By
His Apostolic Highness Prince-Bishop Rutherford (Radislav) I

Hypocrisy—the act of presenting a false appearance of virtue or righteousness while concealing contrary motives or actions—has been a profound concern for humanity throughout the ages. It is a spiritual and moral failing, often born of pride and self-deception, that corrupts individuals, institutions, and governments alike. For Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic Christians, hypocrisy is not merely a social or ethical issue but a spiritual illness that jeopardizes the soul and undermines the pursuit of truth, justice, and peace.

Christ Himself condemned hypocrisy in the strongest terms, particularly in His rebuke of the Pharisees, whom He described as "whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27). His words highlight the inherent danger of hypocrisy: it prioritizes outward appearances over the condition of the heart, leading to deception, division, and destruction.

Hypocrisy in the Individual

At its core, hypocrisy in the individual is a failure to live in alignment with God’s truth. It often stems from pride, self-interest, or a desire for approval. The hypocrite crafts an outward appearance of righteousness while neglecting the inner work of repentance and transformation.

The Orthodox Christian tradition emphasizes that true holiness begins in the heart, not in external actions. Christ's warning in the Sermon on the Mount—"Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them" (Matthew 6:1)—calls believers to examine their intentions and reject spiritual pretense.

The remedy for personal hypocrisy lies in humility and repentance. The sacrament of confession provides a sacred opportunity to confront our sins and seek God’s forgiveness. The Jesus Prayer—"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner"—embodies this humility, reminding us that we are all in need of God’s grace. Following the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian, the merciful and humble man is the physician of his own soul, for humility allows the truth to flourish within us.

Hypocrisy in Institutions

Institutions, including religious ones, are not immune to hypocrisy. When their actions contradict their stated values, they risk scandalizing those they serve and undermining their credibility. This danger is especially pronounced in the Church, which is called to embody the Gospel and serve as a witness to Christ’s truth.

Indeed, the Church holds its leaders to a high standard, recognizing their role as shepherds of the faithful. St. Paul exhorts Church leaders to be "above reproach, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2). When clergy or Church leaders succumb to hypocrisy—whether through abuse of power, materialism, or neglect of their spiritual responsibilities—they harm not only themselves but the entire Body of Christ.

Yet, the Church remains holy, not because of the perfection of its members, but because it is sanctified by Christ. Transparency, accountability, and a commitment to repentance are essential for addressing institutional hypocrisy and restoring trust. The Church’s role is not to seek worldly power but to serve as a beacon of truth and love, always pointing toward the kingdom of God.

Hypocrisy in Governments

Governments, too, are often guilty of hypocrisy, particularly when their actions contradict the principles of justice, peace, and the common good that they claim to uphold. From an Orthodox perspective, rulers are stewards of God’s justice and are accountable to Him for their actions. Following St. John Chrysostom, a ruler must be a servant of God, not carrying out his office for his own glory, but rather for the welfare of the people under his care. 

When governments engage in actions that prolong suffering, exploit the vulnerable, or prioritize power over peace, they betray their divine mandate. Hypocrisy in governments often manifests as double standards—criticizing others for the very actions they themselves commit. This inconsistency erodes trust, fosters cynicism, and perpetuates cycles of conflict and injustice.

The consequences of governmental hypocrisy are far-reaching. Prolonged wars, unnecessary suffering, and the destruction of communities are tragic reminders of the human cost of such failures. Governments that claim to act in defense of justice must examine whether their actions truly align with these principles or whether they are driven by self-interest and pride.

The Spiritual Dimensions of Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy in individuals, institutions, and governments is not merely a political or social issue; it is a spiritual problem that reflects humanity's fallen nature. Pride, self-righteousness, and the desire for control are at the root of hypocrisy, and these sins are deeply ingrained in the human heart.

The Church teaches that the way of Christ is the way of humility and self-sacrificial love. Following St. Silouan the Athonite, humility can lead to peace. Hypocrisy, by contrast, breeds division, mistrust, and violence.

In the context of modern conflicts, hypocrisy often leads to the escalation of war and the prolongation of suffering. Nations that claim to act in defense of peace or human rights must ask themselves whether their actions truly serve these goals or whether they are perpetuating a "harvest of death."

The Path to Repentance and Reconciliation

The authentic Christian response to hypocrisy is grounded in the transformative power of repentance. Whether addressing personal sins, institutional failures, or governmental injustices, the Church calls for a return to truth, humility, and love. This process involves several things. First, there is self-examination. Individuals and institutions must confront their own shortcomings honestly and seek God’s forgiveness. Then there must be a commitment to truth, for hypocrisy thrives in falsehood; the cure is a steadfast commitment to truth, even when it is costly. 

Next follows an advocacy for peace and justice. Indeed, governments and institutions must prioritize the well-being of all people, particularly the vulnerable, and work toward reconciliation rather than division. Prayer and intercession is key, for the Church prays for all who suffer and for the repentance of those in power. Prayer unites us with Christ, who is the source of all peace and justice. As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers, bearing witness to the Gospel in a world darkened by hypocrisy and conflict.

Conclusion: Toward Authenticity in Christ

Hypocrisy undermines the witness of individuals, institutions, and governments, leading to suffering, division, and loss of trust. Yet, the Church offers a path toward healing and authenticity through humility, repentance, and a commitment to Christ’s truth.

As we live in the reality and navigate the complexities of modern life, let us strive to live with integrity, aligning our actions with our faith. May we pray for the healing of the world, for the repentance of all who perpetuate injustice, and for the triumph of Christ’s peace over the forces of division and hypocrisy. In the words of St. Seraphim of Sarov: "Acquire the Spirit of Peace, and a thousand souls around you will be saved."

May we all seek this Spirit, becoming instruments of God’s peace in a world longing for His truth and love.

 By
His Apostolic Highness Rutherford (Radislav) I, Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia

     In Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity, the priesthood is understood as a sacred ministry that reflects the divine order established by God. This order is not arbitrary but is firmly founded on the divine governance of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is described in Scripture and tradition as a monarchy. The centrality of Christ as King of Kings (Revelation 19:16) underpins the very nature of our understanding of authority, hierarchy, and governance. This prompts a question: can a priest, whose calling is to represent the divine order, truly fulfill his vocation without embracing the principle of monarchy?

Monarchy in the Kingdom of Heaven

     The Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers present a consistent image of God as King. The Psalms repeatedly extol God’s kingship: "The Lord is King; He is robed in majesty" (Psalm 93:1). The Kingdom of Heaven is not a democracy, where authority is derived from the collective will of the people, but a monarchy, where authority flows from the divine will of God. The King is both the source and sustainer of order, justice, and mercy.

     The Church, as the Body of Christ, mirrors this divine monarchy. Christ is the head, the High Priest, and the King. Bishops, priests, and deacons serve as stewards of this heavenly order on earth, maintaining the unity and hierarchy of the Church. The priest, in particular, stands as an icon of Christ, representing not only His pastoral care but also His kingship.

The Priest as a Monarchist

     A priest who denies or disregards the principle of monarchy undermines the very theological framework that supports his own ministry. To serve as a priest is to embrace the hierarchical and monarchical nature of both the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven. This is not a matter of mere political preference but a theological and spiritual necessity. The priest's vocation is to guide the faithful toward the heavenly Kingdom, which is ordered not by the shifting sands of public, democratic opinion but by the unchanging will of Christ the Eternal Priest and King.

     Saint John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on the Priesthood, highlights the immense responsibility of the priest to reflect divine order. He notes that the priest’s actions are not his own but are meant to reflect the governance of God Himself. If a priest rejects monarchy, he risks rejecting the very image of divine governance he is called to uphold.

Orthodoxy and Political Monarchy

     While the Kingdom of Heaven is the ultimate monarchy and is glorious in its perfection, the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic tradition has traditionally recognized earthly monarchies as reflections of divine order. From the Roman and Byzantine emperors to the Holy Roman Emperors, Russian Kings and later Emperors, and the Christian monarchs of the various Christian nations of the world, Sovereign princes have been seen as God’s anointed, charged with upholding Christian justice and fostering the spiritual life of their people. This historical context reinforces the theological alignment between monarchy and the Apostolic Christian Faith.

     Now, true Christian monarchies on earth, though divinely ordained, are managed by humans. Therefore, while in concept they are perfect reflections of the divine order, they are imperfect in practice due to the imperfection and fallen state of mankind. Yet, they are, even in their imperfection, preferred to other forms of government, for a true Christian sovereign is subject to God, responsible for the care of his people, and ultimately will be judged by God accordingly.

      Monarchies that exist merely as symbolic or ceremonial institutions, devoid of any active role in upholding and promoting Christian principles within government and the nation at large, cannot be considered authentic in the fullest sense. An authentic Christian monarchy is one in which the monarch recognizes and embraces their divinely appointed responsibility to serve as a moral and spiritual leader, guiding their people in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the traditions of the Church. When a monarchy abdicates this sacred duty, reducing itself to a purely figurehead role, it forfeits its legitimacy as an instrument of divine order and governance. Such a monarchy becomes disconnected from its higher purpose and ceases to fulfill the profound role envisioned within the Christian understanding of kingship.

     Again, though, the principle of monarchy as a reflection of divine order remains foundational. A priest who rejects this principle risks diminishing the eschatological vision of the Church and its ultimate destination: union with Christ the King.

The Dangers of Democratic Ideology

     Democracy itself ultimately is an ideology that denies Christian hierarchy and undermines divine authority, and  therefore it inherently conflicts with the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic understanding of order. The Church is not a democracy; it does not derive its teachings or governance from popular vote. Indeed, truth is not subject to majority opinion, and the Kingdom of Heaven is not established by consensus but by the will of God.

     Democracy, understood in the narrow terms of providing representation of the people within government, is not inherently contrary to Christian doctrine. The principle of giving voice to the needs and concerns of the people aligns, in a general sense, with the Christian understanding of human dignity, stewardship, and accountability before God. However, Christian doctrine maintains that such representation can only be legitimately, authentically, and fully realized within the framework of an authentic Christian monarchy. This is because, in the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic understanding, governance is not merely a secular arrangement but a reflection of divine order. A Christian monarchy, led by a ruler who is consecrated to uphold God’s law and guided by the Church, integrates the temporal and spiritual dimensions of leadership. Such a system ensures that the government not only represents the people but also leads them toward their ultimate purpose in Christ, rooting governance in the moral and spiritual truths revealed by God. Without this sacred foundation, representation risks becoming fragmented, detached from transcendent truth, and vulnerable to purely secular or individualistic interests.

     A priest who adopts a democratic worldview or political view not only contradicts the fundamental principles of the priesthood and the Church as a whole but also risks allowing this perspective to influence his ministry, whether intentionally or unconsciously. Such an outlook, if unchecked, can lead to a misunderstanding of the Church as merely a human institution governed by majority opinion or societal trends, rather than the divine and mystical Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit and rooted in divine revelation. This shift in perception may result in the erosion of the Church’s sacred and spiritual hierarchy, wherein the priest, as a servant of God, is meant to act as a bridge between the faithful and the divine.

     Furthermore, it can undermine reverence for sacred traditions, liturgical practices, and doctrinal truths, which are not subject to human negotiation or popular vote but are entrusted to the Church as eternal treasures for the salvation of souls. This flattening of spiritual hierarchy can easily foster a sense of false equality that disregards the distinct roles and responsibilities within the Church, weakening the priest’s ability to lead, teach, and sanctify effectively. Ultimately, such a worldview risks diminishing the Church’s eschatological mission, which is to prepare the faithful for eternal life in the Kingdom of God. Instead of pointing toward the transcendent and the divine, the Church may become overly preoccupied with temporal concerns, losing sight of its ultimate purpose and divine calling.

Conclusion

     The vocation of the priesthood is inseparable from the theology of the Kingdom of Heaven, a monarchy ruled by Christ the King. This foundational truth informs every aspect of a priest’s ministry, shaping his role as a representative of Christ and a steward of the mysteries of God. A priest (and indeed any member of the clergy) who rejects or fails to embody this principle risks distorting the very nature of the Church and its mission, potentially leading the faithful away from a true understanding of their ultimate calling. The Church is not a human institution subject to the shifting winds of politics or societal trends, but the living Body of Christ, whose governance reflects the eternal and perfect order of the heavenly Kingdom.

     While earthly monarchies are imperfect in practice due to the fallibility of mankind, they are nevertheless still reflections of perfect divine order. Such reflections remind us of the Church’s eschatological vision: the eternal Kingdom where Christ reigns in glory as the King of kings. For this reason, a priest is called to remain a steadfast witness to the heavenly monarchy, guiding the faithful toward this ultimate reality. His role is not to conform to worldly ideologies but to proclaim the eternal truths of God’s Kingdom, where love, justice, mercy, and holiness reign supreme.

     Likewise, the Christian faithful are called to live by these same principles, recognizing Christ as their ultimate King and aligning their lives with the divine order of His Kingdom. This requires a conscious rejection of any and all secular ideologies or systems that place the authority of the state above the Church. As the Body of Christ, the Church must always remain above the state, serving as the spiritual authority that directs and sanctifies, reminding earthly powers of their accountability before God.

     In this light, the priest’s commitment to the principle of monarchy transcends any political or cultural stance; it is, instead, a profound affirmation of divine order and the nature of God’s rule. To serve as a priest is to proclaim and embody the truth of the Kingdom of Heaven: a monarchy of infinite love and perfect justice, leading souls to eternal life in communion with Christ the King. By doing so, the priest not only upholds his sacred vocation but also becomes a living icon of the heavenly reality that the Church is called to manifest on earth.

The system of titles within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church (URRC) and the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia reflects a rich interplay of ecclesiastical authority, noble heritage, and cultural tradition. A closer look at the roles and titles of the Prince-Bishop (Knyaz-Episkop in Slavic languages), his family, and the various patriarchs and archbishops of the Church reveals a meaningful structure rooted in ancient history, theology, and symbolism. While the Prince-Bishop is usually called "Prince-Bishop" or simply "Prince" or "Bishop," he also bears ceremonial titles such as Papa-Catholicos and Imperator of Rome-Ruthenia, and Karol (King) of Ruthenia and titular Tsar of All Rus', among others. These titles, though grand, emphasize a tradition of service and a role of historical continuity and cultural preservation. They are typically used only in certain formal documents or specific formal occasions.

1. Servant-Leadership: The Heart of the Prince-Bishop’s Role

At the core of the Prince-Bishop’s identity lies the Christian principle of servant-leadership. Grounded in Christ’s teaching, “The greatest among you must be your servant” (Matthew 23:11), this principle shapes the role of the Prince-Bishop as both shepherd of the Church and protector of the faithful.

The title "Bishop" retains its original spiritual significance, prioritizing the pastoral mission. The dual identity of the Prince-Bishop—as a spiritual leader and steward of temporal cultural heritage—emphasizes humility and service.

The title of Prince (from the Latin Princeps) conveys leadership, preeminence, and responsibility in the sense of First Among Equals, someone who guides and unifies. In parallel, the Slavic form of Prince, Knyaz, derives from old Germanic word for King and was the commonly-used title for a sovereign. The use of Prince-Bishop as the main title, then, ties directly to these concepts. It is a title imbued with historical and symbolic weight, directly embodying the cultural and temporal patrimony of the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State.

2. Temporal Titles and the Role of the Prince-Bishop's Family

The Prince-Bishop’s immediate family hold the title of Grand Duke or Grand Duchess of Rome-Ruthenia (see below on this page). This reflects the noble heritage of the Pontifical Imperial State. Similarly, certain electors of the Church and their consorts hold the title of Grand Duke of Grand Duchess of Rome (also see below on this page). These titles represent a secular guardianship of the URRC’s cultural and patrimonial heritage. By this distinction, the Prince-Bishop’s title emphasizes his overall role, while his family’s titles underscore their temporal and dynastic responsibilities.

3. Archbishops Within the Ecclesiastical Framework

In the URRC, archbishops serve important jurisdictional roles or hold a high position in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but nevertheless remain subordinate to the Prince-Bishop within the Church hierarchy. (His titles include the patriarchal title of Papa-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia and the metropolitan title of Archbishop of Aquileia.)

4. Modern Significance

In the modern era, the simplicity of the title “Prince-Bishop” may seem modest compared to its ceremonial counterparts or to the titles held by members of his household or elsewhere with the URRC. However, this simplicity embodies profound values of humility and service, creating a balance of spiritual leadership and temporal stewardship.

This intricate system reflects the Church’s enduring mission to preserve its heritage as the world constantly evolves with new challenges. It symbolizes a tradition that integrates spiritual guidance with cultural preservation, offering a model of leadership rooted in service and humility.

Indeed, this hierarchical system is a testament to its deep historical and theological roots. This tradition, rich in spiritual and cultural symbolism, continues to inspire the Church’s mission in the modern world. By upholding the values of humility, service, and stewardship, the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State preserves its unique identity, offering a profound legacy that informs its role in contemporary society.


The rank and title of Grand Duke of Rome is held by right by the members of the Pontifical Household of the Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia, following customs from the Middle Ages. It originated with Eastern Roman Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. It represents the highest rank of noble title within the Pontifical States and ranks immediately below the dignity of Cardinal. The Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses hold the style of Imperial and Royal Highness.

The title is specifically held by the following persons:

1. The immediate family of the Prince-Bishop, i.e., any children, parents, and siblings.

from the Pontifical Court

15 October 2024

In the Pontifical Imperial State and the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the title of Prince-Bishop is sovereign, representing the dual role as both the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church and State. This principal title conveys authority over the ecclesiastical and apostolic realms, extending beyond personal rank. The Prince-Bishop by custom may also be referred to as Prince or Bishop, while the consort holds the title of Apostolic Princess. Both hold the style of Apostolic Highness and have additional higher titles that may be formally appended.

In contrast, the title of Grand Duke/Grand Duchess is an honorific held by immediate family members of the Prince-Bishop, with the style of Pontifical and Imperial Highness. Although, in regular usage, this title may appear hierarchically above the Prince-Bishop, this apparent inversion reflects tradition within the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State. The Grand Duke/Duchess title is a noble rank and personal distinction within the Pontifical and Imperial Household but does not imply sovereignty. The use of the title 'Prince' by the sovereign pontiff reflects respect for and continuity with ancient traditions: Princeps (Prince), a title originating with Caesar Augustus, and Knyaz, the ancient Slavic term for a sovereign. Thus, while Prince-Bishop signifies supreme, indivisible leadership, the Grand Duke/Grand Duchess title acknowledges high noble status subordinate to the Chief of the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State.

 Raphael of Brooklyn

In the annals of Orthodoxy, the name of St. Raphael of Brooklyn stands tall—a beacon of faith, dedication, and ecclesiastical leadership. Born Raphael Hawaweeny in what is now Lebanon, he navigated a path through the tumultuous waters of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to become the first Orthodox bishop consecrated on American soil. His legacy is not only foundational to the United Roman-Ruthenian Church as the predecessor of Saint Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh, but also a testament to the enduring spirit of Orthodoxy around the world.

Early Life and Education: The Making of a Spiritual Leader

St. Raphael's journey in this world began on November 20, 1860, amidst the backdrop of the 1860 Syrian Civil War. His family, fleeing the violence in Damascus, found refuge in Beirut, where Raphael was born. From these challenging beginnings, Raphael was destined for spiritual and academic greatness. His initial education at the Damascus Patriarchal School paved the way for advanced theological studies at the Patriarchal Halki seminary in Constantinople and the Theological Academy in Kiev, Russian Empire. These institutions, particularly the Damascus Patriarchal School under Joseph of Damascus, were instrumental in shaping the young Raphael into a future leader of the Orthodox Church.

A Mission Across the Atlantic: St. Raphael's American Ministry

In 1895, Tsar St. Nicholas II of Russia dispatched Father Raphael to New York City to minister to a growing Orthodox Christian community. This diverse flock included Russians, Greeks, Romanians, and Arabs, many of whom were in dire need of pastoral care in their native languages. Responding to the call, Raphael became a unifying figure for Orthodox Christians in America, catering especially to the Arabic-speaking faithful.

The Consecration of America's First Orthodox Bishop

The year 1904 marked a historic moment in the Orthodox Church in America with Raphael's consecration as its first bishop. This monumental event, officiated by Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Innocent in New York City, underscored the emerging significance of the Orthodox faith in America. As Bishop of Brooklyn, Raphael embarked on a mission to solidify and expand the Orthodox presence across the continent.

A Legacy of Growth and Devotion

Throughout his episcopacy, St. Raphael's achievements were numerous and profound. He founded St. Nicholas Antiochian Orthodox Cathedral in Brooklyn, established thirty parishes, and built over 30 churches. His efforts were instrumental in the founding of St. Tikhon's Orthodox Monastery, a beacon of Orthodoxy and spiritual retreat in America.

Beyond his architectural and institutional legacies, St. Raphael also left a significant literary mark. In 1905, he founded The Word, the official magazine of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, and authored numerous works that, though largely untranslated and unpublished, remain influential.

The Final Resting Place of a Saint

After his death on February 27, 1915, Bishop Raphael was initially buried in New York. However, in a testament to his enduring legacy, his relics were translated to the Antiochian Village Camp in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, in August 1988. This final resting place, shared with several other bishops and clergy, became a pilgrimage site for those wishing to honor his memory.

St. Raphael's Canonization and Commemoration

In March 2000, St. Raphael's contributions to the Orthodox Church in America were formally recognized when he was glorified by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). He is commemorated on February 27, the anniversary of his death, by the OCA, and on the first Saturday of November by the Antiochian Orthodox Church, near the Synaxis of the Archangels.

St. Raphael of Brooklyn's story is a powerful reminder of the impact one individual can have on the spiritual life of a nation. His dedication to his faith, his flock, and the foundational work of the Orthodox Church in America resonates to this day, making him a pivotal figure in the history of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and the wider Orthodox community.

The Enduring Legacy of St. Raphael

From his early life in a war-torn region of the Middle East to his final days as a beloved bishop in Brooklyn, St. Raphael of Brooklyn’s journey was one of faith, perseverance, and leadership. He not only laid the groundwork for the Orthodox Church’s expansion in America but also fostered a sense of unity and community among Orthodox Christians of diverse backgrounds. His life and work continue to inspire generations, serving as a luminous example of pastoral dedication and ecclesiastical vision. St. Raphael’s legacy is a testament to the power of faith to transcend boundaries, bring people together, and build a lasting spiritual heritage.

By His Apostolic Highness the Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia

27 November 2024

Introduction

The Roman-Ruthenian Church and State is unique in terms of the spiritual and temporal patrimony that it inherited. It is orthodox, i.e., right believing, in its Christian doctrine; and it is catholic, i.e., universal. Furthermore, its apostolic succession is both from Orthodoxy and Latin/Roman Catholicism, giving it a pan-Christian heritage and nature that is both fully Orthodox and fully Catholic that it devoutly maintains. It calls this, among other names, Orthodox Old Catholicism.

As an organisation, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church promotes a union and brotherhood of all Christians similar to prior to the Great Schism. Yet, in the last 1000 years, the divisions have only deepened. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church feels this particularly acutely, given its heritage and mission.

The Great Schism of 1054, which divided Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, remains one of the most significant and painful divisions in Christian history. While the schism resulted from theological, cultural, linguistic, and political differences, its effects continue to shape how both traditions perceive each other. Unfortunately, historical grievances and misunderstandings often overshadow the profound unity in faith that still exists between these two branches of Christianity.

In an effort to promote brotherhood and unity, we will explore two emblematic issues of the schism—the filioque controversy and the question of leavened versus unleavened bread in the Eucharist—to demonstrate how linguistic and cultural nuances contributed to divisions that need not have become permanent. Finally, we propose practical steps for reconciliation and mutual understanding in a spirit of humility, truth, and love.

Re-Examining the Filioque

Theological and Linguistic Roots of the Controversy

The filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son,” was added to the Nicene Creed in the Latin-speaking West but remains absent from the Greek-speaking East. The Orthodox rejection of the filioque stems from its perceived implications for Trinitarian theology, specifically the unique role of the Father as the sole arche (source) of the Holy Spirit. In Greek, the term ekporeusis (procession) refers strictly to the Spirit’s eternal origin, making the addition of filioque appear to suggest dual sources within the Godhead—a theological impossibility in authentic Christian doctrine.

In the Latin language, however, the term procedit (proceeds) has a broader semantic range, encompassing not only eternal origin but also relational dynamics within the Trinity. For Latin theologians, the filioque affirms the close relationship between the Son and the Spirit, emphasizing Christ’s full divinity in the face of Arian heresies. It does not, however, in any way deny the Father’s unique role as the source of the Spirit – nor was it ever intended to do so. Also, it is reasonable to expect that Orthodoxy would approve of acts designed to refute denials of the full divinity of Christ.

A Common Understanding

Modern ecumenical dialogues have revealed that, when properly understood, both traditions affirm the same Trinitarian truth:

1. The Father is the sole origin of the Spirit within the eternal Trinity.

2. The Spirit is eternally related to the Son and is sent into the world through Him.

It is unfortunately that this misunderstanding resulted, and we assert that the filioque controversy, therefore, arises more from linguistic and cultural differences than from genuine theological divergence. We in the United Roman-Ruthenian Church see on this issue no theological difference between our Eastern Fathers and our Latin Fathers nor in the understanding of the modern faithful in terms of the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity.

Resolution

Within the context of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, the practical and theologically faithful resolution determined is to honor the linguistic and cultural contexts of each tradition as follows:

* In Greek contexts: The original Nicene Creed, without the filioque, should remain normative. This preserves the theological precision of the Greek language and respects the Eastern emphasis on the Father’s unique role as source. This likewise applies to translations into languages such as English, respecting the context.

* In Latin contexts: The filioque may be retained, provided its meaning is clearly explained as consistent with the shared understanding of Trinitarian theology. This likewise applies to translations into languages such as English, respecting the context.

* Liturgy: Within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, in the case of Latin-derived liturgy, regardless of language used, such as the Tridentine and Anglo-Roman liturgy, the filioque is retained. In the case of purely Eastern Rite liturgy, it is always omitted. Likewise, in the case of the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine and Anglican-Byzantine Liturgy, as they are principally Eastern liturgy, it is omitted regardless of language used.

* Ecumenical Gatherings: The version of the Creed should be said as given for the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine Rite above. However, no visitor shall be required to state or to omit something that is held sacred as part of their confession and tradition consistent with authentic Christian doctrine and tradition.

It is further recommended to our brethren in other communions and confessions that this or a similar approach be adopted. Such an approach allows each tradition to articulate the same truth in a manner authentic to its heritage, fostering unity without imposing uniformity.

Leavened vs. Unleavened Bread: A Liturgical Dispute

The use of leavened (artos) or unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist became another source of division, despite both practices being rooted in early Christian tradition.

Symbolic Differences

• Leavened Bread (Eastern Orthodox): Symbolizes the risen Christ and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

• Unleavened Bread (Latin/Roman Catholic): Reflects the Jewish Passover and emphasizes Christ as the spotless Lamb of God.

The divergence arose from differing theological emphases and liturgical customs rather than from doctrinal disagreement. Both traditions affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, regardless of the bread used.

Council of Florence and Beyond

The Council of Florence (1439) declared that both leavened and unleavened bread are valid for the Eucharist. This ecumenical acknowledgment highlights that such differences should not divide the Church. Yet mutual suspicion and cultural misunderstandings have kept the debate alive in some circles.

A Call to Unity

Both traditions would benefit from a renewed focus on the shared Eucharistic mystery rather than on the external forms. The type of bread, while symbolically significant, should not obscure the deeper reality of communion with Christ and His Body, the Church.

It is therefore the already-extant policy of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church that, in the Gallo-Russo-Byzantine and Anglican-Byzantine Rites, both leavened and unleavened bread may be used for Holy Communion. Regular unleavened communion hosts are permissible, as are both loaves of bread of both leavened and unleavened types. However, the Reserved Sacrament, as a practical matter, is maintained only in the form of unleavened hosts.

Healing the Fractures Within Orthodoxy

While addressing Orthodox-Catholic relations, we must also recognize the fractures within Orthodoxy itself. Jurisdictional disputes and issues of recognition undermine the Orthodox witness to unity. These divisions often hypocritically mirror the same political and cultural pressures that contributed to the Great Schism.

Toward Greater Conciliarity

Orthodoxy’s strength lies in its conciliar nature, which balances unity and diversity. Restoring communion within Orthodoxy requires a recommitment to dialogue, humility, and the willingness to place Christ’s will above political or national interests. Indeed, it is the policy of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church that an autocephalous jurisdiction is canonical through adherence to the historic and constant faith of the Church as taught by the saints and the Church Fathers (St. Vincent of Lerins) and the faith once delivered for all unto the saints (Jude 3). Neither affiliation with the Apostolic See of Sts. Stephen and Mark, nor the Bishop of Rome, of Constantinople, or of any other ecclesiastical jurisdiction is required. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church accepts as canonical all who accept the traditional faith.

Paths Forward: Unity in Diversity

The ultimate goal of Christian unity is not uniformity but a shared commitment to the truth of the Gospel. We, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church therefore promotes:

1. Theological Dialogue: Continue respectful and honest dialogue to clarify misunderstandings and articulate shared beliefs.

2. Mutual Respect: Acknowledge and honor the distinct traditions and practices of each autocephalous Church, recognizing their complementary richness.

3. Ecumenical Worship: In contexts where it is appropriate, use the original Creed without the filioque to emphasize unity while respecting diversity.

4. Collaborative Witness: Work together on social, charitable, and moral issues, demonstrating a united Christian witness to the world.

5. Prayer for Unity: Commit to praying for the healing of divisions, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church toward reconciliation.

Conclusion

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church, as an autocephalous Church that is both Orthodox and Old Catholic, we constantly seek and promote Christian unity, particularly between the Churches of the Apostolic faith. Indeed, we are in a unique position to do so. The divisions between Orthodox and Catholic Christians, though rooted in history, need not define our present or future. By reexamining contentious issues such as the filioque and liturgical practices in their proper context, we can uncover a profound unity in faith that transcends cultural and linguistic differences.

As we move forward, let us remember Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). Achieving this unity requires humility, love, and a willingness to learn from one another. By focusing on what unites us—our shared faith in Christ and the Apostolic tradition—we can begin to heal the wounds of division and offer a powerful witness to the world.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” (Luke 2:14) May this peace guide our efforts toward reconciliation and unity.

30 October 2024

Summary:

The Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church holds apostolic authority, enabling oversight of ecclesiastical discipline, liturgical norms, and clerical attire. Canon Law allows clerics to wear secular-style clothing with episcopal consent in non-liturgical contexts, reflecting historical practices across Christian traditions. The Church, by virtual of its patrimony as the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia, integrates cultural and secular dimensions into its traditions, by which clergy are permitted to adopt national, ethnic, or secular-style dress in accordance with the cultural heritage of this ethno-religious nation without borders. Historical precedents affirm the adaptation of clerical attire, including but not limited to secular dress in diplomatic and other contexts. The Church's embrace of secular-style attire is justified within its own unique historical and canonical framework, maintaining its Apostolic and cultural identity, noting also that the secular culture of the Pontifical Imperial State is, by its very nature, religious. Thus, clergy wearing secular-style dress in accordance with tradition and canon law are considered appropriately attired as clerics.

______________________________

Summary:

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church (URRC) is a legitimate autocephalous Orthodox and Old Catholic Church based on several key points:

1. Apostolic Succession: The URRC maintains a valid, unbroken line of episcopal consecration back to the Apostles, connecting it to ancient churches such as the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

2. Historical Continuity: The Church has roots in early Christian traditions, drawing from both Eastern and Western practices, further reinforcing its connection to the pre-Schism Church.

3. Autocephalous Status: The URRC's self-governing nature aligns with Eastern Orthodox traditions, where recognition from other churches is not a prerequisite for legitimacy.

4. Theological and Liturgical Practices: The Church integrates core beliefs and liturgical elements from both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, preserving the essence of early Christianity.

5. Recognition: While the URRC has received ecclesiastical and legal recognition, such acknowledgment is not essential for its canonical validity, as legitimacy is rooted in Apostolic succession and continuity with the early Church.

_______________________

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church (URRC) is a canonical Orthodox and Old Catholic autocephalous Church that is part of the original Church from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

1. Apostolic Succession is the Key to Legitimacy in the Christian Tradition.

Premise 1: The early Christian Church, as founded by the Apostles, established the principle of Apostolic Succession—the unbroken line of episcopal consecration going back to the Apostles — as the means by which ecclesiastical authority is transmitted. This is accepted both in Orthodox and Catholic theology as a key marker of legitimacy for any Christian body (Duffy, 2001).

Premise 2: The United Roman-Ruthenian Church possesses direct Apostolic succession from multiple ancient churches: Russian Orthodox, Syrian Antiochene, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Malabar, Roman Catholic, and others (Ware, 1993). This is evidenced through historical documents tracing consecrations back to the Apostles, including Saints Peter, Andrew, and others.

Premise 3: As Apostolic succession does not depend solely on recognition from other patriarchal churches but on the validity of the consecrations themselves, the URRC maintains valid Apostolic succession through its Orthodox, Old Catholic, and Anglican lines. For instance, historical records of consecrations from Archbishop St. Aftimios Ofiesh (Russian Orthodox), Archbishop Gerardus Gul (Old Catholic), Pope St. Leo X (Roman Catholic), and others connect the Church’s episcopal line to earlier, recognised ancient churches (Brandreth, 1947).

2. Historical Continuity with the Early Church Bolsters its Legitimacy.

Premise 1: The URRC’s canonical status is further supported by its historical continuity with both Eastern and Western Christian traditions. The Church's roots trace back to the early Christian centers of Rome, Constantinople, Syria, and India, connecting it to the Church before the Great Schism of 1054 (Meyendorff, 1989).

Premise 2: The URRC embodies ancient traditions from both the Orthodox and Catholic liturgies, integrating Byzantine, Latin, and Syrian practices. This mirrors diverse aspects of the undivided Church before political and theological divisions arose, reinforcing that it is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church described in the Nicene Creed.

Premise 3: Historical precedents exist where autocephalous churches were not recognised by dominant patriarchates yet were later acknowledged as legitimate. For example, the Old Catholic Church, established after the First Vatican Council, remained canonically valid despite initial rejection by the Vatican due to its retention of valid Apostolic succession and valid Sacraments (Plummer, 1911).

3. The Church’s Autocephalous Status is Consistent with Eastern Orthodox Tradition.

Premise 1: The concept of autocephaly (self-governance without oversight from a higher ecclesiastical authority) is common in Eastern Orthodoxy. The Roman Communion (Vatican) also ultimately claims this for itself since it likewise does not recognise any higher ecclesiastical authority. Various Orthodox churches, such as the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, have historically declared their independence while still being considered legitimate due to their Apostolic succession and theological orthodoxy, even if denied by other Churches (Runciman, 1977).

Premise 2: The URRC's autocephalous status aligns with this Orthodox principle. Whether or not it receives open acknowledgment from any or all other Apostolic Churches, its consecrations and historical roots in recognised Apostolic lines, theological Orthodox, and traditional praxis provide it with canonical legitimacy.

Premise 3: Recognition is not a precondition for legitimacy.

Many Orthodox and Catholic churches have existed for centuries without formal recognition. One example is the Autocephalous Church of Greece, which declared its independence from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1833. For several decades, it operated without recognition, despite maintaining valid Apostolic succession and Orthodox theology. It was not until 1850 that the Ecumenical Patriarch officially recognized its autocephaly (Ware, 1997).

This example illustrates that true canonical legitimacy in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, regardless of political disputes between ecclesiastical authorities, does not necessarily depend on immediate or formal recognition from a higher ecclesiastical authority. Instead, legitimacy is rooted in valid consecrations and adherence to Apostolic tradition. Churches can, and have, functioned independently while maintaining their canonical and theological integrity, with recognition often following later due to political or historical circumstances, rather than theological necessity. The URRC enjoys recognition from various ecclesiastical and legal bodies. Yet, such recognition may expand or contract.

Therefore, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church's canonical status and legitimacy must be understood in the same light. Its Apostolic succession and adherence to Orthodox and Catholic traditions ensure its legitimacy, regardless of whether formal recognition by other church bodies exists at any particular time. Recognition, in this context, is secondary to the more fundamental criteria of valid consecration and continuity with the early Church.

4. The Church’s Theological and Liturgical Practices Maintain Orthodox and Catholic Continuity.

Premise 1: The URRC combines the principle theological tenets of both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, including belief in the Nicene Creed, the seven sacraments, and core doctrines of the early Church (Cross & Livingstone, 1997). It seeks to preserve unity by maintaining the theological essence of pre-schism Christianity, including the doctrines of Christ's divinity, the Trinity, and the Apostolic tradition.

Premise 2: Its liturgical practices integrate elements from Byzantine, Syrian, and Latin rites, ensuring continuity with the ancient liturgical traditions of both East and West (Bradshaw, 1992). This liturgical continuity ties it to the original Church, before the divisions of the Great Schism, in a way that fosters unity among the divided Christian traditions.

5. Ecclesiastical Recognition, While Important, is Not Required for Canonical Validity.

Premise 1: The URRC has received recognition from various ecclesiastical and secular authorities. Such recognition has taken the form of both public and private acknowledgment. This demonstrates that the Church’s legitimacy is recognised, albeit at times quietly, in diverse influential circles (Phan, 2000).

Premise 2: Canonical recognition can sometimes be withheld for political, not theological, reasons. Throughout history, churches and bishops have been recognised in different ways depending on the political context. The URRC’s recognition that it maintains a legitimate place within the broader Christian world, even if full public recognition is lacking.

Conclusion:

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church is Canonically Legitimate, given the United Roman-Ruthenian Church’s:

* Valid Apostolic Succession from multiple recognized lines (Orthodox, Old Catholic, and Anglican),

* Historical continuity with both the early church and pre-schism Christianity,

* Alignment with autocephalous principles that are accepted in Orthodox tradition,

* Commitment to theological and liturgical practices that are continuous with Orthodox and Catholic traditions, and

* Existing recognition by authoritative figures.

It therefore can be argued and is asserted that the URRC is a legitimate and canonically valid Church and part of the original Church from the time of Christ and the Apostles. The church’s existence and authority are rooted in the early Church and Apostolic tradition, regardless of existing recognition it enjoys and regardless of whether recognition from other ecclesiastical bodies may now or later be given or denied. The legitimacy of a church ultimately depends on Apostolic succession and continuity with the early Church, both of which the United Roman-Ruthenian Church demonstrably possesses.

Furthermore, the Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church (URRC) has legitimate grounds for using the same traditions, vestments, and symbols as other patriarchs, and likewise the Bishops of the Church have rights to use of episcopal traditions, vestments, and symbols according to their offices and Holy Orders based on several key factors.

First, the URRC maintains valid Apostolic succession from both Catholic and Orthodox lines, which inherently grants the right to uphold Apostolic traditions, including the use of liturgical dress and ceremonial practices.

Second, the traditions of dress and liturgy, such as the mitre and pallium, are universal symbols shared across patriarchates and are not exclusive to specific Patriarchates, such as the Roman Pope, but are part of the broader Apostolic heritage that spans both Eastern and Western Christian traditions.

Third, the URRC’s autocephalous status provides it with ecclesiastical autonomy, allowing it to govern its own liturgical practices while adhering to ancient Christian customs.

Finally, the URRC's standing reflects the early Christian principle of ecclesiastical equality among patriarchs, where each patriarch possesses the right to use symbols of authority, regardless of recognition by other patriarchates.

These factors collectively affirm that the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops of the URRC are justified in adopting traditions, dress, and symbols that are shared with other Apostolic Churches as part of the Church’s legitimate continuity with early Christianity (Ware, 1993).

_______________________

References

Bradshaw, P. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. 1992. Oxford University Press.

Brandreth, H. R. T. Episcopi Vagantes and the Anglican Church. 1947. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 23

Cross, F.L., E. A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 1997. Oxford University Press.

Duffy, E. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. 2001. Yale University Press.

Meyendorff, J. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 AD. 1989. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Phan, P.C. The Gift of the Church: A Textbook on Ecclesiology. 2000. Liturgical Press.

Plummer, A. A History of the Church of England. 1911. Rivingtons.

S. Runciman. The Great Church in Captivity. 1977. Cambridge University Press.

Ware, K. The Orthodox Way. 1997. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Ware, T. The Orthodox Church. 1993. Penguin Books.