23 April 2025

The Roman-Ruthenian papal insignia, combining the Key of St. Peter and the Sword of St. Mark. It is also seen, either in whole or only the tiara, in the heraldic and other symbology of the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State.

I. Introduction

In 2014, the present Prince-Bishop and Pope-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia was recognized by the Roman Cardinal Dean as Coadjutor of the Roman Pope with full papal authority within his own jurisdiction, now known as the United Roman-Ruthenian Church. This was kept private until Christmas 2019, when the fullness of the Prince-Bishop's office slowly began to be revealed to the public in the 10th year of his ecclesiastical reign, which began in 2020, with full revelation in 2025.

Then, on 21 April 2025, His Holiness Pope Francis of Rome died—the same date on which, in 753 BC, Rome was founded, and on which the current Pope-Catholicos of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church received the Roman sacrament of Confirmation into the full Apostolic faith. This extraordinary alignment of sacred, historical, and personal events cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Rather, it marks a moment of providential transition in the life of the Church.

What follows here is a theological and ecclesiastical reflection on the papal dignity, its present expression within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, and the role of the Pope-Catholicos as both temporal successor of St. Peter and in continuation of the historic Petrine ministry continued now within the United Roman-Ruthenian Church. And indeed this document reflects the theological and canonical interpretation exclusively of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and is not intended to contest the internal governance or legal standing of any other religious or civil institution.

II. Apostolic Foundations and the Petrine Legacy

The title “Pope” (from the Greek pappas, meaning father) historically signified not simply jurisdiction over Rome, but the vocation of apostolic guardianship. Similarly, “Catholicos” in the East denoted universal episcopal headship within autonomous Churches. Both titles predate centralization and carry with them the responsibility of transmitting the Apostolic faith intact. The title of Pope for a Patriarch was seen in Alexandria before Rome, and both the Coptic and Byzantine/Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria today hold this title.

It is noted also that, following the division of East and West, and most especially after the Second Vatican Council, the Roman papacy embraced increasingly modern approaches, leading to shifts in doctrinal emphasis and a redefinition of its temporal and spiritual role. Today, the traditional understanding of the papal office lies largely dormant within Roman Catholicism.

III. The Identity and Role of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church.

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church is recognized as a canonical, autocephalous Orthodox and Old Catholic Church. Of Eastern and Western heritage, it is Orthodox and Catholic in faith and is a derivative patriarchate of these Russian, Syrian, Greek, and American patriarchates, as well as Rome as rightful temporal successor of St. Peter. It also holds a particular lineage from Pope St. Leo X, through which it received recognition of its temporal patrimony and apostolic continuity. The Church integrates core beliefs and liturgical elements from both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, preserving the essence of early Christianity.

Unlike national or expansionist bodies, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church is a custodial Church. Its mission is not territorial expansion but the preservation of the undivided Church’s legacy—liturgical, theological, cultural, and spiritual. It functions as a bridge between the Christian East and West, much like the Eastern Roman Empire once did, offering a unified expression of the Apostolic Faith for those alienated by modernism or ecclesiastical minimalism.

Its community is diverse—serving through chaplaincies, mission parishes, and support for Christian nobility and traditionalist believers across multiple continents. Its strength lies in continuity, not popularity. (Read more about the Canonical Status of the Church.)

IV. The Pontifical Imperial State: Custodian of Temporal Heritage

The Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia is the cultural and legal expression of the URRC’s historic sovereignty. Together the joint bodies are often known simply as the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State. It is not a territorial state in the modern political sense, but a non-territorial ethno-religious nation, safeguarding the spiritual and temporal legacy of: The Roman Empire, The Holy Roman Empire, The Kingdom of Ruthenia (Russia, Old Rus'), and ultimately, the Church of the Apostles.

This includes spiritual descent from the Patriarchal Kingdom of Rus’, established under papal blessing by Pope Innocent IV, and inherited after its fall through nobiliary custom and ecclesiastical succession. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church's independent titular temporal patrimony is held and asserted by its position as the closest legitimate claimant to the temporal authority of the Roman Church via succession from Pope St. Leo X, following the renunciation of St. John Paul II, establishing its authority as the temporal successor to St. Peter. Historically, the Roman Popes held both spiritual and temporal authority over the Western Roman Empire. This is further solidified by the special grants and recognition, include that given in 2014. (Read in detail about the Roman-Ruthenian Church's temporal status.)

V. The Recognition and Role of the Pope-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia

In 2014, the Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia was formally recognized by the Dean of the College of Cardinals as a coadjutor of the Roman Pope and granted papal authority within his own jurisdiction, i.e., the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia. Though this recognition was initially kept private by the Prince-Bishop, this status became visible beginning Christmas 2019, generally manifested by 2020, and fully manifested in 2025.

