be implying that he made it up himself, which isn’t fair. I don’t understand why the UN was not coming up in your word search.
So the question, however uncomfortable, remains – why in the world, if Russia and China truly were fighting the good fight against the evil West, would they officially and publicly state that they will “ensure the early implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” – an agenda which, in your own words, is intended to “overtly subjugate us”?
I looked in the English text.
Look, Herman, I just don’t have an interest in this.
In the newly released Russian Foreign Policy Strategy Paper (just released hours ago), they state Russia’s primary purpose is to eliminate dominance of the West on the world stage. It does mention cooperation with the UN, however, much of the document criticizes what’s been done to date and puts boundaries around everything going forward. Example below:
9. Serious pressure is being put on the UN and other multilateral institutions the intended purpose of which, as platforms for harmonizing the interests of the leading powers, is artificially devalued. The international legal system is put to the test: a small group of states is trying to replace it with the concept of a rules-based world order (imposition of rules, standards and norms that have been developed without equitable participation of all interested states). It becomes more difficult to develop collective responses to transnational challenges and threats, such as the illicit arms trade, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, dangerous pathogens and infectious diseases, the use of information and communication technologies for illicit purposes, international terrorism, illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors, transnational organized crime and corruption, natural and man-made disasters, illegal migration, environmental degradation. The culture of dialogue in international affairs is degrading, and the effectiveness of diplomacy as a means of peaceful dispute settlement is decreasing. There is an acute lack of trust and predictability in international affairs.
I can’t find the document anywhere on-line. I’m not sure they’ve released the text yet. I have it in a word document but I can’t attach it. If you want a copy of the document, please email me at: gail.sheppard@usa.net If there are not too many requests, I’ll email it to you.
Thank you. I will send you an email right now. I will also locate the paper and read it in Russian, if I can find the time to suffer through 42 pages of Kremlinspeak. With all due respect, if you are not interested in this, why did you reply to my original comment? You certainly seem interested in this topic. The official Russian text explicitly states they are seeking early implementation of UN Agenda 2030 in the Russian Federation. You seem to be aware of what this agenda is. How can this not be interesting to you? I think this point is massively important, and worth talking about why Russia and China agreed on this, and wrote it up in their document.
There is a tendency I notice with the pro-Putin side to ignore all the bad things Russia has been doing (covid lockdowns, experimental vaccines, introduction of Central bank digital currency, extreme internet censorship, pledges to implement Agenda 2030) and somehow just take at face value some of the positive sounding things they say. It sounds nice, on the surface, to say “we are promoting an alternative to American dominance” but if it turns out to be the same old New World Order, Russian/Chinese-style, then what’s the point? You’ll get the same digital concentration camp whichever way you go.
Thank you for the replies, the conversation is much appreciated.
I’m not ignoring anything. I googled a phrase you used. I saw where it came from. I went to the site. I read what your friend said. I used the link he provided to see the original text which was in English (not Russian) and I did a word search on every version of Agenda 2030 and the NWO there is but there is no mention of either in that document. Nothing. So I’m not ignoring the “bad things of Russia;” I’m telling you you’re mistaken.
I know a lot about COVID, the lockdowns, and vaccines, as my readers will attest. More than most. I even know who has the patents on all things COVID and none of them are Russian. What you’re saying is completely false. The introduction of Central bank digital currency, extreme internet censorship, and pledges to implement Agenda 2030 are also not attributable to Russia. You came to the wrong blog.
So we’re not going to continue with this discussion.
I would like to explore this with you David. Would you be interested in writing an essay to that effect?
George,
Thank you for the offer, but I don’t think it is a good idea. I could very well be wrong (I was wrong about the OCU), and a truly holy Orthodox emperor would be a blessing. I just don’t have faith in Caesar, no matter what form he takes. I don’t support autocracy, but we are in undiscovered country at this point. Everything we were taught to believe is unraveling before our very eyes. The American order is disintegrating, and what is taking its place has not fully taken shape yet (multi-polarity sounds nice, but I fear the temptation to take the mantle of “Rome” is too great). Christ is King. That is what will save us.
