Archive for the ‘Discussioni sull’Ortodossia’ Category


June 17, 2018

Essa e’ una cagata pazzesca, in qualsiasi salsa venga presentata.

Non vi e’ stata alcuna evoluzione dell’uomo. E men che meno dalle scimmie. Piuttosto vi e’ stata una regressione. L’uomo non discende dalla scimmia. L’uomo e’ diventato una scimmia!

Ridotto ad una bestia dagli adoratori della Bestia, egli adora l’immagine della Bestia.

E tale rimarra’, grazie anche a persone che riconoscono l’aberrazione di tale visione, come la persona qui intervistata, ma che nel loro orgoglio intelletuale e nella pavidita’ di fronte ad un’intimidazione sociale che essi stessi hanno interiorizzato, si rifiutano assolutamente di ritornare a Dio, che e’ l’unica cosa che possa spiegare la Sua immagine: l’Uomo!

In tal modo, essi si confinano in una mera antitesi alla tesi della Bestia, in una stanca dialettica che da secoli e secoli non puo’ fare altro che produrre la stessa sintesi, sia pur di volta in volta camuffata in una narrativa nuova di zecca, che nasconde sempre lo stesso padrone: il regno della Bestia.

E nel regno della Bestia, il dissenso puo’ anche essere tollerato (esso puo’ venir buono per la prossima antitesi, che verra’ sintetizzata da par suo da colui che e’ il padrone di ogni dialettica), purche’ non si nomini il nome di Dio, se non per deriderlo o bestemmiarlo.

E tutti i dissidenti e tutti i resistenti si adeguano di buon grado, nella vanita’ delle loro menti, consegnandosi al ben triste fato di contestare qualche stronzata qui e la’, purche’ il dogma fondamentale della separazione da Dio non venga toccato.

Oggi l’unico vero rivoluzionario e’ colui che confessa Dio in spirito e verita’. Il resto e’ composto da mandrie di piccoli borghesi, nelle mani dell’aristocrazia oscura.



June 14, 2018

Question: Batiushka, tell me how I can explain to a Muslim where the holy Old Testament prophets and righteous ones abode before the Resurrection of Christ—in paradise or in hades?

Answer: All Old Testament people, both righteous and sinful, before the redeeming sacrifice of Savior and His descent into hell (during his death on the Cross) were in Sheol (the underworld). The podvig of Jesus Christ, Who took upon himself all of people’s sins, destroyed the power of the devil over the human race. Having descended into hell, the Lord led the Old Testament righteous ones and those who responded to His preaching: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God… (1 Pet. 3:18–20). The holy Old Testament prophets and righteous ones are now in the Kingdom of Heaven.


The answer provided by Batiushka is the standard orthodox answer to that question. It’s hardly possible to find a different answer to the fate of the saints of the Old Covenant in the people of the Church through all the centuries.

Yet, I am left wondering if we are not caught in vain conversation received by tradition from our fathers in this case (1 Pet 1, 18). The Scripture alone does not provide solid foundation for that answer.

If all Old Testament people, both righteous and sinful, before the redeeming sacrifice of Christ were in Hades, how is it that the Lord tells us that Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom after his death, clearly intending a place of blessing, definitely separated from the place of torments where the miser rich man was after he died?

His redeeming sacrifice was not yet fulfilled when He teached us that parable….

Also, in his epistle St. Peter talks about the spirits who were held captive, but he does not say that ALL the spirits were captives; contrariwise, he refers to those spirit in prison as being disobedient…. the saints of the Old Covenant were not disobedient.

Again…. when Moses came with Eliah (the Law and the Prophets) to bear witness to our Lord on mount Tabor, he did not come as a captive spirit, he came in the glory of the uncreated Light.

Indeed, how the seer of God (and of our genesis), who did shine of the uncreated Light while still in our sinful flesh, could be held captive in Hades after his death?

Again…. the holy Patriarch Jacob, who as a prince had power with God and with men, and did prevail (Gen 32, 28), was thereafter powerless as a captive in Hades?

Again…. all the holy Prophets who prophesied of the Grace that should come unto us with the Spirit of Christ which was in them (1 Pet 1, 11), were thereafter in a place and state of separation from God?

The Lord did not despise to be called Son of David. Did the holy king and prophet David bring such a honour into Hades thereafter?

It does not become a sinner to answer these questions, but questions they are, and I hope that men of God will provide us with an answer sooner or later. In my poor understanding, I fear that in giving that standard answer we are subordinating the Holy Spirit to the Incarnation of the Son, as if the Son before the Incarnation was not living and operating in the world.

Yet, we know that before Abraham was, He is!


June 9, 2018

You do not even have the real Scriptura!

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the [Septuagint] translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying”

(~150 A.D., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXI)


June 3, 2018



May 31, 2018

A good article by father Sergius Chetverikov, which alas will fail to convince the pathetic warriors of fake freedoms and rights.