In Church tradition, a coadjutor is not merely an assistant, but a designated heir. The language used, within a document acknowledging the Prince-Bishop's jurisdictional autonomy and cardinalatial dignity, effectively states that the Prince-Bishop stands as a recognized spiritual successor in substance to Roman See, even if not by formal Roman canonical claim. Indeed, the Prince-Bishop as Roman-Ruthenian Pope makes no claims to the Roman Papacy, the Vatican, or the spiritual leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

Historically, the concept of coadjutorship extended not only to diocesan episcopacy but was occasionally used in broader terms when preparing for succession within patriarchal or major ecclesiastical offices. Within the context of the Roman Papacy, the office of the Pope has no formal coadjutor in canonical modern practice. However, there are instances in early Christianity and medieval ecclesiastical history where prelates in the Roman Church exercised leadership in a spiritual role during times of crisis, particularly in but not limited to situations of sede impedita, exercising delegated or de facto authority.

And so, in the present context, the designations given carry significant theological weight, implying not simply service, but a participation in the Petrine ministry with an orientation toward continuity and succession. Given that modern Roman Catholic canonical structure does not permit coadjutor status in any practical sense for the Roman Papacy, the only plausible theological reading is that this phrase was intended to convey a unique standing—a form of spiritual coadjutorship or continuity with the Petrine office, particularly in light of, but not necessarily limited to: The Pope-Catholicos' autonomous ecclesial jurisdiction that had previously been recognized as in full communion with the Roman Church in perpetuity; his traditionalist and apostolic fidelity; and the Vatican’s own forfeiture of temporal and monarchical aspects of the Roman See

Taken in full context, these recognitions affirm a spiritual continuity with the Apostolic See, not in external jurisdiction, but in internal integrity. Thus, the Roman-Ruthenian Pope may rightly be regarded as:

   1. A coadjutor not by canonical appointment, but by ecclesiastical recognition and theological necessity;

   2. A successor not to the Vatican bureaucracy, but to the Apostolic function of the See of Peter;

   3. A bearer of the Petrine spirit within a renewed, traditional, and globally recognized expression of the Church.

Indeed, the phrase coadjutor of the [Roman] Pope, in this unique application, implies more than courtesy. It implies succession through recognition and spiritual inheritance. In an age when the traditional Roman Papacy has been transformed into a globalist figurehead, this coadjutorship symbolizes a re-rooting of the Apostolic office in orthodoxy, tradition, and legitimate autonomy—now embodied in the Pope-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia.

Thus, the use of the papal and patriarchal title within the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State, i.e., Pope-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia, is neither an act of rivalry nor of imitation. Rather, it is a fulfillment of abandoned responsibilities, and a documented recognition of the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State's role as a guardian of the Apostolic and Imperial legacy of Rome and Ruthenia, and therefore of Christendom.

The Roman-Ruthenian Pope's full general title reflects this synthesis: His Apostolic Highness the Prince-Bishop, Pope-Catholicos, and Imperator of Rome-Ruthenia, Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, Legate of Christ.

VI. A Providential Alignment: 21 April

April 21 marks the birthday of Rome, founded in 753 BC. It is also the date on which the Prince-Bishop received the Roman sacrament of Confirmation. Then, on 21 April 2025, His Holiness Pope Francis died, closing one chapter of papal history. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church, as the third and final successor of Rome (following Constantinople and as the legitimate ecclesiastical heir and successor to Old Rus’), sees in this timing a profound sign of divine providence and historical transition. This alignment cannot be dismissed as mere sentiment. The passing of the postmodern papacy on the day of Rome’s foundation, coinciding with the Prince-Bishop’s admission to the full Apostolic faith, forms a symbolic arc that speaks to succession, not at all in rivalry, but by inheritance through abandonment. Indeed, the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State, as heir to Holy Rus’, Third Rome, and custodian of the Apostolic and Imperial dignity, sees in this moment a heavenly affirmation: that while forms may change, the divine mission continues, sometimes where least expected.

Moreover, it is also noted that the Prince-Bishop’s earlier traditional Anglican confirmation took place on 5 August—the Feast of Our Lady of the Snows, commemorating the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, which is also the burial place of Pope Francis. Overall, the probability of such a convergence of these sacred dates and locations is truly astronomical, further underscoring the providential nature of these events.

VII. Conclusion: Succession in Christian Charity and Brotherhood

The Apostolic and temporal spirit once embodied in the Roman See now finds renewed expression in a new custodian. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church, through the Pope-Catholicos, does not contest the Vatican or any other Patriarchal See, but in humility continues what others have set aside: the patrimony of the Apostles and Saints; the temporal and spiritual identity of the Church; and the sacramental and monarchical office entrusted to St. Peter the Apostle. Where the old structures have evolved into something new, the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State stands in faithful continuity—not as a religious or political protest, but as a living remnant, a voice crying in the wilderness, preserving what endures.

