By Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America
As everyone knows, there is a war going on in Ukraine that pits the Russian Federation against the Ukrainian Armed forces. In addition to the fighting on the battlefield, many Westerners also know that there is some kind of religious dimension to the conflict. Because of Tucker Carlson and other influencers, including American Vice President J.D. Vance, Americans vaguely understand that the Zelensky regime has stolen churches, drafted clergy, imprisoned bishops, and beaten Christians trying practice their Orthodox Faith.
Most Americans, who are at all familiar with the situation, seriously object to their tax dollars funding the persecution of Christians. For Ukrainian apologists, this situation has to be handled with the utmost delicacy, as the unvarnished truth about Christian persecution would further erode the already anemic support Ukraine has among American voters. We’ll talk about the truth of the situation in a moment, but first let’s look at the official narrative.
The official narrative goes like this: the religious conflict in Ukraine is between the Russian Orthodox Church, under the devilish KGB agent Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, and the freedom-loving Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) which was granted official recognition by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (an American ally!) The ROC is pure evil. It is not even a Church, but rather is an extension of the vile Putin Regime. In Ukraine, the Russian Church forms a subversive fifth column attempting to undermine Ukraine from within. The Russian KGB pseudo-church is too dangerous to be allowed to operate on Ukrainian soil. Therefore, the restrictions, no matter how severe, put on the Russian Church in Ukraine are entirely justified as war time measures. Anyone questioning those restrictions is a dangerous spreader of Russian disinformation / propaganda, and needs to be shunned at minimum, if not investigated as possible traitors to the United States.
As many of you may know, an American pan-Orthodox delegation met with U.S. Representatives on Capitol Hill on 18 and 19 November 2025. They were there to call attention to, and protest, the U.S. taxpayer funded persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Immediately, defenders of the “official narrative” swung into action across a broad spectrum of social and legacy media. Congressmen even joined the attack, going so far as to draft a letter to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation into the American delegation.
Rep. Luna with representatives from the ROCOR, OCA, Antiochian, Serbian, and Greek jurisdictions Photo: Society of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco
Since the meeting, we have been treated to a constant barrage of posts and mainstream reporting framing the persecution in Ukraine as a battle between the Russian Orthodox Church (headed by the villainous Patriarch Kirill) and the real “Orthodox Church” as represented by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Examples are below:
What is missing in the “official narrative?” Any semblance of the truth, because that would absolutely destroy it. So let us deal with the facts, shall we?
There is no Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not headed by Patriarch Kirill. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is governed by her own synod of bishops led by His Beatitude Onufry, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine. The title “Your Beatitude” is given to primates of self-governing churches. Metropolitan Onuphry is a native-born Ukrainian from the Western part of the country. He is a Ukrainian leading an independent Church of Ukrainians.
Metropolitan Onuphry of Kyiv has a history of visiting and supporting children, particularly those who are orphaned, disabled, or from low-income families. He is known for making traditional visits to children’s homes during holidays like Pascha (Easter) and Nativity to offer blessings and gifts. He has also supported orphans of the current conflict and children undergoing cancer treatment. Metropolitan Onuphry has repeatedly condemned the impact of the Russian invasion on Ukrainian children and other innocent Ukrainians.
Metropolitan Onuphry has been the permanent primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) since 13 August 2014, when the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church elected him by secret ballot. His Beatitude was not “selected” by Moscow. He was elected by Ukrainian Bishops in a free election because, even before the war, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was fully self-governing. At the time, even the Patriarch of Constantinople, who would later betray him under U.S. influence (and possible bribes) in 2018, offered him full and unqualified support.