Unfortunately, having the post-Christian man totally reneged the Logos, he is damned to boast of an appalling stupidity. He is therefore too stupid to understand that by not “imposing religious values” to his children, he is ipso facto imposing anyway something upon them.

If you do not educate your children according to religious values, you are educating them anyway, but according to non-religious values. Only, as you are stupid or a liar, you are fond to masquerade that imposition under the name of their freedom.

It is the same hoax that will be then taken over and amplified by the public schools system, where your children will have the liberty to be teached mountains of crap, like the evolution and cosmic fables, an unilateral version of history, the love for the abomination and the refusal to discriminate between good and evil, together with the vision of the world as a competitive arena, and the attitude to be fiercely intolerant toward anything not sanctioned by the masters of the public discourse.

The only freedom you have in demonocracy is the freedom to listen to what they say and to do what they want. Enjoy!


May 28, 2018

A Pure Gem of Kosovo and Metohija

St. Bosiljka Rajičić. Photo:


May 16, 2018

Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

Yes you are right, formerly blind man, right a thousand times over that “God does not listen to sinners” (Jn. 9:31)! He does not listen and does not obey those unrepentant obstinate ones who do not wish to bow their heads before Him, and try to incline God Himself to fulfill their requests. A wise parent does not cave in to the manipulations of a spoiled child, no matter how sweetly he sings. Much less so the Giver of wisdom, our Father.

God does not listen to sinners also because they are directing their requests, apparently, not entirely to Him. Or entirely not to Him. Their god is their belly (Phil. 3:19), or mammon, or something else. This “something” occupies the central place in their lives. They made an idol their god, and as a result, the true God is for them something like an idol, useful only for providing them a set of religious services should they need them: help in becoming healthy, success in business, help in casting a spell, and so on. Why should God heed those requests that are directed essentially not to Him but to a mythical being of an incomparably lower order?

God does not hear sinners who insist that He hear them while they themselves shut up their own ears. So why should He listen to them if He can’t answer them, if that person is not waiting for an answer, if dialogue is simply not under consideration? Moreover that person doesn’t want an answer! A god who silently fulfills requests is much more convenient and practical.

God does not hear sinners also because their prayers are often vain and their requests selfish—not for the good, but in order to use it for their own lusts (cf. Js. 4:3). They ask for health not intending to use it for the glory of God. They ask for money without any thought of almsgiving. They ask for children without thinking about raising them in faith and piety.

God does not hear sinners, for they do not know what they want. Their desires are not far-seeing and if they come into being can cause harm. But at the time they do not know about this and continue to ask, ask, ask. Of course a normal father will not give his children a snake when they want a fish (cf. Lk. 11:11–13). But what if they insistently ask for a snake?

God does not listen to sinners. But this does not mean that He doesn’t hear them. He hears them; but will a doctor listen to a patient’s feverish delirium? No, He has no time for that! And no reason to do so—he has to cure him! Right away! When the fever has passed the speech will be healthy, and reasonableness will appear in it. Then he can listen, for The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears shall attend unto their supplications (Ps. 33:15). But until then, God does not listen to sinners, but He has not turned away from them—no, He has not turned away.

Again and again you are right, blind man, for God does not hear even sinners who are repenting! He does not pay heed to their timid “Father, I have sinned against heaven…” He does not ask any questions but embraces them, kisses them, dresses them in clean garments, takes them into His house and has a feast (cf. Lk. 15:17–24).

Father Leonid Kudryachov


May 9, 2018

Of course, if you know the story, the angels blinded these men and told Lot and his family to get out of town because God was getting ready to destroy the city. God had talked to Abraham about what he was going to do, and Abraham had talked Him down to requiring that there only be ten righteous men in the city of Sodom for the city to be spared. But He didn’t find ten righteous men, He found in fact only one. Even those of Lot’s own household had been corrupted by this time.

So he left, and as I mentioned, his wife looked back even though they were told not to look back on the city, and she was turned into a pillar of salt. Lot made it out of the city with just the clothes on his back, and his two daughters. Both of them had been betrothed by this time, but neither of these men were interested in leaving: They thought that Lot was crazy, so they didn’t go. Later we see that even his daughters were morally corrupted. From his daughters there came two nations, Moab and Ammon, and these two nations were idolaters. They were nothing like the people of Israel, not even some of the time.

Father John Whiteford

I fully agree with the exhortations contained in this father John’s article, but I must take exception about the paragraphes quoted above.

First of all, I do not think that those two Lot’s daughters were married or betrothed: Lot had probably other daughters who were married and lived with their husbands, and stayed with their husbands when they refused to leave with Lot. The Scripture says that those two daughters knew no man and lived in the house of their father. Now, it can be argued that betrothed daughters could still live in the house of their father, waiting for the wedding and to know man, but it’s hardly tenable that betrothed daughters would be considered by their father to be still in his authority to dispose as he wished, offering wives of other men to a mob full of abominable instincts.

Moreover, I think it’s ungenerous to affirm so neatly that those two daughters were morally corrupted. They knew no men and did not look back to the city. All the bad press they have received until now has its origin in the incestuous relationship they cunningly had with their father.

And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Yet, why did they have that incestuous relationship with their father? Out of concupiscence, lust, desire of pleasure? Hardly so! For Lot was an old man, living in a cave in a deserted place, having lost nearly everything he had, and the relationship was consumed with an unconscious man.

No, the Scripture tells us why did they do it. The daughters of Lot, who followed their father and stayed with him in the wilderness, giving thus up any hope to have husbands and a comfortable family life, did it that they might preserve seed of their father, the seed of a righteous man. In all truth, their deeds look more like sacrificial service than moral corruption to me, even if there certainly is a pleasure for every woman (worth her name) in bearing a child; for sure, that’s not a pleasure for corruption, but to salvation (1 Tim 2, 15).

Father John points out that from this relationship came out two idolater nations: Moab and Ammon; and it’s true. They were idolaters. Yet, the Edomites were idolaters too, and they were seed of Abraham.

Father John says that those nations were nothing like the people of Israel, not even some of the time; and it’s true. Yet, the sons of Moab and Ammon did not crucify the Lord of Glory, the sons of Israel did.

Apart from all that, can anyone bear witness that not a single righteous man came out of Ammon? I cannot, but I can bear witness that from Ammon came the mother of Solomon’s heir to the kingdom of Israel.

Can anyone bear witness that not a single righteous man came out of Moab? I cannot, but I can bear witness that from Moab came the mother of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of king David; out of Moab God chose a woman to conceive and nurture the ancestors of our Lord: Ruth, whose righteousness was so great to deserve an entire book of the Scripture entitled to her name.

In my poor understanding, I think all that is more than enough for us to, at the very least, stop judging the daughters of Lot. They are part of the work of God unto our salvation, and that’s wonderful in our eyes.


May 7, 2018

Many would think that the Saker is just an impenitent spiritual idiot, with a congenital idiosincracy in his perennial failure to understand the difference between the Church and the (many) unworthy men who (often) may rise to the top of her hierarchies.

He is specialized in loquacious plausible yada-yada, always hinting to his vast knowledge of Christianity and perpetually failing to show it off (apart from inconsequential and random quotes, taken from the Scripture or the holy fathers out of their context), whose magniloquent vacuity may be able to deceive babes in Christ, but are exposed by just a modicum of spiritual discernment for what they are: the empty lies of the ancient malice, who is a liar even when saying something true.

In my poor understanding, I would rather characterize him as the core of one of the most sophisticated operation of counterintelligence ever conceived.

It’s hardly believable that someone could be so stupid for so long.

It’s even more unbelievable that someone could really be deceived by his subtle and shameful suggestion of a substantial parification between the Moscow Patriarchate and the organization headed by Denisenko. Alas, in Christ we know how eager are men to be deceived if the delusion fits their lusts.

In any case, the Saker is an impenitent schismatic, hell-bent on sowing confusion, division and strife in the Church, using men weakness as a pretext and masquerading his theomachy under a fake thirst for righteousness. His path leads to the abyss. He means anathema to every Christian.



April 30, 2018

Vassa the accursed keeps on giving free vent to her base itches. This time she vomits her vacuous rants against the Church accusing her to resist the Holy Spirit, as the Church does not allow women to serve the Altar of the Most High arbitrarily, she says, just out of caprice in short, not because of the constitutional decrees of the Lord, not because of the divine constitutional order of God. According to this female graduate in silliness, there is no ontological reason for that prohibition.

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

In all the history of the Divine Revelation, God has NEVER called a woman to serve in the Holy Orders. NEVER! A “NEVER” confirmed by our Lord.

Yet this is not an ontological argument for this female intoxicated by her sex.

We call the One God the FATHER Almighty in the symbol of our Faith; we pray to our FATHER, as the Lord taught us; but these are not ontological arguments for this cuckling phoney.

In all the history of our salvation, in the entire Revelation of the Holy Spirit, in the whole Scripture, in the complete Tradition of the Church, no woman has been seen in the Sacred Orders. This is the work of the Lord, and it’s wonderful in our eyes!

Yet it’s not wonderful in the eyes of this annoying female.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

The above quotes from St. Paul are just the beginning of an unanimous consensus of the holy fathers of the Church, perfectly aligned with the Scripture teachings, yet there are no scriptural or patristic support for that prohibition, according to this sister of lies.

St. Paul would have already delivered her to Satan, that she may learn not to blaspheme. Those who sit in St. Paul seat today, contrariwise, allow her to pose as an Orthodox nun and daily instill poison in the mind of the little ones of Christ.

The Lord spoke of a greater condemnation.