The sudden death of Alexei Navalny, Russia’s most prominent opposition figure and a vocal critic of President Vladimir Putin, has sent shockwaves through the international community and Russia itself. Navalny, known for his relentless fight against corruption and his advocacy for democratic reforms, collapsed during a walk in Penal Colony No. 3 in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug on February 16, 2024, as reported by the Russian state news agency RIA Novosti, citing the Department of the Federal Penitentiary Service.
Navalny‘s death has been met with a flurry of reactions, ranging from silence and controlled narratives within Russia to outright condemnation and calls for accountability from Western leaders and international organizations. The Kremlin’s response, as relayed by presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, was to inform President Putin and defer to medical experts to determine the cause, while Navalny’s spokeswoman, Kira Yarmysh, has been left awaiting confirmation and details of the circumstances surrounding his demise.
Navalny’s return to Russia in 2021, following an attempt on his life via nerve agent poisoning—a claim substantiated by Western laboratories but denied by the Kremlin—underscored his commitment to his cause and country, despite the risks. His subsequent sentencing to 19 years and the designation of his Anti-Corruption Foundation as an “extremist organization” highlighted the increasingly repressive environment for dissent in Russia.
The directive from the pro-Kremlin party United Russia to lawmakers to refrain from commenting on Navalny’s death, as reported by independent Russian news outlet Agentstvo, and the anonymous insights from both former and current Russian government officials to Euractiv and The Moscow Times, respectively, suggest a complex interplay of fear, control, and acknowledgment of the harsh realities faced by prisoners like Navalny.
Internationally, Navalny’s death has been mourned as a stark reminder of the perils faced by those who challenge authoritarian regimes. Statements from France’s Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola not only pay tribute to Navalny’s courage and resilience but also point to the Kremlin’s responsibility for creating the conditions leading to his death.
As the world grapples with the implications of Navalny’s passing, the call for a thorough investigation and accountability is clear. The narrative of Navalny’s life, marked by his unwavering pursuit of a more transparent and democratic Russia, stands in stark contrast to the silence and obfuscation surrounding his death. It is a tragic end that raises serious questions about the state of human rights and freedom of expression in Russia, and the international community’s role in supporting those who dare to speak out.
The legacy of Alexei Navalny, as a symbol of resistance against oppression and as a beacon of hope for many Russians, remains undiminished. His death may serve as a catalyst for renewed scrutiny of Russia’s human rights record and its treatment of political prisoners, ensuring that his fight for a better Russia continues even in his absence.
A new neighborhood in Grozny will be named after Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was announced by the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. On February 15, he got acquainted with the progress of the work in the central part of the city.
“Large-scale construction works are underway here, after the completion of which a new neighborhood will appear. It will bear the name of our national leader, the most prominent political figure of our time – Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Mr. Kadyrov wrote in Telegram.
According to him, the neighborhood will be located on an area of over 200 hectares. It will have 130 residential blocks, as well as mosques, kindergartens and other objects of the social infrastructure. The Chechen leader claims that there are already buyers for 40% of the homes under construction.
In 2008, Grozny’s central boulevard was renamed Putin boulevard. In addition, there are four districts in Grozny, which in 2020, by order of Ramzan Kadyrov, were renamed in honor of Chechen national heroes – these are Akhmatovsky, Baysangurovsky, Sheikh-Mansurovsky and Vyzatovsky districts.
Hidden within the depths of the Google app and Chrome browser lies a mighty content curator known as Discover. This personalized feed boasts the ability to bring users news and information that aligns with their interests. How does it work actually? What kind of impact does it have?
Tailored Content Consumption; Discover harnesses the data collection capabilities of Google to create a profile of each user’s preferences. By examining search history app activity, location data and even contact information, the algorithm identifies areas of interest and presents related articles, videos and images. This personalized approach sets it apart from news feeds that often rely on topics or user-selected subscriptions.
Benefits and Concerns; Supporters of Discover laud its ability to unearth gems and expose users to diverse perspectives. The convenience factor of curated content also saves time and mental energy compared to searching for information. However, there are lingering concerns, about filter bubbles and echo chambers. Since Discover primarily focuses on user preferences, there is a risk of reinforcing existing biases while limiting exposure to opposing viewpoints. Additionally, people raise questions about transparency due to the algorithm’s nature.
Impact on Content Creators; For website owners and publishers alike, inclusion in Discover can be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, being featured in this feed can drive traffic and engagement for their content. On the other side, the algorithm’s prioritization of criteria may result in high-quality content not being discovered. Google provides guidelines to optimize content, for Discover. Keeping up with these changing algorithms can be quite challenging.