Since His enthronement, Metropolitan Onuphry has been widely admired both within Ukraine and abroad. Prior to the war, His Beatitude was recognized as the most influential spiritual leader in Ukraine. In the rating of TOP-100 people and phenomena in Ukraine, prepared by the Vesti media holding at the end of 2021, experts put the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in 15th place on the list. This was far ahead of any other religious leader. Supreme Archbishop of Kiev-Galician Svyatoslav (of the Uniate UGCC) took 58th place, the Chief Rabbi of Kiev and Ukraine Moshe Reuven Asman came in 62nd, and the head of the schismatic OCU “Metropolitan” Epiphanius (the “Church” founded by Constantinople and the U.S. State Department) lagged far behind at 63rd. Here is a quote from the article which announced the ranking:
“The modest and ascetic Metropolitan is an example worthy of imitation: having withstood the crisis years 2018-2019 under his auspices, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has become steeled and retained its strength of spirit. Moreover, the process is in some way even reversed: among the communities that moved to the newly created OCU in 2018, there are already those who are ready to return back to the UOC,” the compilers of the rating note.
That, of course, was before the war. What happened since? On the first day of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Metropolitan Onufry offered his blessing to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, giving “our special love and support to our soldiers who stand guard and protect and defend our land and our people. May God bless and cherish them!” He also publicly denounced the invasion and supported both Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He personally appealed to Vladimir Putin to stop the invasion of Ukraine immediately. At the time, the Metropolitan also stated that, “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has consistently supported and continues to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine and calls on its faithful to pray for peace in our Ukrainian state and around the world… I urge state leaders and all those on whom it depends, to avoid engaging in a new war. War is a grave sin before God!”
As a result of the Russian invasion, the Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church met in Kiev 27 May 2022 to sever all existing ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. Below is a report from the organization Human Rights Without Frontiers:
In an address on May 17, 2025, Metropolitan Onufriy recalled that back on May 27, 2022, at the Council in Kyiv (Feofaniya), the UOC introduced changes to its Statute aiming at full canonical separation from the ROC. References to subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate were removed, the requirement to receive the blessing of Patriarch Kirill was abolished, and the name of the Moscow Patriarch is no longer commemorated during the worship service in the churches and monasteries of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
“The Council introduced a number of fundamental changes to the Statute on Governance, which confirmed the complete canonical independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its disassociation from the Moscow Patriarchate,” reads the Metropolitan’s statement.
Metropolitan Onufry, the head of the UOC, also emphasized that the UOC independently manages all aspects of its internal and external life, including the appointment of bishops, the establishment of dioceses, and the production of holy myrrh.
He asserts that after May 27, 2022, his Church is no longer part of the Moscow Patriarchate and hopes that “the whole family of Autocephalous Local Churches” will acknowledge their “canonical independence.”
Metropolitan Onuphry has consistently supported the Ukrainian War effort, and grieves over the Ukrainian parishes lost due to Russian territorial advances. In regard to those UOC parishes in Russian occupied territory, Metropolitan Onuphry said, “Some of our dioceses and believers found themselves in the occupied territory. We often have no contact with them, we can’t really help them with anything except to pray for them. However, these are our dioceses, these are our people, we pray for them, we consider them our brothers and sisters, and we await their reunification with us in a united, independent Ukraine.” Metropolitan Onuphry also declared that he believed that with God’s help, Ukraine would win the war, “I believe that with God’s help we will win this war and rebuild our Ukraine. I am convinced that in order to succeed in this matter, we must be strong and united, treat our neighbors with love and respect.”
Take a look at his face, and explain why you would want this holy and humble man to suffer?
Well, you wouldn’t. What non-evil human being would? Which is why Metropolitan Onuphry cannot be allowed to exist. The anti-UOC narrative would completely collapse if Western propagandists, including many top-level clerics within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, acknowledged Metropolitan Onuphry’s existence and his truly saintly character. Therefore, he must be unpersoned. Buried. Never spoken of in polite company.
The focus must be on Russia. On a demonized Patriarch Kirill. On a demonized President Putin. On demonizing Americans, who dare speak up for Metropolitan Onuphry, as “Russian agents.” Under no circumstances can Western officialdom and its agents allow anyone to see Metropolitan Onuprhy’s face, hear his words, or even know that he exists.