I’ve said too much already. The EP and Greek Churches remain silent in the face of what is happening to the UOC. I’m still trying to process that, spiritually. The attack on the Lavra itself wasn’t so much what took my wind out, because everybody knew this was going to happen sooner or later. I had expected that the EP would at least release a general statement for “peace and dialogue” which is what the Fordham folks did. He can write well-wishes for the Pope but not a short statement calling for people to calm down and seek a peaceful solution? My mistake was seeing the two parties on equal terms, accepting the idea of “dialogue.” The Lavra attack and reaction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has been a gut-churning red pill for me, and I suspect many others who were in the “sympathetic” column.
I am grateful for your graciousness. Have a blessed remainder of Great Lent.
I’m so sorry, David. I know how painful this is.
People who euqate EP with MP forget that Phanar recognized shismatics after Civil War and change calendar in 1923. Same thing is repeating now and should be no suprises. Iinstead of supporting NATO, Phanar then supported Lenin Trocky. After great shism it was MP that defended faith while EP kept recognizing Popes for centuries.
David, I understand how you feel. I too, know that the temptation of “Rome” is great and as you noted, there are good potentates, even great ones but also bad ones. If not the majority, then the rest of mediocrities. Just like the episcopate.
God rules. Christ is King.
That said, I truly appreciate your insights about the Kiev Caves and the deafening silence of Bartholomew. Truth be told, because we are living in a whirlwind of activity, this one escaped my consciousness. Thank you for bringing it forward.
If I may add this piece of advice: don’t let the present evil engulf you. Yes, we are seeing the disintegration of the US right before our eyes and the budding schism within the Church. The Church is still the Church; if you’re in the GOA, stay there; as long as there are good, spiritual people in it, they can ride it out. (At least stay in until the schism is formalized.)
Same goes for those who are in East Coast OCA parishes. The Cailins of the world are just that: of the world. They’re days are few. In all such cases, the Spirit of the Church will vomit out all the secularist/globalist nonsense because it has to. Even the mainline denominations which accepted the spirit of the age are rapidly dwindling.
As for America, the mask is off: we are operating at a crossroads in between a Republic and a Tyranny, say Rome 44 BC. (That’s one of the good things about being Orthodox, as we can take the long view of history.) MS-13 did not prove to be the brownshirts of the Deep State so BLM/antifa were activated and let loose upon the nation.
In any event, it’s going to demoralize those few normies who still believe we live in 1950s Springfield, USA where mom is a homemaker and dad is a member of the Rotary.
So, have I taken the Black Pill? No. I’m just seeing the world go through a turning, a churning of history in which the old paradigm is fighting desperately to maintain control.
Actually, it’s just the opposite. Monarchy is gaining traction in Eastern Europe and, frankly, is the only truly Orthodox form of government.
The story of Saul is widely misunderstood, most especially because it is misrepresented in the “democratic” West as a caution against monarchy. We have talked this issue to death here at Monomakhos, however, the long and short is that God preferred a system of princes “judges”, but Samuel’s sons were so corrupt that the people rose up demanding a unified monarchy. God punished this rejection of His preferred system by making their first king as bad as the judges. But democracy was never an acceptable option.
Thereafter, monarchy became the standard and remained the standard of the Church Fathers and Orthodoxy until the Bolshevik Revolution. Vladimir Moss did an excellent article on this which you can Google for yourself.
Just seven years ago, in April 2016 (the 1050th anniversary of the Baptism of Poland as an Orthodox Catholic nation), the parliament of Poland voted to acknowledge Jesus Christ as King of the country. Afterward on November 19, Poland’s president and Roman Catholic bishops gathered in Krakow to enthrone Jesus Christ as the King of Poland:
It’s a start…
Indeed. It it very hard for Americans, even Cradle-Orthodox Americans, to set aside our basic Puritanical suppositions.
I should have added this as well: Orthodoxy (as it has always been constituted by equal bishops residing in equal sister-churches on a territorial basis) is “multipolar.”
I don’t buy the nonsense that the MP wants to be the “eastern pope.” If he did he would angle to place himself first in the diptychs. And even then, because of the organic nature of the Orthodox Churches principle of “sister Churches,” it would be vomited out. But Kirill knows that.
I imagine when all is said and done, that honor (and it’s only an honor) will go to Jerusalem. As it should.
When both Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Onuphry commemorate their fellow primates, they’re already starting with John of Antioch followed by Theophilos of Jerusalem…because Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria have fallen.
Why is this happening? Because we are at war. WW3 has begun. We are also in a spiritual war. Children are being told they can be “heshees” half man/ half woman) in America. Children are having their intimate body parts chopped off in the name of Satan. Men are being feminized. Women are told they can be men.
History is being erased and nations raped of their treasure. The banks are consolidating and you will will have nothing.
Next, you will not be able to speak. The Biden admin led massive ‘speech censorship operation,’ former state AG will testify
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-colluded-with-social-media-giants-to-censor-free-speech-missouri-louisiana-officials-to-say
EXCLUSIVE: The Biden administration has led “the largest speech censorship operation in recent history” by working with social media companies to suppress and censor information later acknowledged as truthful,” former Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt will tell the House Weaponization Committee Thursday.
An Orthodox Times article includes this picture of a plaque outside the OCU headquarters.
https://orthodoxtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2.jpeg
The plaque says in Ukrainian:
METROPOLIS OF KYIV
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
(Orthodox Church of Ukraine)
Are they deliberately trying to confuse honest people?
“Are they deliberately trying to confuse honest people?”
Yes.
Here is Monarchy in action…
Disbelief as ‘Green King’ Charles Gives Royal
Assent to New Gene Breeding Technology
https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/03/30/disbelief-as-green-king-charles-gives-royal-assent-to-new-gene-breeding-technology/
Julian Rose:
‘ In one of the more shocking hypocrisies of this year so far, Charles III, King of England [UK] – considered to be a strong supporter of organic farming and environmental causes – has given his Royal Assent to a biotechnology ‘innovation’ which will provide an open book for UK firms to alter the genome of animals and plants, so as to create novel engineered species and biotech ‘foods’.
In taking this step Charles has committed an open act of betrayal of all bona fide farmers, and particularly of organic farmers.
The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023 was given the royal go ahead on 23rd March, 2023.
[ Here is the Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/6/pdfs/ukpga_20230006_en.pdf ]
The dark irony of the King of England launching unlabelled biotech foods, animals and plants on citizens of his own country, is difficult to trump.
Charles is already in conflict with the constitution of his country by standing shoulder to shoulder with Klaus Schwab in promoting the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. One of the main objectives of which is to render nation states obsolete and to centralise all power within the control of a small despotic elite, whose stated intention is to make all private property illegal and to re-engineer human beings into Transhuman cyborgs.
May 6, 2023 Coronation of King Charles
On May 6, 2023, at his coronation in London, Charles will be officially crowned monarch of the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth (colonies). A large empire.
As the centre piece of the coronation ceremony, Charles will swear ‘The Coronation Oath’, essentially pledging his allegiance to the people of Great Britain and to protecting the sovereignty of the country and its traditions.
If Charles does not break his relationship with the World Economic Forum before this point, he will be performing an act of treason. The implications of this are profound.
As yet, the British people have not woken-up to their fate. But should the truth emerge of this singularly blatant hypocrisy, the future of the British monarchy will be dark indeed.
The UK is officially recognised as a ‘constitutional monarchy’. With an unrevoked Common Law constitution stretching back to the Magna Carta of 1215, the true political power lies with the people and not with parliament. Something which has been largely hidden from public knowledge.