The Future of Discovery; As artificial intelligence and personalization continue to advance, Discover’s role in shaping how we consume information will likely expand. It is crucial to address concerns regarding bias and transparency while ensuring users have an enriching experience. Striking a balance between curation and user control remains a challenge.
Apart from these aspects, Discover raises questions about our relationship with information. Are we becoming too dependent on automated filters? What are the implications for thinking and exposure to perspectives? As we navigate the evolving realm of information, understanding how tools like Discover work becomes vital in making informed choices about consuming content.
This article serves as a starting point to delve into aspects of Discover. Like any technology, it is important to approach it recognizing both its benefits and drawbacks and ultimately making informed decisions regarding our engagement, with the presented information.
In a bid to fortify maritime safety and environmental protection, European Union negotiators have clinched an informal agreement to impose stringent measures to combat pollution from ships in European seas. The deal, encompassing a suite of initiatives to prevent and penalize various forms of pollution, signifies a significant leap towards fostering cleaner and safer maritime environments.
The agreement extends the ban on ship-discharged oil spills to encompass sewage, garbage, and residues from scrubbers. This expansion underscores a holistic approach to tackling pollution sources and underscores the imperative for rigorous regulations to shield marine ecosystems.
To ensure robust monitoring and enforcement, the agreement incorporates provisions for enhanced verification of pollution incidents. EU countries and the Commission will collaborate to bolster communication on pollution incidents, share best practices, and undertake follow-up actions. Notably, the agreement mandates digital verification of high-confidence alerts from the CleanSeaNet satellite system, with a target to verify at least 25% of alerts by national authorities.
A pivotal facet of the agreement is the introduction of effective and deterrent fines for ships found breaching pollution regulations. By instituting penalties commensurate with the gravity of offenses, the agreement aims to dissuade illegal discharges and instill accountability among ship operators. This emphasis on enforcement underscores the commitment to upholding environmental standards and ensuring a sustainable maritime future.
EP rapporteur Marian-Jean Marinescu underscored the significance of robust enforcement measures in safeguarding marine environments. He emphasized the need for advanced technologies, such as satellite monitoring and on-site inspections, to effectively combat illegal discharges. The dedication to cleaner seas, heightened accountability, and a sustainable maritime future underscores the collective endeavor to safeguard marine ecosystems and promote responsible maritime practices.
While the preliminary agreement awaits approval by the Council and Parliament, EU countries are expected to transpose the new rules into national legislation within 30 months. This timeline underscores the commitment to prompt implementation and underscores the urgency of addressing maritime pollution through coordinated regulatory frameworks.
The agreement on the revision of the directive on ship-source pollution forms part of the Maritime safety package introduced by the Commission in June 2023. This comprehensive package seeks to modernize and strengthen EU maritime regulations concerning safety and pollution prevention, reflecting a proactive approach to addressing environmental challenges in the maritime sector.
In a move to streamline and expedite tax relief procedures for investors in the European Union, the European Commission has put forth the FASTER proposal. The initiative aims to address the cumbersome and unharmonized processes currently in place, which often deter cross-border investments and leave room for fraudulent activities.
Currently, when an EU resident invests in securities in another Member State, they are subject to withholding tax in the source country. To avoid double taxation, investors must apply for a refund of the excess tax withheld. However, the existing relief procedures are complex, paper-based, and vary across Member States, discouraging investors and creating opportunities for fraudsters to exploit the system.
Under the FASTER proposal, Member States can choose between implementing a ‘relief at source’ system or a ‘quick refund’ system. These options aim to accelerate and simplify withholding tax relief for investors, promoting cross-border investment within the EU. Additionally, the proposal introduces safeguards to prevent tax abuse, particularly in cases like cum-ex fraud.
Key Components of the Proposal
Digital Residency Certificate (eTRC): The proposal introduces a harmonized digital residency certificate to streamline the process of verifying residency for tax purposes. This digital certificate will replace the current paper-based system, reducing administrative burdens and enhancing efficiency.
Reporting Obligations for Financial Intermediaries: Financial intermediaries will be required to register in a national financial intermediaries register and report relevant information on dividend and interest payments. This measure aims to enhance transparency and prevent tax abuse.
Relief at Source and Quick Refund Procedures: Member States can choose to implement either a relief at source system or a quick refund system to expedite the process of withholding tax relief for investors. These procedures aim to reduce delays and administrative burdens for investors.
Expected Impact and Next Steps
The Commission estimates that the FASTER initiative could result in cost savings of around €5.2 billion per year for EU and non-EU investors. The proposal is currently under review by the European Parliament and the Council, with Member States expected to transpose the new rules into national legislation by 2027.