Which is why those of us who support Metropolitan Onuphry, and his flock of Ukrainian martyrs, need to put his face everywhere. When the enemies of the Church speak of Patriarch Kirill and the non-existent “Russian” Church in Ukraine, we need to post images of Metropolitan Onuphry in response. Make them see the man they would crucify. Make them see not an oppressor, but a martyr for Christ. Not a bully, but a man of love and humility. Not Judas, but Job who praises God in the midst of affliction. Sore trials that Western governments have visited upon him and his beloved people. This is an excerpt from His Beatitude’s 2024 Paschal sermon:
God, our Creator and Maker, Himself comes onto earth to suffering people and accomplishes the feat of the redemption of all mankind. The Incarnate God suffers in the flesh for us people, is crucified on the Cross, dies, descends into hell and destroys it, and most gloriously rises therefrom as God. By His glorious Resurrection, the Lord once again bestows upon us eternal life and bliss, returns us the lost Paradise.
What great and beautiful love of God for His creation!
In the midst of war and persecution, a humble bishop still gives glory to the Resurrected Christ for His great mercy! All Orthodox Christians in the West, whose governments give billions to the Ukrainian Government that persecutes this holy man, should grieve for how little we have done for him and for Christ.
We need to make the enemies of Metropolitan Onuphry come face-to-face with the truth. The persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does not hurt Patriarch Kirill. He is safe in Moscow. It does not hurt Vladmir Putin. He is likewise immune to the West’s wrath. When you support, excuse, downplay, and/or ignore what is happening to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is this Ukrainian man and his Ukrainian flock that you are condemning.
We, the Orthodox Christians and all people of good will in the West, cannot turn our gaze and allow Metropolitan Onuphry and his flock to suffer in silence.
https://spzh.eu/en/zashhita-very/89322-patronal-feast-with-his-holiness
2 December 2025
Patronal Feast with His Holiness
When the supernatural is placed at the service of political expediency.
The Greek branch of the UOJ has published an archival article by priest and theologian Anastasios Gotsopoulos, written on December 1, 2014. It concerns the events that took place during the visit of then-Pope Francis on the Patronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The article also contains a reference to an earlier visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Constantinople.
“Unfortunately, what is described in the article published eleven years ago remains relevant, because this year, during the visit of Pope Leo XIV to Constantinople on the Feast Day of St. Andrew, the same things occurred as in 2006 and in 2014,” the editorial board of the Greek branch of UOJ writes.
When the supernatural sacrament is used to serve expediency…We have once again witnessed what took place at Saint George’s Church in Constantinople on the Feast Day of Saint Andrew (November 29–30, 2014). and, apparently, we will see it again and again so that we gradually become accustomed and, without resistance, move toward the restoration, as His Holiness put it, of “full communion” with the “primatial sister Church of Rome,” “presiding in love” if we refer to the Fathers.
The fact that this tempts some of our Orthodox brothers does not concern us too much: we easily label them “fanatics,” “fundamentalists,” “provincials,” mock them and that is enough for us. Especially since we have allies in this endeavor – the media and politicians of all stripes, who are undoubtedly interested in the care of Bartholomew and Francis for the “restoration of the Temple of God, that is, the Church,” as revealed to us by the “brother, Bishop of Rome” Francis!
I will not analyze the words about “full communion” spoken by the Ecumenical Patriarch. A profound theological text, “The New Ecclesiology of Patriarch Bartholomew”, has already appeared, pointing to serious deviations from the faith. But does anyone doubt that the Patriarch’s address to the Pope on Saturday, November 29, 2014, in the Patriarchal Church signifies full acceptance of the Dogmatic Constitution “On the Church” and the Decree “On Ecumenism” of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)?
“Brother” Francis went even further, explaining the thoughts of his “brother” Bartholomew and referring in considerable detail to the Decree “On Ecumenism”. As a true Jesuit, he naturally remained silent about another document of the same Council – the Decree “On the Eastern (Uniate) Churches”. Nevertheless, a careful listener can easily perceive that His Holiness has this in mind and is proposing precisely this model for the unification of Catholics and Orthodox Christians. It is no coincidence that Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, was present in his retinue…
I suppose that after all this, the Great Council of the Orthodox Church, if it ever takes place, should – on the recommendation of the relevant Chancery in Constantinople – recognize the Second Vatican Council as the Eighth Ecumenical Council! This is becoming an urgent necessity: some high-ranking Orthodox hierarchs need to acquire at least some consistency and ecclesiological justification, which the Seven Ecumenical Councils – outdated, as practice shows – fail to provide.