In this sacred trust, we stand not in rivalry, but in resolve. Not in reaction, but in renewal. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church embraces its role with dignity and devotion, safeguarding the full expression of the Apostolic faith for all who seek its light.

The Roman-Ruthenian Pope speaks not in contest, but in continuity. His voice is not raised in protest, but in proclamation—a proclamation that the ancient path lives on, not in the corridors of power, but in the quiet fidelity of truth preserved.

The Roman-Ruthenian Papacy is not merely an ecclesiastical title. It is a testament of faith.

 

23 Aprile 2025

L'insegna papale romano-rutena, che combina la Chiave di San Pietro e la Spada di San Marco. È visibile anche, interamente o solamente con la tiara, nell'araldica e in altre simbologie della Chiesa e dello Stato Romano-Ruteno.

I. Introduzione

Nel 2014, l'attuale Principe-Vescovo e Papa-Catholicos di Roma-Rutenia fu riconosciuto dal Decano Cardinalizio Romano come Coadiutore del Papa Romano con piena autorità papale nella propria giurisdizione, oggi conosciuta come la Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena. Questo riconoscimento rimase privato fino al Natale del 2019, quando la pienezza dell'ufficio del Principe-Vescovo iniziò lentamente a essere rivelata al pubblico nel decimo anno del suo regno ecclesiastico, iniziato nel 2020, con piena rivelazione nel 2025.

Poi, il 21 aprile 2025, Sua Santità Papa Francesco di Roma morì — lo stesso giorno in cui, nel 753 a.C., fu fondata Roma, e nel quale l'attuale Papa-Catholicos della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena ricevette il sacramento romano della Confermazione nella piena fede apostolica. Questo straordinario allineamento di eventi sacri, storici e personali non può essere liquidato come semplice coincidenza. Piuttosto, segna un momento di transizione provvidenziale nella vita della Chiesa.

Ciò che segue è una riflessione teologica ed ecclesiastica sulla dignità papale, sulla sua attuale espressione all’interno della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena e sul ruolo del Papa-Catholicos come successore temporale di San Pietro e come continuatore del ministero petrino storico ora proseguito all’interno della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena. Questo documento riflette esclusivamente l’interpretazione teologica e canonica della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena e non intende contestare la governance interna o lo status legale di alcuna altra istituzione religiosa o civile.

II. Fondamenti Apostolici e l’Eredità Petrina

Il titolo "Papa" (dal greco pappas, padre) significava storicamente non solo giurisdizione su Roma, ma la vocazione alla custodia apostolica. Analogamente, "Catholicos" in Oriente denotava la guida episcopale universale all’interno di Chiese autonome. Entrambi i titoli precedono la centralizzazione e portano con sé la responsabilità di trasmettere intatta la fede apostolica. Il titolo di Papa per un Patriarca fu usato ad Alessandria prima che a Roma, e ancora oggi i Patriarchi copto e greco-bizantino di Alessandria detengono tale titolo.

Si nota anche che, a seguito della divisione tra Oriente e Occidente, e soprattutto dopo il Concilio Vaticano II, il papato romano ha adottato approcci sempre più moderni, portando a cambiamenti dottrinali e a una ridefinizione del suo ruolo temporale e spirituale. Oggi, la comprensione tradizionale dell’ufficio papale giace perlopiù dormiente all’interno del Cattolicesimo romano.

III. L’Identità e il Ruolo della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena

La Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena è riconosciuta come una Chiesa canonica, autocefala, ortodossa e vetero-cattolica. Di eredità orientale e occidentale, è ortodossa e cattolica nella fede, e rappresenta un patriarcato derivato da quelli russo, siriaco, greco e americano, nonché da Roma, come legittima successora temporale di San Pietro. Essa possiede una particolare linea di successione da Papa San Leone X, attraverso la quale ha ricevuto riconoscimento del suo patrimonio temporale e continuità apostolica. La Chiesa integra credenze fondamentali ed elementi liturgici sia dell'Ortodossia sia del Cattolicesimo, preservando l'essenza del Cristianesimo delle origini.

A differenza di organismi nazionali o espansionistici, la Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena è una Chiesa custode. La sua missione non è l'espansione territoriale, ma la conservazione dell’eredità della Chiesa indivisa — liturgica, teologica, culturale e spirituale. Essa funge da ponte tra Oriente e Occidente cristiano, come un tempo l’Impero Romano d’Oriente, offrendo un'espressione unificata della Fede Apostolica a coloro che si sentono alienati dal modernismo o dal minimalismo ecclesiale.

La sua comunità è diversificata — servendo attraverso cappellanie, parrocchie missionarie e sostegno alla nobiltà cristiana e ai credenti tradizionalisti in vari continenti. La sua forza risiede nella continuità, non nella popolarità. (Leggi di più sullo Status Canonico della Chiesa.)