The FASTER initiative represents a significant step towards harmonizing and simplifying withholding tax relief procedures in the EU. By promoting cross-border investment and enhancing transparency, the proposal aims to create a more conducive environment for investors while combatting tax abuse and fraud in the financial sector.
The country’s parliament approved a bill allowing civil marriages between people of the same sex, which was applauded by supporters of the rights of the LGBT community, Reuters reported.
Representatives of both supporters and opponents of the legalization of civil marriage between same-sex couples had gathered in front of the parliament.
The law gives same-sex couples the right to marry and adopt children and comes after decades of campaigning by the LGBT community for marriage equality in the socially conservative Balkan country.
“This is a historic moment,” Stella Belia, head of same-sex parenting group Rainbow Families, told Reuters. “It’s a day of joy,” added the activist.
The bill was approved by 176 MPs in the 300-seat parliament and will become law when it is published in the Official State Gazette.
Although members of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis’s cabinet from the center-right New Democracy party abstained or voted against the bill, it received sufficient support from the left-wing opposition, in a rare show of cross-party unity and despite contentious debates.
Before the vote, Mitsotakis called on Mitsotakis called on the parliament to say yes to equality and approve the bill.
“For every democratic citizen, today is a day of joy that tomorrow a barrier will be removed”, declared the Greek Prime Minister in a speech to the MPs.
By Prof. A.P. Lopukhin, Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament
Chapter 5. 1.-11. The Summons of Simon. 12-26. The healing of leprosy and weakness. 27-39. The feast at the tax collector Levi.
Luke 5:1. Once, when the people pressed to Him to listen to the word of God, and He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret,
During Christ’s preaching, when he stood on the very shore of the Lake of Gennesaret (cf. Matt. 4:18), the people began to press him so that it became difficult for him to remain on the shore for a longer time (cf. Matt. 4:18; Mark 1:16).
Luke 5:2. he saw two ships standing by the lake; and the fishermen who came out of them were sinking the nets.
“The nets floated”. The evangelist Luke pays attention only to this activity, the other evangelists also tell about the mending of the nets (Mark 1:19) or only about the casting of the nets (Matt. 4:18). It was necessary to melt the nets in order to free them from the shells and sand that got into them.
Luke 5:3. Entering one of the ships that belonged to Simon, he asked him to sail a little from the shore, and sitting down, he taught the people from the ship.
Simon was already a disciple of Christ (cf. John 1:37 ff.), but he was not called, like the other apostles, to a constant following of Christ, and continued to engage in fishing.
For the place where Christ was in the boat during the sermon, cf. Mark 4:1.
The Lord suggested to Simon that he should swim farther to a deep place and there cast his nets to catch fish. The word “asked” was used instead of “ordered” (Evthymius Zigaben).
Luke 5:4. And when he had ceased to speak, Simon said: swim to the deep, and cast your nets for fishing.
Luke 5:5. Simon answered Him and said: Master, we have been toiling all night, and we have caught nothing; but at Your word I will cast down the net.
Simon, addressing the Lord as “Teacher” (ἐπιστάτα! – instead of the address often used by the other evangelists “rabbis”), replied that a catch could hardly be expected, after he and his companions had tried even at night, in the best hours for fishing, but even then they caught nothing. But still, according to faith in the word of Christ, which, as Simon knew, had miraculous power, he did the will of Christ and received a great catch as a reward.
“We marvel at the faith of Peter, who despaired of the old and believed in the new. “At Your word I will cast the net.” Why does he say, “according to your word”? For “by Your word” “the heavens were made”, and the earth was founded, and the sea was divided (Ps. 32:6, Ps. 101:26), and man was crowned with his flowers, and everything was done according to Your word, as Paul says, “holding everything by His powerful word” (Heb. 1:3)” (St. John Chrysostom).
Luke 5:6. When they had done this, they caught a great multitude of fish, and their net was rent.
Luke 5:7. And they beckoned to the companions who were in another ship to come to their aid; and they came, and so filled the two ships that they would sink.
This catch was so great that the nets began to tear in some places, and Simon together with the companions began to give signs with their hands to the fishermen who remained in the other boat at the very shore, to come quickly to their aid. It was unnecessary for them to shout because of the remoteness of the distance of Simon’s boat from the shore. And his companions (τοῖς μετόχοις) seem to have been following Simon’s boat all the time, for they had heard what Christ had said to him.