Since the “Patronal Feast with His Holiness” has already been performed in the same settings, I will turn to my archive, to what happened in the same place in 2006. At that time, I wrote:
“The described practice [of joint prayers] is applied not only within the framework of the World Council of Churches. Overall, a certain strange disregard for theology (especially ecclesiology) and the development of an ecumenical ‘ecclesiology,’ intended to ‘theologically’ justify anti-canonical behavior, combined with the introduction into church life of PR methods, have led to practices that leave a deep bitterness among the People of God. Particularly illustrative is what occurred during the last visit of the Pope to Constantinople for the Patronal Feast of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on November 30, 2006. This is not about meetings and events outside the Patriarchal Church of Saint George – conversations, joint statements, greetings from the balcony – but about what took place inside the church, going beyond a simple joint prayer with the non-Orthodox.
The Pontiff is greeted with the words: ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
Of course, at a meeting, the head of the Roman Catholic Church will be called the “Pope and Bishop of Rome” although, strictly speaking theologically, these titles do not belong to him, since he is a heretic. Both titles are used here as technical terms or polite forms of address for the guest, without theological or ecclesiological significance. In the same sense, non-Orthodox communities are referred to as “Churches” but not in the strict ecclesiological sense, for the Catholic Church was, is, and will remain one. In church tradition, alongside precision, there exist courtesy and economy: Saint Cyril, sharply condemning Nestorius for his errors, still addressed him as “honorable,” “most honorable,” “most pious bishop,” and called him “Your Holiness”.
However, it is an entirely different matter to sing hymns and commemorate a heretic as the canonical Pope and Bishop of Rome during a service in the Patriarchal Church, on an equal footing with the Patriarch of Constantinople!
From simple joint prayer to concelebrationUnfortunately, the joint prayer in Constantinople did not remain a simple act of supplication but grew into an incomplete concelebration. At the official Patriarchal and Synodal Divine Liturgy of the Patronal Feast, the Pope was granted the right to recite the Lord’s Prayer; he was censed as a canonical bishop; and most importantly, he received from the Patriarch the liturgical kiss of peace before the Holy Anaphora and responded in kind. All of this is permitted only to concelebrating priests and hierarchs! He did not enter the Holy Altar – yet. He was even granted the ambo, and he took the opportunity to proclaim papal primacy in the very Patriarchal church!
We will allow ourselves a few questions.
– When serving with the Ecumenical Patriarch, if a cleric – whether a priest, bishop, or even the Primate of an Autocephalous Church – does not concelebrate but only prays in the Holy Altar, would the officiating Patriarch exchange the liturgical kiss of peace with him? Of course not: according to the liturgical order, it is permitted only between concelebrating clergy. So how, then, is it offered to the Pope? Does he concelebrate with the Patriarch?
– Is it permissible to use the liturgical kiss of peace, the highest moment of manifest unity in truth and love, contrary to liturgical tradition, reducing it to an act of social courtesy, emotional sentiment, or church politics?
– Is the liturgical kiss of peace a self-sufficient act, or a prerequisite for “confessing with one mind” the Trinitarian dogma as formulated in the Creed? If there is no confession of shared faith – as there is no shared theology – what meaning does the liturgical kiss have between an Orthodox hierarch and a heretical leader?
– Since when is a heretic permitted to pray at a service as a canonical Orthodox Christian?
– Can a heretic, much less the head of a heresy, represent the Orthodox faithful at the Divine Liturgy, reciting the Lord’s Prayer as their Primate?
– To say the “Our Father,” is unity of faith not required? Does such unity exist with the Pope?
– “Our Father” is the principal prayer, preparing the faithful for the “daily bread” of the Divine Eucharist. Can one who is categorically forbidden from receiving the Holy Gifts ask for this Bread during a Divine Liturgy celebrated by Orthodox Christians? What meaning can such a prayer have?