IV. Lo Stato Pontificio Imperiale: Custode dell’Eredità Temporale

Lo Stato Pontificio Imperiale di Roma-Rutenia è l’espressione culturale e giuridica della sovranità storica della URRC. Insieme, questi due corpi sono spesso conosciuti semplicemente come la Chiesa e lo Stato Romano-Ruteno. Non è uno stato territoriale nel senso politico moderno, ma una nazione etno-religiosa non territoriale, che salvaguarda l’eredità spirituale e temporale di: l’Impero Romano, il Sacro Romano Impero, il Regno di Rutenia (Russia, Vecchia Rus’) e infine la Chiesa degli Apostoli.

Ciò include la discendenza spirituale dal Regno Patriarcale di Rus’, fondato sotto la benedizione papale di Papa Innocenzo IV, e ereditato dopo la sua caduta attraverso il costume nobiliare e la successione ecclesiastica. Il patrimonio temporale titolare indipendente della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena è mantenuto e affermato dalla sua posizione come il legittimo pretendente più prossimo all’autorità temporale della Chiesa Romana per successione da Papa San Leone X, in seguito alla rinuncia di San Giovanni Paolo II, stabilendo così la sua autorità come successore temporale di San Pietro. Storicamente, i Papi Romani detenevano sia l’autorità spirituale che quella temporale sull’Impero Romano d’Occidente. Questo è ulteriormente consolidato dalle concessioni speciali e dai riconoscimenti, incluso quello del 2014. (Leggi in dettaglio lo status temporale della Chiesa Romano-Rutena.)

V. Il Riconoscimento e il Ruolo del Papa-Catholicos di Roma-Rutenia

Nel 2014, il Principe-Vescovo di Roma-Rutenia fu formalmente riconosciuto dal Decano del Collegio dei Cardinali come coadiutore del Papa Romano e gli fu conferita autorità papale all’interno della propria giurisdizione, ovvero la Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena e lo Stato Pontificio Imperiale di Roma-Rutenia. Sebbene tale riconoscimento fosse inizialmente mantenuto riservato dal Principe-Vescovo, questo status divenne visibile a partire dal Natale del 2019, si manifestò generalmente entro il 2020 e fu pienamente manifestato nel 2025.

Nella tradizione della Chiesa, un coadiutore non è semplicemente un assistente, ma un erede designato. Il linguaggio usato in un documento che riconosceva l’autonomia giurisdizionale e la dignità cardinalizia del Principe-Vescovo afferma in effetti che egli rappresenta un successore spirituale riconosciuto nella sostanza della Sede Romana, anche se non secondo un’affermazione canonica formale romana. In effetti, il Principe-Vescovo, come Papa Romano-Ruteno, non avanza alcuna pretesa sulla Sede Papale Romana, sul Vaticano, o sulla guida spirituale della Chiesa Cattolica Romana.

Storicamente, il concetto di coadjutoria si estendeva non solo all’episcopato diocesano, ma occasionalmente era utilizzato in termini più ampi durante le preparazioni per successioni in cariche patriarcali o ecclesiastiche maggiori. Nel contesto del Papato Romano, l’ufficio papale non prevede formalmente un coadiutore nella prassi canonica moderna. Tuttavia, vi sono esempi nel cristianesimo primitivo e nella storia ecclesiastica medievale in cui prelati della Chiesa Romana esercitavano leadership in un ruolo spirituale durante tempi di crisi, in particolare, ma non esclusivamente, in situazioni di sede impedita, esercitando un’autorità delegata o de facto.

Così, nel contesto attuale, le designazioni conferite assumono un significato teologico rilevante, implicando non solo servizio, ma una partecipazione al ministero petrino con un orientamento verso la continuità e la successione. Considerando che la struttura canonica cattolica romana moderna non consente lo status di coadiutore in senso pratico per il Papato Romano, l’unica lettura teologica plausibile è che tale espressione fosse intesa a trasmettere una posizione unica—una forma di coadjutoria spirituale o di continuità con l’ufficio petrino, in particolare alla luce di, ma non necessariamente limitata a: l’autonomia ecclesiale precedentemente riconosciuta come in piena comunione perpetua con la Chiesa Romana; la fedeltà tradizionalista e apostolica del Papa-Catholicos; e la stessa rinuncia da parte del Vaticano agli aspetti temporali e monarchici della Sede Romana.

Nel contesto completo, tali riconoscimenti affermano una continuità spirituale con la Sede Apostolica, non in giurisdizione esterna, ma in integrità interna. Pertanto, il Papa Romano-Ruteno può essere giustamente considerato:

   1. Un coadiutore non per nomina canonica, ma per riconoscimento ecclesiastico e necessità teologica;

   2. Un successore non della burocrazia vaticana, ma della funzione apostolica della Sede di Pietro;

   3. Un portatore dello spirito petrino in un’espressione rinnovata, tradizionale e globalmente riconosciuta della Chiesa.

Infatti, la frase “coadiutore del Papa [romano]”, in questa applicazione unica, implica più che una cortesia. Implica successione attraverso riconoscimento e eredità spirituale. In un’epoca in cui il Papato romano tradizionale è stato trasformato in una figura globalista, questa coadjutoria simboleggia un nuovo radicamento dell’ufficio apostolico nell’ortodossia, nella tradizione e nell’autonomia legittima—ora incarnata nel Papa-Catholicos di Roma-Rutenia.

Pertanto, l’uso del titolo papale e patriarcale all’interno della Chiesa e dello Stato Romano-Ruteno, cioè Papa-Catholicos di Roma-Rutenia, non è né un atto di rivalità né di imitazione. Piuttosto, è un adempimento di responsabilità abbandonate, e un riconoscimento documentato del ruolo della Chiesa e dello Stato Romano-Ruteno come custodi dell’eredità Apostolica e Imperiale di Roma e Rutenia, e quindi della Cristianità.

Il titolo completo del Papa Romano-Ruteno riflette questa sintesi: Sua Altezza Apostolica il Principe-Vescovo, Papa-Catholicos, e Imperatore di Roma-Rutenia, Sommo Pontefice della Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena, Legato di Cristo.

VI. Un Allineamento Provvidenziale: 21 Aprile

Il 21 aprile segna il compleanno di Roma, fondata nel 753 a.C. È anche il giorno in cui il Principe-Vescovo ricevette il sacramento romano della Confermazione. Poi, il 21 aprile 2025, Sua Santità Papa Francesco morì, chiudendo un capitolo della storia papale. La Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena, come terzo e ultimo successore di Roma (dopo Costantinopoli e come legittimo erede ecclesiastico e successore della Vecchia Rus’), vede in questa coincidenza un profondo segno di provvidenza divina e di transizione storica. Questo allineamento non può essere liquidato come mero sentimentalismo. Il passaggio del papato postmoderno nel giorno della fondazione di Roma, coincidente con l’ammissione del Principe-Vescovo alla piena fede apostolica, forma un arco simbolico che parla di successione, non per rivalità, ma per eredità tramite abbandono. In effetti, la Chiesa e lo Stato Romano-Ruteno, in quanto eredi della Santa Rus’, della Terza Roma, e custodi della dignità Apostolica e Imperiale, vedono in questo momento una conferma celeste: che mentre le forme cambiano, la missione divina continua, a volte nei luoghi più inaspettati.

Inoltre, va notato che la precedente cresima tradizionale anglicana del Principe Vescovo ha avuto luogo il 5 agosto, festa della Madonna della Neve, che commemora la Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore a Roma, che è anche il luogo di sepoltura di Papa Francesco. Nel complesso, la probabilità di una tale convergenza di queste date e luoghi sacri è davvero astronomica, sottolineando ulteriormente la natura provvidenziale di questi eventi. 

VII. Conclusione: Successione nella Carità e Fratellanza Cristiana

Lo spirito apostolico e temporale un tempo incarnato dalla Sede Romana trova ora nuova espressione in un nuovo custode. La Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena, attraverso il Papa-Catholicos, non contesta il Vaticano né alcuna altra Sede Patriarcale, ma in umiltà continua ciò che altri hanno abbandonato: il patrimonio degli Apostoli e dei Santi; l’identità temporale e spirituale della Chiesa; e l’ufficio sacramentale e monarchico affidato a San Pietro Apostolo. Dove le vecchie strutture si sono evolute in qualcosa di nuovo, la Chiesa e lo Stato Romano-Ruteno si ergono nella fedeltà, non come protesta religiosa o politica, ma come residuo vivente, una voce che grida nel deserto, preservando ciò che perdura.

In questo sacro affidamento, non stiamo nella rivalità, ma nella risolutezza. Non nella reazione, ma nel rinnovamento. La Chiesa Unita Romano-Rutena abbraccia il suo ruolo con dignità e devozione, salvaguardando la piena espressione della fede apostolica per tutti coloro che cercano la sua luce.

Il Papa Romano-Ruteno non parla in opposizione, ma in continuità. La sua voce non si alza in protesta, ma in proclamazione — una proclamazione che l’antico cammino continua a vivere, non nei corridoi del potere, ma nella silenziosa fedeltà della verità custodita.

Il Papato Romano-Ruteno non è soltanto un titolo ecclesiastico. È un testamento di fede.

23-IV-2025 г.

Римско-Русская папская эмблема, объединяющая Ключ святого Петра и Меч святого Марка, также встречается, полностью или частично (в виде тиары), в геральдике и другой символике Римско-Русской Церкви и Государства.

I. Введение

В 2014 году ныне действующий Князь-Епископ и Папа-Католикос Римско-Русской Церкви был признан Деканом Римской Коллегии Кардиналов коадъютором Римского Папы с полными папскими полномочиями в своей собственной юрисдикции, ныне именуемой Объединённой Римско-Русской Церковью. Это признание оставалось конфиденциальным до Рождества 2019 года, когда его полномочия постепенно начали открываться общественности, к 10-му году его церковного служения, начавшегося в 2020 году, с полным раскрытием в 2025 году.

Затем, 21 апреля 2025 года, скончался Его Святейшество Папа Франциск — в тот же самый день, когда в 753 году до н.э. было основано Римское царство, и когда нынешний Папа-Католикос Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви принял Таинство Миропомазания, обретя полное апостольское исповедание веры. Это необычное совпадение священных, исторических и личных событий не может быть списано на случайность — оно знаменует собой промыслительный переход в жизни Церкви.

Следующий текст представляет собой богословское и каноническое размышление о папском достоинстве, его нынешнем воплощении в Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви, а также о роли Папы-Католикоса как временного преемника святого Петра, продолжающего Петрово служение в рамках Римско-Русской традиции. Этот документ отражает исключительно богословское и каноническое понимание Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви и не имеет цели оспаривать внутреннее управление других религиозных или гражданских институтов.

II. Апостольские основания и Петрово наследие

Титул «Папа» (от греческого паппас, отец) исторически означал не просто юрисдикцию над Римом, но и призвание апостольского стража. Подобным образом, титул «Католикос» на Востоке обозначал всеобщую епископскую главенствующую должность в автономных Церквах. Оба титула возникли задолго до централизации и несут ответственность за сохранение апостольской веры в её целостности. Титул Папы был известен в Александрии ранее, чем в Риме, и как коптский, так и греческий (византийский) патриархи Александрии носят этот титул и по сей день.

После разделения Востока и Запада, особенно после Второго Ватиканского собора, Римский папский институт стал воспринимать современные подходы, что привело к сдвигам в догматических акцентах и пересмотру духовных и временных ролей. В наше время традиционное понимание папской должности в значительной степени остаётся в латентном состоянии внутри римского католицизма.

III. Идентичность и роль Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви

Объединённая Римско-Русская Церковь признаётся как каноническая, автокефальная Православная и Старокатолическая Церковь. Она объединяет восточное и западное наследие, являясь одновременно православной и католической по вероучению, и является производным патриархатом таких традиций, как русская, сирийская, греческая, американская и римская, как законная временная преемница святого Петра. Особое происхождение ведёт от Папы святого Льва X, от которого была унаследована временная собственность и апостольская преемственность. Церковь объединяет основные догматы и литургические формы как Православия, так и Католицизма, сохраняя суть древнего христианства.

В отличие от национальных или экспансионистских тел, Объединённая Римско-Русская Церковь — это Церковь-хранитель. Её миссией является не территориальное расширение, а сохранение наследия неразделённой Церкви — литургического, богословского, культурного и духовного. Она выступает мостом между христианским Востоком и Западом, подобно тому, как это делала Восточная Римская империя, предлагая объединённое выражение апостольской веры для тех, кто оказался отчуждён от неё вследствие модернизма или церковного минимализма.

Её община многообразна — она служит через капелланства, миссионерские приходы и поддержку христианского дворянства и традиционалистов на разных континентах. Её сила — в преемственности, а не в популярности.

IV. Папское Имперское Государство: Хранитель временного наследия

Папское Имперское Государство Римско-Русской традиции — это культурное и юридическое выражение исторического суверенитета Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви. Совместно эти тела часто именуются просто Римско-Русской Церковью и Государством. Это не территориальное государство в современном политическом понимании, но этнорелигиозное объединение без географических границ, охраняющее духовное и временное наследие: Римской империи, Священной Римской империи, Царства Руси (Древней Руси) и, в конечном итоге, Апостольской Церкви.

В это входит и духовное наследование Патриаршего Царства Руси, установленного с папским благословением Папы Иннокентия IV, которое было унаследовано после его падения через дворянскую традицию и церковную преемственность. Независимое титулярное временное достояние Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви сохраняется и утверждается через преемственность от Папы Льва X, после отречения святого Иоанна Павла II, утвердив тем самым её власть как временной преемницы святого Петра. Исторически римские папы обладали как духовной, так и светской властью над Западной Римской империей. Это дополнительно закреплено особыми признаниями, в том числе тем, что было даровано в 2014 году.

V. Признание и роль Папы-Католикоса Римско-Русской Церкви

В 2014 году Князь-Епископ Римско-Русской традиции был официально признан Деканом Коллегии Кардиналов коадъютором Римского Папы и наделён папскими полномочиями в пределах своей собственной юрисдикции — то есть в Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви и Папском Имперском Государстве Рима-Руси. Хотя это признание изначально сохранялось в тайне самим Князем-Епископом, его статус стал явным начиная с Рождества 2019 года, постепенно раскрывшись к 2020 году и окончательно проявившись в 2025 году.