“Give a sign, not a shout, and these are sailors who do nothing without shouts and noise! Why? Because the miraculous catch of fish deprived them of their tongue. As eyewitnesses to the divine mystery that had taken place before them, they could not shout, they could only call with signs. The fishermen who came from the other boat, in which Jacob and John were, began to gather the fish, but no matter how much they gathered, new ones entered the nets. The fish seemed to be competing to see who would be the first to fulfill the Lord’s command: the small ones overtook the big ones, the middle ones kept ahead of the bigger ones, the big ones jumped over the smaller ones; they did not wait for the fishermen to catch them with their hands, but jumped into the boat themselves. The movement at the bottom of the sea stopped: none of the fish wanted to stay there, because they knew who said: “let the water produce reptiles, living souls” (Gen. 1:20)” (St. John Chrysostom).
Luke 5:8. Seeing this, Simon Peter fell before the knees of Jesus and said: depart from me, Lord, because I am a sinful man.
Luke 5:9. For terror came upon him and all who were with him, because of that catch of fish which they had caught,
Both Simon and the others who were there were extremely frightened, and Simon even began to ask the Lord to get out of the boat, as he felt that his sinfulness could suffer from the holiness of Christ (cf. Luke 1:12, 2 :9; 3 Kings 17:18).
“From that catch” – more precisely: “from the catch they took” (in the Russian translation it is inaccurate: “caught by them”). This miracle particularly struck Simon, not because he had not seen Christ’s miracles before, but because it was done according to some special intention of the Lord, without any request on Simon’s part. He understood that the Lord wanted to give him some special commission, and the fear of the unknown future filled his soul.
Luke 5:10. so also James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were companions of Simon. And Jesus said to Simon: do not be afraid; from now on you will hunt humans.
Luke 5:11. And having drawn the ships ashore, they left everything and followed Him.
The Lord reassures Simon and reveals to him the purpose He had in miraculously sending Simon the richest fishing. This was a symbolic action by which Simon was shown the success he would have when he began to convert many people to Christ through his preaching. Obviously, the evangelist is presenting here that great event that happened primarily thanks to the preaching of the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, namely, the conversion of three thousand people to Christ (Acts 2:41).
“They left everything”. Although the Lord addressed only Simon, it seems that the other disciples of the Lord understood that the time had come for all of them to leave their studies and go with their Master. After all, this was not yet the call of the disciples to apostolic ministry that followed (Luke 6:13ff).
The negative criticism claims that in the first two evangelists nothing is said about the miraculous fishing, from which the conclusion is drawn that the evangelist Luke has merged here two completely different events in time into one: the calling of the disciples to become fishers of men (Matt. 4 :18-22) and the miraculous fishing after Christ’s Resurrection (John 21). But the miraculous catch in the Gospel of John and the miraculous catch in the Gospel of Luke have a completely different meaning. The first speaks of the restoration of the apostle Peter in his apostolic ministry, and the second – still of the preparation for this ministry: here the thought appears in Peter of that great work to which the Lord calls him. Therefore, there is no doubt that what is described here is not at all the catch reported by the Evangelist John. But then how can we reconcile the first two evangelists with the third? Why do the first two evangelists say nothing about fishing? Some interpreters, aware of their powerlessness to solve this question, claim that the evangelist Luke does not mean at all this call, about which the first two evangelists tell. But the whole setting of the event does not allow to think that it could be repeated and that the evangelist Luke was not talking about this moment of the evangelical history that the evangelists Matthew and Mark had in mind. Therefore, it is better to say that the first two evangelists did not attach such an important meaning to this symbolic fishing as it has in the evangelist Luke. In fact, for the evangelist Luke, describing in the book of Acts the preaching work of the apostle Peter, and, apparently, long interested in everything that had to do with this apostle, it seemed too important to note in the Gospel this symbolic foreshadowing of the successes of the future work of the apostle Peter, which is contained in the story of the miraculous fishing.
Luke 5:12. When Jesus was in a city, a man came who was full of leprosy, and when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged Him and said: Lord, if you want, you can make me clean.
Luke 5:13. Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him and said: I want, be cleansed! And immediately the leprosy left him.
“touched him”. According to Blaz. Theophylact, God “touched” him not without reason. But since according to the Law he who touches a leper is considered unclean, He touches him, desiring to show that He has no need to observe such petty precepts of the Law, but that He Himself is the Lord of the Law, and that the clean are not at all are defiled by the apparently impure, but it is the leprosy of the soul that defiles. The Lord touches him for this purpose and at the same time to show that His holy flesh has the Divine power to purify and give life, as the true flesh of God the Word.
“I want, clean yourself”. To his faith comes the infinitely merciful answer: “I will, be cleansed.” All the miracles of Christ are revelations at the same time. When the circumstances of the case require it, He sometimes does not immediately respond to the petition of the sufferer. But there was never a single instance where He hesitated even for a moment when а leper cried out to Him. Leprosy was considered a sign of sin, and Christ wanted to teach us that the sinner’s heartfelt prayer for cleansing is always soon answered. When David, the prototype of all true penitents, cried out with true contrition: “I have sinned against the Lord”, the prophet Nathan immediately brought him the gracious gospel from God: “The Lord has taken away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Kings 12:13). The Savior reaches out and touches the leper, and he is immediately cleansed.
Luke 5:14. And he ordered him not to call anyone, but go, he said, and show yourself to the priest and offer for your purification, as Moses commanded, to them for a testimony.
(Cf. Matt. 8:2–4; Mark 1:40–44).
Evangelist Luke more closely follows Mark here.
Christ forbids the healed to tell about what happened, because touching the lepers, which is forbidden by the law, might again cause a storm of indignation on the part of the soulless legalists, for whom the dead letter of the law is dearer than humanity. Instead, the healed person had to go and show himself to the priests, bring the prescribed gift, to receive an official certificate of his cleansing. But the healed man rejoiced too much in his happiness to hide it in his heart, and did not keep the vow of silence, but made his healing known everywhere. However, Luke is silent about the disobedience of the leper evangelist (cf. Mark 1:45).
Luke 5:15. But the word about Him spread even more, and a great multitude of people flocked to listen to Him and pray to Him for their illnesses.
“Even more”, ie. to an even greater extent than before (μᾶλλον). The ban, he says, only encouraged people to spread the rumor about the Miracle Worker even more.
Luke 5:16. And He went to lonely places and prayed.
“And we need, if we have succeeded in something, to run away so that people do not praise us, and to pray so that the gift is preserved in our country.” (Evthymius Zygaben).
Luke 5:17. One day, when He was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, from all the villages of Galilee and Judea, and from Jerusalem, and He had the power of the Lord to heal them, –
Evangelist Luke makes some additions to the narrative of the other Evangelists.
“One day”, i.e. in one of those days, precisely during the journey undertaken by the Lord (see Luke 4:43ff.).
“Law teachers” (cf. Matt. 22:35).
“from all the villages” is a hyperbolic expression. The motives for the coming of the Pharisees and teachers of the law could have been very diverse, but, of course, the unfriendly attitude towards Christ prevailed among them.
“Power of God”, i.e. the power of God. Where he calls Christ Lord, the Evangelist Luke writes the word κύριος articulated (ὁ κύριος), and here it is put κυρίου – unarticulated.
Luke 5:18. behold, some brought on a bed a man who was weak, and they were trying to bring him in and lay him before Him;
(Cf. Matt. 9:2–8; Mark 2:3–12).
Luke 5:19. and when they could not find where to bring him in, because of the rush, they climbed on top of the house and through the roof they let him down with the mat in the middle in front of Jesus.
“Through the roof”, i.e. through the slab (διὰ τῶν κεράμων) which was placed for the roof of the house. In one place they uncovered the plaque. (in Mark 2:4, the roof is represented as needing to be “broken through”).
Luke 5:20. And He, seeing their faith, said to him: man, your sins are forgiven.
“He said to him: man, you are forgiven…” – Christ calls the weak not “child”, as in other cases (for example, Matt. 9:2), but simply “man”, probably referring to his previous sinful life.
Blaz. Theophylact writes: “He first heals the mental disease, saying: ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ so that we know that many diseases are caused by sins; then he also healed bodily infirmity, seeing the faith of those who brought him. Because often by the faith of some He saves others”.
Luke 5:21. The scribes and Pharisees began to ponder and said: who is He who blasphemes? Who can forgive sins but God alone?
Luke 5:22. Jesus, understanding their thoughts, answered them and said: what are you thinking in your hearts?
“When you understand, think about them”. Some critics point here to a contradiction of the evangelist Luke with himself: on the one hand, he has just said what the scribes reasoned among themselves in public, so that Christ could hear their conversations, and then claims, that Christ penetrated into their thoughts, which they kept within themselves, as the evangelist Mark observes. But there is really no contradiction here. Christ could have heard the conversation of the scribes among themselves – Luke is silent about this – but at the same time He penetrated with His thought into their secret thoughts, which they were hiding. They, therefore, according to the Evangelist Luke, did not speak aloud all that they thought.
Luke 5:23. Which is easier? To say: are your sins forgiven; or should I say: get up and walk?
“Therefore He says: “Which seems more convenient to you, the forgiveness of sins or the restoration of the health of the body? Perhaps in your opinion the forgiveness of sins seems more convenient as something invisible and intangible, although it is more difficult, and the healing of the body seems more difficult as something visible, though it is essentially more comfortable.” (Blaz. Theophylact)
Luke 5:24. But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins (he says to the weak): I say to you: get up, take your mat and go home.