– If the Pope did not merely attend but actively participated in the Divine Liturgy, why was he ultimately not admitted to Communion? Some might answer: the statutes of our Church do not permit it, since he is of another faith. But was everything else he did truly permissible?
– How does all this align with the clear position of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: “Communion in the sacraments is not permissible until full unity in faith is achieved… The path to unity through Eucharistic communion is a step backwards… Eucharistic communion without unity of faith is like banknotes without gold backing”? Or does “communion in the Sacraments” refer only to the moment of Holy Communion, and not to the entire Divine Liturgy of the faithful? Is such a theological partitioning of the Liturgy permissible?
– What can be said about granting the ambo to the head of heresy for preaching? Can we, as Orthodox, remain indifferent, untroubled, or unmoved when, in the Most Holy Patriarchal Church, the Pope preaches papal primacy with his head uncovered? From the pulpit of Saints Alexander, Gregory, John Chrysostom, Photius, and Philotheos, error is proclaimed! Is this not a desecration?
– Finally, should we not, with all due reverence, ask the presiding hierarch of that Divine Liturgy:
Can one tolerate and justify the above as “noble conduct” or mere “formal expressions during the service”?
Or, perhaps, this could be excused by oikonomia? Is even a partial concelebration of the Pope and the Patriarch permitted under oikonomia? The answer is categorical: no! Never, anywhere, has any saint allowed a condemned heretic, much less the head of a heresy, stubborn in error, to actively participate in the Divine Liturgy.
And what irresistible necessity demanded a “concelebration” with the Pontiff? For what “higher attainment,” unattainable by other means, was the ecclesiastical order violated? Ultimately, what benefit for the Church could justify praying together with the Pope? Thus, there exists not a single condition under which oikonomia could legitimize the Pontiff’s active participation in an Orthodox service.
Moreover, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken explicitly about “Eucharistic communion” with the non-Orthodox:
“This question is essentially ecclesiological, and for the sake of ecumenical dialogue, it would be appropriate and useful to state unambiguously… that the Eucharistic communion sought by some between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians amid the ongoing schism cannot be accepted by the Orthodox Church, even under oikonomia.”
And, of course, “Eucharistic communion” does not begin with the words “approach with the fear of God, with faith and love” and does not end with “Save, O God, Your people”…
Or, applying this to contemporary practice, one might echo the Athonite monks: “But are we to do this under the guise of oikonomia? And how can oikonomia permit the desecration of the sanctuary? …And what could be more ruinous than such an ‘oikonomia’? It is clear communion with them, an abandonment of all good, and a subversion. For he who receives a heretic is subject to his accusations, and he who communes with the excommunicated is himself excommunicated, as one who violates the canon of the Church.”
This concern is by no means caused by “stubborn false brothers, forming groups of fanatical defenders of the so-called foundations, captives largely of religious unbelief, neo-Manichean fundamentalism, projected metaphysical guilt, and a casual approach to living like sectarians, peddlers of ‘pure religion’”. (How sad it is to hear such characterizations from an Orthodox hierarch in the presence of the Patriarch, delegations of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and non-Orthodox on the Patriarchate’s Feast Day, indiscriminately thrown at all believers who maintain any reservations regarding dialogues!) On the contrary, these practices are condemned even by the proponents of inter-Christian dialogue and the ecumenical movement themselves as theologically unfounded and ultimately undermining the very basis of theological dialogue.
Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia, a hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and for twenty years co-chair of the Official Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholics, mentions in his speech of May 10, 1985, the “tragic errors”:
“First of all, an excessive friendliness with Rome prevailed, expressed irresponsibly and theologically completely unchecked… Many hierarchs, unfortunately, hurry to embrace at the most sacred moment of the Divine Eucharist, when we proclaim ‘let us love one another…’. This is the moment when we express the highest and deepest unity only of those who are concelebrating.
Ministers are not permitted even to kiss co-faithful hierarchs and clerics present in the Holy Altar. Nevertheless, there are Orthodox hierarchs, whose names I will not mention, who, well-intentioned but unaware of the weight of theological responsibility, kiss non-Orthodox clerics, although this has no sacramental grounding and is done irresponsibly: from the common Chalice they will not receive Communion. So why kiss them at all?