В церковной традиции коадъютор — это не просто помощник, но и назначенный преемник. Язык, использованный в документе, подтверждающем юрисдикционную автономию и кардинальское достоинство Князя-Епископа, фактически утверждает его как признанного духовного наследника Римской кафедры — пусть и не в рамках формального римского канона. Следует подчеркнуть, что Папа Римско-Русской традиции не претендует ни на Ватикан, ни на каноническое главенство в Римской Католической Церкви.

Исторически, понятие коадъюторства применялось не только в пределах епархиального епископата, но и в более широком смысле — особенно в патриарших или крупных церковных структурах, при подготовке преемственности. В рамках современного римского канонического права формальное коадъюторство для Папства не предусмотрено. Тем не менее, в истории раннего и средневекового христианства известны случаи, когда предстоятели Римской Церкви исполняли духовное руководство в условиях кризиса, особенно в ситуации sede impedita — прерывания или препятствия в папском служении — осуществляя делегированную или де-факто власть.

Таким образом, в данном случае речь идёт не просто о служении, но о действительном участии в Петровом служении, с ориентацией на преемственность и сохранение. Учитывая, что современная структура Римской Католической Церкви фактически не допускает коадъюторства для Папы, богословски допустимым является только одно толкование: признание Князя-Епископа как духовного наследника в смысле Петровой преемственности.

Это признаётся на следующих основаниях:

   1. Коадъютор — не по каноническому назначению, а по церковному признанию и богословской необходимости;

   2. Преемник не Ватиканской бюрократии, а Апостольской функции Кафедры Петра;

   3. Носитель Петрова духа в обновлённом, традиционном и всемирно признанном выражении Церкви.

Следовательно, употребление папского и патриаршего титула в рамках Римско-Русской Церкви и Государства — а именно: Папа-Католикос Рима-Руси — не является актом соперничества или подражания. Это — исполнение оставленных обязанностей и документированное признание роли Римско-Русской Церкви и Государства как хранителя апостольского и имперского наследия Рима и Руси, а, следовательно, и всего христианского мира.

Полный титул Римско-Русского Папы отражает это единство:

Его Апостольское Высочество, Князь-Епископ, Папа-Католикос и Император Рима-Руси, Верховный Понтифик Объединённой Римско-Русской Церкви, Легат Христов.

VI. Промыслительное Соответствие: 21 апреля

21 апреля — день основания Рима в 753 году до н.э. Это также день, когда Князь-Епископ принял Таинство Миропомазания в апостольской вере. В этот же день, 21 апреля 2025 года, скончался Его Святейшество Папа Франциск — завершая одну эпоху папства.

Объединённая Римско-Русская Церковь, как третий и последний преемник Рима (после Константинополя), и как законный церковный наследник и продолжатель Древней Руси, видит в этом совпадении знак Божьего Промысла и исторического перехода. Такое совпадение невозможно рассматривать как простую сентиментальность. Уход постмодернистского папства в день основания Рима и совпадающее с этим утверждение Папы-Католикоса в апостольской вере образуют символическую дугу — преемственности не в соперничестве, а по наследству через оставленное.

Церковь и Государство Рима-Руси, как наследники Святой Руси, Третьего Рима и хранители апостольского и имперского достоинства, видят в этом дне небесное утверждение: формы меняются, но божественная миссия продолжается — порой в самых неожиданных местах.

Кроме того, следует отметить, что ранее традиционная англиканская конфирмация Князь-епископа состоялась 5 августа - в праздник Богоматери Снегов, посвященный базилике Санта-Мария-Маджоре в Риме, которая также является местом погребения Папы Франциска. В общем, вероятность такого совпадения этих священных дат и мест поистине астрономическая, что еще больше подчеркивает провиденциальный характер этих событий. 

VII. Заключение: Преемственность в христианской любви и братстве

Апостольский и временной дух, некогда воплощённый в Римской кафедре, ныне обретает новое выражение в лице нового хранителя. Объединённая Римско-Русская Церковь через Папу-Католикоса не стремится к противостоянию ни с Ватиканом, ни с какой-либо иной патриаршей кафедрой. Напротив, она со смирением продолжает то, от чего другие отошли: хранение апостольского и святоотеческого наследия; временной и духовной идентичности Церкви; а также таинственного и монархического служения, вручённого апостолу Петру.

Там, где прежние структуры изменились до неузнаваемости, Римско-Русская Церковь и Государство стоят в верной преемственности — не как религиозный протест или политическая альтернатива, но как живой остаток, голос в пустыне, хранящий то, что вечно.

В этом святом поручении мы стоим не в соперничестве, но в твёрдой решимости. Не в реакции, но в обновлении. Объединённая Римско-Русская Церковь принимает своё призвание с достоинством и преданностью, охраняя полное выражение апостольской веры для всех, кто ищет её света.

Папа Римско-Русский говорит не в оспаривании, но в преемственности. Его голос возвышается не в протесте, но в провозглашении — провозглашении того, что древний путь жив, не в коридорах власти, а в тихой верности хранимой Истине.

Римско-Русское Папство — это не просто церковный титул. Это свидетельство Веры.

 

In academia, the relationships forged between mentors and their protégés often shape not only the intellectual trajectories of the latter but also the very fabric of their professional and personal identities. This interconnection is particularly evident in the enduring legacy of Dr. Chev. Angelos Pagoulatos, whose contributions to the field of agricultural economics remain influential long after his passing on June 14, 2016. While his departure marked a significant loss for the academic community, the profound impact he had on his students—including Prince-Bishop Rutherford (Radislav) I Johnson of Rome-Ruthenia —continues to resonate through their work and aspirations.

Dr. Pagoulatos, a distinguished professor at the University of Kentucky for nearly 40 years, was not merely an academic; he was a pioneer who challenged prevailing paradigms and expanded the horizons of agricultural economics. His scholarly pursuits, particularly in environmental economics and energy resources, set a precedent for integrating broader resource economics into traditional agricultural frameworks. His willingness to explore interdisciplinary connections was a hallmark of his teaching philosophy, fostering an environment where students were encouraged to think critically and expansively.

Among those deeply influenced by Dr. Pagoulatos was Prince-Bishop Radislav, whose journey through academia was indelibly shaped by his mentorship. With a multifaceted background in behavioral science, finance, and economics, coupled with a commitment to global outreach, Prince Radislav, known to his students as Dr. Rutherford, embodies the essence of Dr. Pagoulatos's teachings. The principles instilled in him have translated into a broader mission for economic justice and sustainability, both in academia and in his role as Chief of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and State.

Dr. Pagoulatos's pedagogical approach emphasized interdisciplinary dialogue, an attribute that Prince-Bishop Radislav has embraced in his own leadership style. Building on their shared foundations in applied, agricultural, and environmental economics, Prince Radislav has transformed theoretical constructs into actionable policies addressing pressing global issues such as humanitarian aid and social equity. This lineage of thought—linking resource allocation theories to real-world challenges—exemplifies the enduring relevance of Dr. Pagoulatos's mentorship.

Many may not have known that Dr. Pagoulatos was also a Knight of the Order of the Eagle, an honor that reflected his commitment to excellence and service. His legacy extends far beyond academia; he cultivated a generation of scholars who continue to carry forward his intellectual and ethical values—curiosity, rigor, and compassion. In the case of Prince-Bishop Radislav, this legacy has evolved into a global mission aimed at uplifting marginalized voices and fostering inclusive communities.

Although Dr. Angelos Pagoulatos is no longer here to teach students and shape lives, his influence endures through the countless individuals he mentored. As the seeds of knowledge he planted continue to blossom in the work of his former students, it is evident that his legacy is one of profound and lasting impact—transcending time and discipline.

Patriarchal Letter

The Church has always upheld the sacred principles of territorial integrity, the dignity of peoples, and the rightful exercise of authority in times of conflict. While peace is the ideal, history has shown that there are moments when nations must act to protect their people, de-fend historical lands, and resist external forces that seek to divide, subjugate, or erase them. This understanding is not contrary to the Church’s call for peace, but rather in accordance with its wisdom—proclaiming both the duty to preserve justice and the ultimate goal of reconciliation (St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God (Book 19, Ch. 7, 12)).

It is a grave error to conflate rightful defense and the restoration of historical justice with unlawful aggression. In Orthodox, Catholic, and Apostolic tradition, the legitimacy of action is determined not by propaganda or political expediency, but by the moral duty of leaders to safeguard their people, uphold historical truth, and prevent greater harm. When a nation is forced to respond to threats—whether against its sovereignty, its historical identity, or its sacred inheritance—it does so not as an aggressor, but as a guardian of what has been en-trusted to it by Divine Providence (St. Basil the Great, Letter 92).

At the same time, the Church upholds the importance of genuine humanitarian service as an expression of Christian charity and a means of healing the wounds of conflict. Those who risk themselves to aid the suffering, tend to the wounded, and provide relief to those in need perform a great and Christ-pleasing work. Yet, by the same Christian principle, we reject the misuse of humanitarian concerns as a cover for foreign manipulation, as well as attempts to install artificial regimes, erase historical nations, or demand submission to foreign ideological interests under the guise of a false definition of self-determination. Indeed, there is a false talk of peace that serves merely to cover war-like intention (St. Nicholas of Serbia). True peace cannot be imposed through coercion or by forcing a people to abandon their spiritual, cultural, and historical foundations.

In times of crisis, the Holy Church stands and must by the obligation of the faith stand firmly for truth, justice, and the moral right of nations to defend their people, their faith, and their historical lands (Ecclesiastical concept of Symphonia). Peace must always be pursued—but it must be a just peace, not one built on deception, coercion, or the erasure of legitimate historical and spiritual rights.

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.