Luke 5:25. And he got up immediately before them, took up what he was lying on, and went home, praising God.
Luke 5:26. And terror seized them all, and they glorified God; and being filled with fear, they said: we have seen wonderful things today.
The impression made by this miracle on the people (verse 26), according to the evangelist Luke, was stronger than Matthew and Mark described it.
Luke 5:27. After that, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, who was sitting at the customs office, and he said to him: follow me.
The summons of the publican Levi and the feast organized by him, the evangelist Luke describes according to Mark (Mark 2:13-22; cf. Matt. 9:9-17), only occasionally supplementing his account.
“Goed out” – from the city.
“He saw” – more correctly: “began to look, to observe” (ἐθεάσατο).
Luke 5:28. And he, leaving everything, got up and followed Him.
“Having left everything”, i.e. your office and everything in it!
“went after” – more precisely: “followed” (min. imperfect tense of the verb ἠκολούει according to the best readings means constant following of Christ)
Luke 5:29. And Levi prepared a great feast for Him at home; and there were many tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them.
“And others who sat at the table with them.” Thus the evangelist Luke replaces Mark’s expression “sinners” (Mark 2:15). About the fact that there were “sinners” at the table, he says in verse 30.
Luke 5:30. And the scribes and Pharisees grumbled and said to His disciples: Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
Luke 5:31. And Jesus answered them and said: the healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick;
Luke 5:32. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5:33. And they said to Him: why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, just like the Pharisees, but Yours eat and drink?
“Why John’s disciples…”. Evangelist Luke does not mention that John’s disciples themselves turned to Christ with questions (cf. Matthew and Mark). This is explained by the fact that he shortens this picture, which the first two evangelists divide into two scenes, into one scene. Why John’s disciples found themselves this time together with the Pharisees is explained by the similarity in their religious practices. In fact, the Pharisaic spirit of fasting and prayer was completely different from that of the disciples of John, who at the same time denounced the Pharisees quite a bit (Matt. 3). The prayers that John’s disciples did – only the evangelist Luke mentions them – were probably performed at different times of the day, the so-called Jewish “shma” (cf. Matt. 6:5).
Luke 5:34. He said to them: Can you make the bridegroom fast when the bridegroom is with them?
“And now let us briefly say that the “sons of marriage” (the bridegrooms) are called the apostles. The Lord’s coming is likened to a wedding because He has taken the Church as His bride. Therefore now the apostles should not fast. John’s disciples must fast because their teacher practiced virtue through labor and sickness. For it is said: “John came neither eating nor drinking” (Matt. 11:18). But My disciples, since they are staying with Me – the Word of God, now they do not need the benefit of fasting, because it is precisely from this (staying with Me) that they are enriched and are protected by Me”. (Blessed Theophylact)
Luke 5:35. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then in those days they will fast.
Luke 5:36. At this he told them a parable: no one sews a patch of a new garment on an old garment; otherwise, the new one will also tear, and the old one will not resemble a new patch.
“At that he told them a parable…”. Explaining that the Pharisees and John’s disciples could not make claims about Christ’s non-observance of fasts (the prayer is out of the question because, of course, Christ’s disciples also prayed), the Lord further explains that on the other hand , His disciples should not harshly condemn the Pharisees and the disciples of John for their strict adherence to the Old Testament decrees or, better, to the ancient customs. One should not really take a patch of a new garment to mend an old one; the old patch does not fit, and the new one will also be ruined by such a cut. This means that to the Old Testament worldview, on which even the disciples of John the Baptist continued to stand, not to mention the Pharisees, should not be added only one part of the new Christian worldview, in the form of a free attitude to the fasts established from Jewish tradition (not from the Law of Moses). What if John’s disciples borrowed from Christ’s disciples only this freedom? Otherwise, their worldview will in no way change, and in the meantime they will violate the integrity of their own outlook, and along with this new Christian teaching, with which they then had to become acquainted, will lose for them the impression of integrity.
Luke 5:37. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the new wine will burst the wineskins, and will only leak out, and the wineskins will be wasted;
Luke 5:38. but new wine must be put into new wineskins; then both will be preserved.
“And no one pours…”. Here is another parable, but with exactly the same content as the first. The new wine needs to be put into new wineskins because it will ferment and the wineskins will stretch too much. The old skins will not withstand this fermentation process, they will burst – and why should we sacrifice them in vain? They may be adapted to something… It is clear that Christ here again points out the futility of forcing the disciples of John, unprepared to accept His teaching as a whole, by absorbing some separate rule of Christian freedom. For now, let the bearers of this freedom be people capable of perceiving and absorbing it. He, so to speak, excuses John’s disciples for still forming some separate circle outside of communion with Him…
Luke 5:39. And no one who has drunk old wine will immediately ask for new; because he says: old is better.
The same excuse for John’s disciples is contained in the last parable about old wine tasting better (verse 39). By this the Lord wants to say that it is perfectly understandable to Him that people, accustomed to certain orders of life and having assimilated for themselves long-established views, cling with all their might to them.
On February 8, the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania registered a new religious structure – an exarchate, which will be subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus, two Orthodox churches will be officially recognized in the country: one belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the existing diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in Lithuania.
The new religious community has ten clergy and plans to form governing bodies in the near future. It is now led by the Estonian priest Justinus Kiviloo, who held his first service in Lithuania at the beginning of January 2024. The remaining priests previously served in the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC): six in Lithuania, two in Belarus and one in Russia.
Patriarch Kirill’s support for the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine is the reason for the creation of the new exarchate. This position led to a conflict between nine clerics and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 2022, Vilnius and Lithuania Metropolitan Innocent removed five of them from ministry, and Patriarch Bartholomew reinstated them and accepted them under his jurisdiction. In March 2023, Patriarch Bartholomew visited Vilnius and signed an agreement with the Lithuanian government to establish the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the country.
The Diocese of the ROC in Lithuania reacted calmly to the appearance of the new church. Metropolitan Innocent said that the new religious community must be accepted as a “reality of our time”.
Local media have noted that since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the ROC diocese in Lithuania has sought greater independence from the Moscow Patriarchate.
There are 105,000 Orthodox believers in Lithuania, most of whom are Russian-speaking. Orthodox Christians are considered one of the nine traditional religious communities in the country.
“We don’t want you to change the culture of Yemen or the Middle East, we just ask for the right to exist. Can we accept each other?”
Hassan Al-Yemeni* was imprisoned on the charges of espionage just for converting from Islam to Christianity, the religion of the West. His story is one of many told and untold stories of persecution and discrimination in the Middle East and North Africa.
He led the call for the EU to raise the plight of religious converts in their foreign relations with MENA counterparts at an event yesterday to launch Open Doors’ World Watch List, an annual index listing the most dangerous places to live as a Christian.
The audience at the European Parliament, consisting of MEPs and their staff, EU diplomates, and EU-based NGOs heard stories of Christian converts in Muslim-dominated countries; people without identity, persecuted by their governments and rejected by their communities.
The event hosted by MEP Miriam Lexmann (EPP) and opened with remarks by MEP Patrizia Toia (S&D) was dedicated to the presentation of the 2024 World Watch List (WWL 2024) by Open Doors, an annual report which ranks the countries where it is most difficult to profess and practice the Christian faith.
Released and presented at the European Parliament at the beginning of each year, the list uses extensive research, data from Open Doors field workers, their in-country networks, external experts and persecution analysts to quantify and analyse persecution worldwide. This year’s list covers the period 1 October 2022 – 30 September 2023.
Cristian Nani (Open Doors Italy) presented the top 50 countries where Christians experience the highest levels of oppression and outlined the main trends captured by the Christian NGO in 2023.
At least 365 million Christians live with very real threats to their lives, livelihoods and church communities because of their faith globally. 1 in every 7 Christians is touched by this phenomenon. 4998 Christians killed worldwide in faith-related attacks. Figures likely run much higher, but many go unreported.
Most of these killings, recorded by Open Doors, were in the south of the Sahara Desert, including Nigeria (6).
The threat from Islamic militants in sub-Saharan Africa has intensified to the point where many Christians in the region feel increasingly fearful. Radical Islamic elements exploiting unstable political conditions is a common thread across the African continent. The fractures in governance and security have opened the door for the jihadist activities seen, for example, in Burkina Faso, Mali (14), Mozambique (39), Nigeria and Somalia (2).
North Korea (1) remains the most dangerous country in the world to exercise the Christian faith, with its regime having zero-tolerance policy for Christians.
A staggering 14,766 attacks, closures and demolitions of Christian churches, hospitals, schools and similar buildings has been recorded in WWL 2024, compared to 2,110 in the previous year – WWL 2023.
Open Doors supports Christians by protecting and promoting their right to freely believe, worship, and practice their faith alone or with others, free from intolerance and discrimination. It is for that reason that the presentation at the European Parliament was focused on Christian converts from other religions, including Islam. Those are the communities that are often the most forgotten and most affected by persecution.
Open Doors’ FoRB policy priorities for the EU, as presented at the EP, were about recognizing the interdependence of FoRB and other human rights, encouraging interfaith and interreligious dialogue and integrating FoRB analysis into its’ foreign affairs initiatives.