Another error, no less tragic: in an effort to be polite to one another, many Orthodox hierarchs, unfortunately, call the Pope “the first bishop of Christianity”. This is yet another theological falsehood. The Pope… in divided Christendom is neither first among equals nor even equal among equals! The Pope should stand after the last Orthodox bishop, as he now remains in schism and heresy. This is so obvious that it hardly needs stating… The Roman Throne in its present state cannot, according to Orthodox theology, be called “presiding in love”. When such things are said, they are irresponsible words. Regrettably, they stir up much fuss and inflict harm, all the while providing us with no tangible gain. In this way, we give the impression that we are hastening to establish Intercommunio, Eucharistic communion with the non-Orthodox… By addressing the Pope or Rome with patristic titles full of specific meaning, we only undermine the dialogue and offer it no support. This is simply a lie – such forms of address are a theological falsehood.”
In this context, it is worth noting a particularly significant address by the Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Xeropotamou, Archimandrite Joseph, during Patriarch Bartholomew’s visit to the monastery on August 21, 2008. The Abbot spoke, with due reverence but also exceptional clarity:
“Here, Your Holiness, allow us, your children, who approach you with filial boldness, to speak on two matters that trouble our hearts and tempt our monastic consciences, as well as the consciences of very many devout Orthodox Christians who turn to us.
The first matter concerns the ongoing recognition by Your Holiness – through official speeches and joint prayers in church and on television – of representatives of a thoroughly secularized and unrepentant modern papism.
Your Holiness, together with Saint John Chrysostom, we, humble and unworthy, beseech You: ‘Do not accept any foreign dogma under the pretext of love.’ Both recently and in earlier times, Holy Mount Athos has testified and assured You, and we, the miserable monks of Xeropotamou, together with the devout faithful who share our concerns, ‘remain faithful to the faith of the holy Apostles and holy Fathers, out of love also for the heterodox, to whom it is truly helpful when the Orthodox, by maintaining a consistent Orthodox stance, point out the extent of their spiritual illness and the way to its healing.” We earnestly and reverently request that henceforth “the theological dialogue be in no way accompanied by joint prayers, participation in liturgical and worship gatherings of one another, or other actions that could create the impression that our Orthodox Church recognizes Roman Catholics as a full Church, and the Pope as the canonical Bishop of Rome. Such actions mislead both the fullness of Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholics, creating in them a false impression of what Orthodoxy thinks of them…” Since we cannot deny that we share “the same spirit of faith” with Your Most Divine Holiness, “as it is written: I believed, therefore I spoke”, so “we also believe, therefore we speak…” In Your fatherly love, forgive us this confessional digression and look upon the faces of our humble brotherhood, which regards You with the greatest reverence.”
In his response, the Ecumenical Patriarch did not consider the concerns exaggerated or malicious and even praised the abbot for his words and his concern, and “reassured” him: “We commend your sensitivity, we commend in a fatherly way your love of truth and sincerity, and we reassure you, briefly repeating: the guardians are aware.”
Of course, it would be better if such “patriarchal” assurances were not needed to “reassure” us. Who bears responsibility for the fact that part of the Orthodox faithful is concerned about the “guardians” and has the gravest reservations regarding some of their actions? Are the “guardians” themselves truly not accountable for this situation?
P.S. Some may think that I am right, yet consider my words too “harsh” or “disrespectful.” However, I would ask such people, together with their remarks about the “harshness” or “disrespectfulness” of my words, to also present their own proper, respectful protest against that which is ecclesiologically and canonically unacceptable and which again occurred in Constantinople on 29–30 November 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJWdtk2Gxv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJie5DwEjY&t=7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ3dhfxx29Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsoySF4lDWI&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/azREHaq9ve8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy7lH_EG68E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJGvZHOhoM4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-Vo-04e_c&t=60s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ti9_PRGbXc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEYV1zPaK7Q&t=4s
inb4 Metropolitan Onuphry’s sins get leaked to the public.
Thank you for the clear message in this article. May God be merciful to the UOC and may He enlighten all those who persecute her out of ignorance.