Many Years, Metropolitan Onuphriy!

As you can see from the photos to the left and below, it is obvious who is the real Metropolitan of Kiev. 

The occasion was the ninth anniversary of Metropolitan Onuphriy’s accession to the primatial throne of Ukraine.  For the full story, please click on here:

His Beatitude was congratulated on during the Divine Liturgy by the primates of other Orthodox Churches, including Patriarch John X of Antioch, Metropolitan Sava of Poland, Patriarch Porfirije of Serbia, Archbishop Stefan of Macedonia and Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA (who was represented by Fr Alexander Rentell, the Chancellor). 

This picture says it all:

                                This picture says it all

Your Beatitude, AXIOS!



  1. AXIOS!

  2. Many years to Met. Onuphriy!

  3. George Michalopulos says

    Look at the picture of the little girl hugging him. That man is not only a true archpastor but a walking saint.

    I wonder how many bishops in Istanbul inspire that kind of loyalty. Short answer: NONE.

  4. Many years to Met. Onuphry.

    The whole Church knows he is the true Metropolitan of Kiev & all Ukraine.

  5. Many Years!

  6. I love Met. Onuphriy and am so thankful that God sent him to lead the faithful Ukrainian Orthodox Church during this terrible time that they’re going through…. attacked on so many fronts, from this stupid neocon war….. from the stupid neocon-created fake church… from the stupid secular neocon and C’ple influence.

    He is a blessing and a true leader/example to all of us who try to follow Christ and His Holy Church during these difficult times.

    Met. Onuphriy’s presence/bearing says one major thing – “Be with Christ and His Church and He will grant you peace and love…. the world will not be able to conquer you if you are with Him.”

    Многая літа!! Many years!!

  7. Something to bear in mind, while Met. Onufry may be pious and patriotic, in the end his support of the Ukrainian war effort is enabling the Banderist not-z’s. Listen to Ritter talking with Garland Nixon describing Banderism since WWII right up through the atrocities they continue to commit as part of the Zelensky government.

    While we should not condemn Met. Onufry in light of his political circumstances, this war is a crystal clear case of good v. evil and he has ended up on the side of evil.

    • Met Onuphry is fulfilling his Christian duty to defend his homeland from invasion and support his people in the face of invasion from a foreign and hostile army. Of course he is defending his people and homeland, Church, nation, and as he has said for years, the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s almost as if you think the Ukrainian people should just let Russia invade and occupy their country. They shouldn’t defend themselves? If you were a Ukrainian man, you wouldn’t defend your country from attack?

      If Met Onuphry believed the Kremlin propaganda about “liberating Ukraine from whatever” then maybe he would have advised the people to give up and learn to love the bombs and ensuing occupation. Maybe he knows more than you do. Maybe he understands that the Russian Federation is a corrupt NWO country itself, waging a war for profit on behalf of oligarchs and bankers. Maybe you should pay more attention to his words, and less attention to those of Putin and his ilk, such as the convicted pedophile Scott Ritter.

      • Herman, thank you for your thoughtful reply. In retrospect, Onuphriy –sitting as he does as most senior hierarch on the ROC’s Holy Synod–is quite aware that Russia has no intention (nor ever had an intention of conquering the Ukraine).

        He should have counseled Zelensky to accept the peace negotiations of April of 2022 which were held in Istanbul. This war would have been over and done with and the Ukraine would have had the Donbass (but not the Crimea). Hindsight being what it is, that would have been a far preferable set of circumstances compared to the present. Or the future, where Russia will dictate the terms.

        What is wrong with neutrality? When President Eisenhower heard that Austria and Finland were going to be neutral, he leapt for joy. He was reported to have said “I wish other European countries would do the same”. Why? Because NATO would have been more compact and had more easily defendable lines.

        Getting back to the point however, I now see that Onuphriy didn’t have this kind of pull with the Cocaine Kid of Kiev, thanks to Bartholomew. Had he had that range of movement, then things would have been better for him, his Church and his nation. Still, I do believe that he is being viewed as the Father of his nation.

        We should pray for him.

        • I appreciate your reply. Zelensky has treated Met Onuphry like a criminal and outcast for years now, since the legalization of schism by Bartholomew and his masonic Phanar group, and I doubt Zelensky would listen to a word he said to him.

          Regarding the “peace talks”, it seems Moscow certainly would not have given Donbass to Ukraine – one of the conditions was recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent republics (which quickly would have and did become Russian territory, at least, for now).

          Met Onuphry is no longer on the ROC Synod – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is now separate from the MP, although not yet autocephalous. Met Onuphry does not commemorate Pat Kirill, and will no longer participate in anything to do with the ROC Synod.

          He is the spiritual father of his nation – a nation being torn apart by its own government, international bankers and oligarchs, and an invading army. His consistent position has been to defend his nation. This includes, amongst many other things, defending the Church from being seized by schismatics, and defending the territorial integrity of the borders of Ukraine militarily.

          We should indeed pray for him, rather than condemning him – he is one of the only true pastors of the Orthodox Church that I think we may have left these days.