Hassan Al-Yemeni from CDSI Foundation, along with Kamal Fahmi from Set My People Free and Dr Yassir Eric from Communio Messianica reflected on human rights violations that come from the society and government in countries like Yemen (5), Sudan (8) because of one’s conversion to Christianity.
“If you want to measure democracy, we should look at how countries deal with conversions. Whether people can exercise their inherent right to think and change their belief” says Dr Yassir Eric.
In many countries, recanting Islam is considered the crime of apostasy punishable by death or imprisonment. The case of Sudan stands out as a positive example of abolition of the country’s apostasy law and therefore shows a sign of hope for religious minorities in Muslim-dominated countries. Dr Eric adds “this [change of law] means it is not impossible to grant the freedom of conversion in MENA”.
The speakers appealed to the European Union raise human rights concerns of those facing violations for simply exercising their fundamental freedom to choose one’s belief.
Notably, Frans Van Daele, the EU Special Envoy on FoRB outside the EU, addressed the audience to reflect on his mandate. He underlined the depth and breadth of FoRB concerns across the globe and said he tries to be diplomatic and never to appear to “impose the Western point of view”. He seeks to build upon the existing relations with third countries and use the knowledge of his EU colleagues at the EC and EEAS.
About Open Doors
Open Doors International is a global membership organisation with 25 national bases that has supported and strengthened persecuted Christians for more than 60 years and works in 70 countries. Open Doors provides practical support to persecuted Christians such as food, medicines, trauma care, legal assistance, safe houses and schools, as well as spiritual support through Christian literature, training and resources.
To arrange an interview with speakers, Open Doors representatives, contact Anastasia Hartman at [email protected]
In “St. Sofia of Kiev” the Constituent Assembly of the public organization “Sofia Brotherhood” was held. The participants of the meeting elected the chairman of Archpriest Alexander Kolb and members of the Board of Directors of the brotherhood. The event was held within the framework of the Forum for the Unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which was held on the territory of the National Reserve “St. Sophia of Kiev”.
The Sofia brotherhood positions itself as an association of Orthodox Ukrainians — believers from the UOC, OCU and other local churches. The main goal of the activity of the brotherhood is comprehensive support of inter-Orthodox dialogue to achieve the unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, unification of efforts and support of initiatives of Orthodox Christians aimed at its development.
The round table “Church, Society, State: Dialogue for Unity and Victory” was held within the framework of the forum.
For quite a long time, Ukrainian Orthodoxy suffered from division and hostility. Repeated attempts to overcome the schism, however, were constantly met with both covert and open resistance from the Moscow Patriarchate. In particular, the sincere desire of the Ecumenical Patriarch to heal such a division by returning the part of Ukrainian Orthodoxy that was in schism to church communion by giving the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) a Tomos for autocephaly, not only did not find support in the Russian Orthodox Church and in its satellites in Ukraine, but it also became a kind of trigger for them to create and deepen a schism in Universal Orthodoxy. It became increasingly obvious that the Moscow Patriarchate was only interested in expanding its own influence over the Orthodox world and would not let anyone out of its “canonical claws”.
The large-scale Russian aggression that began on February 24, 2022 became a turning point and a bloody point in the history of both the Ukrainian state and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Despite Moscow Patriarch Kirill’s misleading statements about the “united nation” and the “united Orthodox congregation”, the Russian Orthodox Church took a course to justify the bloody war and blessed the aggressor for the “sin of Cain”. The commandments of God, the teachings of Christ and the holy fathers of the Church ceased to be an authority for the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which in its words and actions was already based on the criminal ideas of the Russian dictator and the instructions of the all-powerful FSB. Under these conditions, Patriarch Kirill had neither canonical nor moral right to be “great master and father” for the multi-million Ukrainian congregation. It was this that pushed part of the Ukrainian clergy to decisive action.
On April 10, 2022, Archpriest Andrii Pinchuk, a cleric of the Dnipropetrovsk Diocese of the UOC, made a video address to the Council of Prelates of the Ancient Eastern Churches, in which he called for a council to condemn the “Russian Peace” doctrine raised by the Moscow Patriarch, as well as for bringing Patriarch Kirill to canonical responsibility and depriving him of the right to occupy the patriarchal throne.
A group of clerics from different dioceses was formed around the call to the Eastern Patriarchs, who are trying to find ways to solve the pressing problems of the Church’s development. Various online meetings are held at which representatives of the administrative structures of the Kyiv Metropolitanate, scientists, theologians, bishops of the UOC, etc., are invited to communicate.
The holding of such meetings, as well as the creation of groups on social networks, lay the foundations of an informal association of clergy, whose media mouthpiece is the Voice of the Clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church on the Facebook social network.