If there is to be a future king or queen, the country needs that person to exercise his/her ri[ght] to stand-up against the continual parliamentary usurpation of the people’s power.
The people need a monarch with some guts, some wisdom and a genuine respect for truth. Someone who will use his time-honoured constitutional powers to block anti-life legislation like The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023; thus setting a proper precedent for Great Britain’s ‘first among equals’ to act like a real King.
This piece of legislation will, for the time being, be unique to the UK, as such animal and plant biotech deformations are not allowed in the EU and many other countries.
A secondary deception relates to the marketing of such novel recombinant DNA experiments.
The UK government has stated that no separate definition will be given to gene technology engineered products, therefore no special labelling will be required. ‘
He’s not even been crowned yet
and already he sells the people…
Yet he is not a real king at all but a mere figurehead raised under another mere figurehead to have no respect for the paper mache lion that is the House of Windsor.
Nothing to take seriously.
He gave his royal assent to an act of parliament. He’s just a rubber stamp. He has no actual power to enact law or to prohibit parliament from governing. In order to become law, an act requires royal assent, which is never withheld. It is pure ceremony. The PM of Canada kneels before the Monarch and takes an oath of loyalty that supercedes all other oaths he has taken, including the one to the Canadian people. Like my Grandad said, “oaths are good for feeding horses.”
Mike Robinson: The Fundamental Principles Of Our Constitution
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/fundamental-principles-our-constitution
” The Ministry of Justice has this to say about the Constitution –
The British Constitution is not, as it is in many countries, a ‘written constitution’. It is not codified in a single document but is made up of a complex web of statutes, conventions, and a corpus of common and other law. It is also informed by an interweaving of history and more modern democratic principles. The legal premise of the United Kingdom constitution – that the UK parliament is sovereign – is a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. This means that an Act of Parliament must be obeyed by the courts, that later acts prevail over earlier ones, and that the rules made by external bodies cannot override Acts of Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta are important elements of our constitution. Magna Carta is Primary legislation and has the same status as any other legislation and is not immune from repeal or amendment. The same applies to the Bill of Rights which was an ordinary Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary way.
What a pack of lies.
The first lie, forever repeated and unqualified in the media, comes in the first sentence, constantly rolled out to reinforce the idea among the inhabitants of this country that we have no Constitution. The second lie, that the UK Parliament is sovereign – there is no such premise of the Constitution. The third, that rules made by external bodies cannot override Acts of Parliament, when in fact more and more rules today come from the EU directly into the so-called third sector, bypassing Parliament altogether.
The fourth lie is in the entire second paragraph. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are Statute, it is true. As such, they can be repealed and amended. However, they were Common Law documents first. The Bill of Rights, for example, is an enacted version of the Declaration of Rights, a Common Law document.
Parliament was not a party to these Common Law contracts between the people and the Monarch. So while Parliament can do what it likes with its own Acts, it cannot lawfully make any change to the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Rights.
We have a tri-partite government in this country. The Commons, Lords, and the Crown (not the Monarch) are intended to provide protections and limits upon each other. But look at what has happened:
The role of the Lords has been destroyed through “reform” – today two thirds of the Lords follow the party whip. Where’s the limit on government there?
Royal Assent has been essentially stolen, and today our Monarch simply complies with the wishes of the Prime Minister, with no thought or consideration to our sovereignty or the Constitution. Where’s the limit on government there?
The Party system is, in and of itself, undemocratic because once a party has a majority, in the Commons and the Lords, it can do as it pleases.
MPs are supposed to represent the will of the people in Parliament for a defined purpose. It is not unlimited. They do not hold absolute power, no matter what they choose to think, or to say. We did not rid ourselves of the divine right of Kings to have it replaced with a divine right of politicians.
The people vest the power of governance in the Crown under the terms of a legal contract. The principle clauses of the contract may be found in the Declaration of Rights 1688 and the Coronation Oath Act 1688. In conjunction with these are Magna Carta 1215, the Petition of Right 1628, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement.
The contract is upheld by the Coronation Oath, and its terms confirm the basis of our governance according to the laws and customs of the People. But this does not absolve us of the responsibility to make sure that the contract and the Coronation Oath are being upheld. We have allowed the lies to be told, and the breach of contract to take place, to our shame.
The MPs and Lords terms of reference are defined in the law of Parliament and our Constitution. Parliament does not represent the sovereignty of the people. The people’s sovereignty is represented by the Crown in Parliament.
The Crown is the peoples’ institution occupied by the Monarch with the consent of the people as demonstrated by their acceptance at the coronation. That consent can be withdrawn, and has been on several occasions in the past.
True allegiance is given to the Crown and through the Crown’s contract that allegiance is returned to the people. Swearing oaths of allegiance contracts those who hold office under the Crown do abide by the Rule of Law as being the only means of governance to be used for the maintenance of our liberty. Since the Crown is constitutionally limited by the Rule of Law and has no power to breach those limitations, the same limitations apply to all its officers and ministers at all times.
As noted above, government is a tri-partite structure. It is the Crown who is vested with the power of governance, not the Lords or Commons. It is only with the advice of the two Houses that the Crown may exercise its power of enactment. That power of enactment is constitutionally solely vested in the Crown and always under our contract.
Should breach of our Constitution occur, for any reason, we always have a right of redress and remedy through the act of petitioning the Monarch, who would then have a duty to dissolve Parliament and call for elections. Similarly in defence of the people’s liberty the Monarch has a duty to withhold Royal Assent from Acts of Parliament that breach our Constitution.
Royal Assent is given or withheld by the Monarch having received the advice of ministers, who must not advise a breach of the Coronation Oath – for this is Treason. ”
Shakespeare – Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 4
Hamlet. The king doth wake tonight and takes his rouse,
Keeps wassail and the swaggering upspring reels,
And, as he drains his draughts of Rhenish down,
The kettle-drum and trumpet thus bray out
The triumph of his pledge.
Horatio. Is it a custom?
Hamlet. Ay, marry, is ’t.
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour’d in the breach than the observance.
This heavy-headed revel east and west
Makes us traduced and taxed of other nations.
Approach of the majority of the hierarchs of the UOC is that by declaring loyalty to Zelensky’s Nazi regime Church would avoid suffering. That might be right but sometimes Church has to go through the turmoil and gets only stronger through suffering. And is right only if we dont trade sacral Canons in vain.
So it is questionable that the uncanonical decision to stop commemorating Patriarch Kirill was a prudent one and done in good fait.
They had to separate from Russia to stay alive. Those Nazis have no compunction against killing someone with Russia ties. They’re killing people who even speak Russian. Russia knows this. Russia has also said that UOC is not autocephalous until they [Russia] says they’re autocephalous which I believe will come at the end of this war.
If you look what Metropolitan Paul is accused for, and how Zelensky Nazi regime humiliates UOC, separating form Russia did not help much. Not to mention that it implies some kind of guilt on MP, and is obvious that MP was right in not granting autocephaly. UOC has to suffer and it will come stronger , as always is, Orthodoxy is the Church of martyrs.
You can’t get autocephaly by separating from mother Church.
Thing though is that Patriarch Kirl said that we should not be harsh in our judgments until hostilities cease.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2023/03/greek-archdiocese-continues-charter.html
It will be interesting to see how this works out. If they do indeed make all of the Metropolitans subservient to the Archbishop then that might be the last straw for the GOA. The one administrative saving grace for the Archdiocese right now is that they aren’t directly under the Archbishop.
Even the majority of clergy polled want to be independent of the EP.
Petro, I think you’re on to something. Do you have any polling data to back that up?
I need to remember where I saw it, it was something that someone posted on Telegram (I think?). It broke down results by jurisdiction