  8. Now this is interesting. I can’t vouch for its accuracy, but Prigozhin may no longer be among us.

    Personally, I won’t weep for the man if it is true. I think Putin may have made a mistake by sparing him which may have been corrected. But better this way, if indeed it happened, in order to minimize internal turmoil.

  9. Petition Condemning the Role of Constantinople in Ukrainian Christian Persecution

  10. Poor Pope Theodore, he can’t help getting on the “poor, poor pitiful me” bandwagon. Just like his overlord. Good for Patriarch Porfirije of Serbia calling him out.

    • Church of Serbia laying the smackdown, good for them.

    • Apparently the need to climb the grievance hierarchy is a worldwide phenomenon.

      What ever happened to Orthodox bishops simply wanting to be with Christ through His Church…. and encouraging their flock to do so also?

      I mean, seriously — if an Orthodox bishop wants a soul to be with Christ, shouldn’t really matter to him whether said soul is in the Church of Alexandria or the Church of Russia, right?

      May God save us from Church leaders who love their ethnic rivalries and political intrigue more than they love our Lord.


    Orthodox Convert Survey shows surprising results

  12. In seeking to understand what the Ukrainian government is doing to the Church there, it might be instructive to read about the Roman Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation.

    Catholic bishops, priests, monastics, and laity weren’t generally punished for religious crimes, not overtly. The charge was “treason,” and the rationale given was that they were maintaining loyalty to a foreign power (the Pope) who had blessed the destabilization of the English Protestant regime. So even Catholics who had showed firm loyalty to the English Crown in political matters could be locked up and even subjected to judicial murder as “traitors,” simply for remaining in the same church they had been born and baptized into.

  13. And of course, one of King Henry’s first major actions after breaking with the Roman Catholic Church was to begin expelling monastics from their monasteries and abbeys all over England. The property of the Catholic Church became the property of the State…a process of confiscation that is eased now in Ukraine because the godless State there has never formally let go of ownership.

  14. In retrospect, given all that has occurred, I believe the Russian strategy in the Ukraine boils down to the calculation that it would be preferable if NATO stayed out of direct conflict with Russia as long as possible while emptying out their stores of weaponry and losing the Ukrainian army.

    This makes imminent sense. I believe that Russia could have pushed to the Polish border fairly early in the conflict if they had been concerned about time. But that would doubtless have resulted in a direct war with NATO due to the shock value of gobbling up another country on Russia’s western border in one bite.

    Russians plan everything to the nth degree. You get fired if an unanticipated contingency actually materializes, so you exhaust the physical possibilities in your wargames. During the course of that planning, larger realities appear. And I believe that during the planning stages that it became clear that Russia would prefer to trade time for the luxury of fighting and destroying the Ukrainian army and thus creating an object lesson of how it would chew up a NATO army.

    Bear in mind, Ukraine was armed with NATO weapons and trained to NATO standards. That is the only reason the West could maintain the fiction that Ukraine had a serious chance at all. So the West is taking advantage of the fact that they can stage a proxy war to see how their weapons and tactics perform against the Russian army.

    Better for everyone (except the Ukrainians) to have this between Ukraine and Russia than NATO and Russia directly. The US can save a certain amount of face in this manner by simply blaming the Ukrainians when the whole thing collapses. Putin is not interested in directly humiliating the US. That is a very dangerous endeavor. He just wants to defend his Fatherland. Leaving the US an offramp was thus always a key feature of the plan.

    But in order to do that, you can’t spook the Americans into full intervention with American and NATO boots on the ground, at least not until it becomes absolutely necessary in order to continue gaining ground and prevailing. The calculation is probably that the US will pull up stakes if the Russian army so depopulates the Ukrainian army and destroys all the weapons that NATO has provided that it becomes clear that the Ukrainian army cannot even put up a defense, much less an offense. The reason being that the US has presidential elections every four years and the lead up to the elections stretches a year and a half back from election day. The closer we get to an election, the less we like potential catastrophic losses in the news.

    I believe that the initial attack, including the feint toward Kiev, was calculated to bring Kiev to the negotiation table. It did, but the US put a stop to that. Following that, everything the Russians have done makes sense in terms of the above schema.

    I don’t like grinding. I prefer a massive onslaught that, theoretically, should result in less Russian casualties than a long drawn out conflict and creates less danger of teaching the enemy how to defeat you. Know your enemy, know yourself, prepare thoroughly so that the battle is won before it is launched and proceed with all deliberate speed to create facts on the ground.

    However, if the purpose is to keep the US/NATO out, it necessarily requires the slow grinding method. The MIC can make their profits. The US can project victory as long as possible, milking the publicity, at no cost to American lives. And it keeps the fight contained.

  15. Good to see Patriarch Theophilos still speaking out against the persecuted UOC

  16. George Michalopulos says

    Contrary to what the Western MSM are telling us 24/7 about an impending Ukrainian victory, we find out today that Zelensky has sacked Oleksie Reznikov, the Minister of Defense: