Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Jesus was arrested late Thursday evening. The Scriptures recount,

They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law came together (Mark 14:53).

According to Mark’s chronology there was a sham of a trial, based on false evidence and distortions of Jesus’ teachings.

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but they did not find any. For many bore false witness against Jesus, but their testimony was inconsistent. Then some men stood up and testified falsely against Him: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another that is made without hands.’” But even their testimony was inconsistent.

So the high priest stood up before them and questioned Jesus, “Have You no answer? What is it these men are testifying against You?” But Jesus remained silent and made no reply. Again the high priest questioned Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

At this, the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What is your verdict?” And they all condemned Him as deserving of death. Then some of them began to spit on Him. They blindfolded Him, struck Him with their fists, and said to Him, “Prophesy!” And the officers received Him with slaps in His face (Mark 14:53-65).

According to tradition, Jesus spent the rest of the night in the dungeon under the House of Caiaphas. It had doubled as a kind of cistern for holding rainwater.

The events of this early Friday morning are tightly packed. In the space of three or four hours, Jesus is sent to Pilate, then to Herod, then back to Pilate, questioned, condemned to die, and led out to be crucified by 9:00 AM.

The events begin around 6:00 AM:

Early in the morning, the chief priests, elders, scribes, and the whole Sanhedrin devised a plan. They bound Jesus, led Him away, and handed Him over to Pilate (Mark 15:1).

Pilate is less than enthusiastic to be saddled with this interrogation, but fearing a riot if he does not, he enters into the fray. Pilate’s behavior is a portrait in vacillation. According to Luke, he first seeks to transfer the case to Herod, who is nearby in Jerusalem (See Luke 23:6-12). However, Jesus says not a word to Herod. So after making sport of Jesus, Herod sends Him right back to Pilate. In another attempt to placate the crowd and evade making a decision, Pilate presents to them what amounts to a fake Messiah, aptly named “Barabbas” (which means “son of the father”). Can Barabbas save the day? He cannot, for he is not the true “Son of the Father.” Only Jesus can deliver Pilate—or any of us, for that matter.

I will not be treating the whole trial before Pilate in today’s post. (I’ve written about it in more detail here: The Trial Before Pilate.) In the end, though Pilate concludes that Jesus is innocent of the charges, he hands Him over to be crucified. In so doing, he is likely trying to save his own career. He will not take a stand for Jesus. Rather, he sits upon the judgment seat, violates his own conscience, and condemns Jesus to death. It is about the third hour (9:00 AM).

There is some debate about the specific time of day in the various biblical accounts. Mark 15:25 says that Jesus is crucified at the third hour (9:00 AM). In John 19:14 the crucifixion is set at the sixth hour (Noon). Both Matthew 27:45 and Luke 23:44 hint at a time closer to noon in their reference to a darkness coming over the land from noon until 3:00 PM.

In considering these “issues” of the exact time of day, we ought to remember that the people of Jesus’ era did not have clocks and watches. They did not speak or think of time in the precise ways that we modern Westerners do. Time was spoken of in general ways; the mention of the third hour, or the sixth hour, or the ninth hour could include a broader swath of time relatively near that declared hour. It is a little bit like our terms “mid-morning” or “mid-afternoon,” which can refer to a period of several hours. Mark does not necessarily mean precisely at 9:00 AM nor does John mean precisely at noon.

There is a lot of overlap in references to the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth hour, softening the possible conflict between the accounts. The need to nail down the exact times of day of the various events says more about our modern obsession with time than it does about accounts that are close, even if not precise, descriptions of the events.

Comparing all the texts leads to a general time frame. Thus, it would seem that Jesus undergoes trials before Pilate and Herod in the early morning (somewhere between 6:00 and 9:00 AM). He is sentenced by Pilate to crucifixion somewhere in mid-morning. He is mocked and led out to be crucified in the late morning. Near noon, He is stripped of His outer garments and hung on the cross. From about noon through the early afternoon a darkness comes over the land and Jesus hangs on the cross. He dies in the midafternoon, at around 3:00 PM.

What of this darkness of some three hours? In Luke 23:44, we read, It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour (i.e., from noon until 3:00 PM).

Although this seems to describe a solar eclipse, it isn’t appropriate to insist that it was an eclipse (at least as we define the term today). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all speak to the darkness of that day using the Greek term σκότος (skotos), meaning simply “darkness.” Only Luke went on to state the reason for the darkness: the sun was darkened (Luke 23:45). He even used the Greek word ἐκλιπόντος (eklipontos), from which the word “eclipse” was derived. In Greek, however, the word eklipontos simply means “darkened,” whereas our word “eclipse” refers to a darkening as a result of the moon blocking the light of the sun. However, that is not necessarily (or even likely) what Luke meant here.

As a general rule, one should avoid applying a scientific explanation to a text when that may not have been the author’s intention. That there was darkness over the land from about noon until three is certainly attested to in the sacred texts, but the cause of that darkness is not definitively stated to be an eclipse, at least not as we use the term today. Perhaps God made use of other natural causes, such as very heavy clouds, to cause the light of the sun to dim. It is also possible that the darkness was of purely supernatural origin and was experienced only by some of those present.

Trying to explain the darkness in terms of the laws of science risks doing a disservice to the text by missing its deeper meaning: that the darkness of sin had reached its zenith. Whatever the physical mechanism of the darkness, its deepest cause was sin and evil.

Jesus said elsewhere, “This is the judgment: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (Jn 3:19). Referring to His passion, He also said, “Night is coming, when no one can work” (Jn 9:4). When Judas left the Last Supper to betray Jesus, John observed simply and profoundly, And it was night (Jn 13:30). Yes, a deep darkness had come upon the world.

It is simply not possible here to fully comment on all the details of the crucifixion. While they are historical incidents, they are also of deep spiritual significance. I leave the consideration of most of those details to other posts and to your reflection. Jesus speaks seven times while on the cross: He asks the Father to forgive us. He bestows mercy on the repentant thief. He gives us His mother and asks us to take her into the home of our hearts. He expresses his feelings of abandonment. He voices his thirst. He announces the completion of His mission. He commends His spirit to the Father and gives up His spirit.

The earth shakes. While earthquakes were common in the region, interpreting the quake merely in scientific terms misses its theological significance. Christ has rent the earth and descended to Sheol, there to preach to the dead. The veil in the Temple has been torn from top to bottom, giving us access to the Father. He has rent our hearts and laid bare our thoughts. This also prefigures the Last Judgment:

Death is struck, and nature quaking,
all creation is awaking,
to its judge and answer making (from the Dies Irae).

It is three o’clock in the afternoon; a great silence is upon the earth. The Word of God has died in the flesh. He has gone among the dead to awaken them.

The post What Happened With The Lord on Good Friday? appeared first on Community in Mission.

50% of respondents view the country as hostile, down from 61% in 2024, a survey by the Pew Research Center suggests

Americans are evenly divided on whether Russia is an enemy of the US, with the percentage holding that view falling to its lowest level since 2022, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Thursday. The findings coincide with efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to negotiate a resolution to the Ukraine conflict.

According to the poll, 50% of US adults view Russia as an enemy, down from 61% one year ago, and 64% and 70% in 2023 and 2022, respectively. Another 38% describe Russia as a competitor, and 9% consider it a partner.

The poll also indicated a pronounced partisan gap on the topic, with Democrats more likely to view Russia unfavorably. While 62% of Democrats say Russia is an enemy, only 40% of Republicans agree. Among Republicans, 45% say Russia is more of a competitor.

The survey suggests that 85% of Americans see Russia very or somewhat unfavorably. Just 13% say they view the country favorably.

The poll surveyed 3,605 US adults between March 24 and March 30, shortly after a phone call between President Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on resolving the Ukraine conflict.

While both sides have praised the peace process, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has acknowledged that the talks over Ukraine are “difficult.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that Washington could withdraw from peace negotiations if no progress is made within the coming days.

READ MORE: US proposes leaving former Ukrainian territories under Russian control – Bloomberg

On Friday, Bloomberg reported that the US had presented its allies with a peace plan that would see the easing of sanctions against Russia, while eliminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO, one of Moscow’s key demands. Former Ukrainian territories that voted overwhelmingly to join Russia would reportedly remain under Moscow’s control.

Ukraine, however, has repeatedly rejected the idea of making any territorial concessions to Russia.

Holy Week is no mere ritual rehearsal for Christians; it’s a political dynamite keg, detonating the myth of human order built on blood. Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, and resurrection expose the scaffolding of power—then and now—as a rickety structure held together by scapegoats and silenced victims. As we navigate our fractured polis in 2025, the Passion narrative demands we confront the same temptations: to cheer for Barabbas, to wash our hands with Pilate, or to abandon the One who reveals the stones crying out for justice.

The Gospels unravel the political with surgical precision. Jesus enters Jerusalem to Hosannas, a king on a donkey, mocking the pomp of empire. Days later, the crowd—fickle as any mob—trades him for Barabbas, a man whose name in the earliest texts is Jesus Barabbas, a violent revolutionary mirroring the establishment’s own brutality. The symmetry is no accident. Barabbas represents the allure of might-makes-right, the seductive promise of force to bind us against a villain. Sound familiar? Our politics thrives on this old magic trick: rally the crowd against a demonized other—be it a marginalized group or a foreign foe in some proxy war. Yet the cross exposes this as a lie. The knowledge of the Lord, as Habakkuk 2 foretold, fills the earth like water, not through conquest but through the slain Lamb who unmasks the guilt we project onto scapegoats.

Habakkuk’s warning haunts Jesus’ words. The prophet condemns cities founded on bloodshed, their walls built with “unjust gain” (Hab. 2:12). In ancient practice, this wasn’t metaphor—immurement, the ritual sacrifice of victims sealed in foundations, was the cornerstone of many societies. Jesus alludes to this when he predicts the stones will cry out if the crowd falls silent (Luke 19:40). And silent they became, abandoning him to the cross. Yet the stones did cry out—not just in the temple’s rubble in 70 AD, but in the resurrection’s seismic ripple. The Passion revealed Israel’s hypocrisy: a nation claiming purity while rejecting prophets, excluding lepers, and mirroring the pagan sacrifices it condemned. Jesus, the cornerstone, becomes both the first victim buried under the city’s weight and the capstone lifted high on the cross, exposing the violence propping up every polis—Jewish, Roman, and ours.

Consider Caiaphas’ chilling logic: “It is better that one man die than the whole nation perish” (John 11:50). This is the scapegoat mechanism laid bare, the crowd’s dispersion of guilt onto a single figure to preserve order. Gentile societies did the same, projecting violence onto mythological gods to obscure their shame. The cross dismantles this. Jesus, numbered among the transgressors, reveals the victim’s innocence, shattering the unanimous fervor that binds societies against a “guilty” other. Pilate and Herod, rivals united in his persecution (Luke 23:12), show how power aligns to excise the misfit who disturbs the status quo. The Sanhedrin fears the crowd; Pilate fears revolt; Herod plays the sycophant. Politicians, then as now, are weak before the mob’s volatility.

This politically charged Gospels texts didn’t just expose politics, it transformed it. Jesus’ followers, emboldened by the resurrection, cared for plague-stricken pagans when Rome’s elite fled. Their nonviolent witness won hearts, forcing the empire to adapt. By the fourth century, Rome adorned itself with the cross—a scandal we can scarcely grasp today. Imagine a meek libertarian dissident like Ron Paul becoming the rallying symbol for both our parties; even that falls short of this historical scandal. A tortured, abandoned God, forgiving his killers, was no mere mascot. Yet Rome’s conversion was half-baked. It abandoned gladiatorial games and overt sacrifice but clung to slavery and war. Christianity’s demystification of guilt-projection clashed with sacrificial violence like oil and water, leaving Rome ripe for schism and collapse.

Today, the stones still cry out. Every story of victims—whether nonviolent prisoners like those Steve Bannon met in jail, or casualties of wars we fuel in Israel-Gaza or Ukraine-Russia—haunts our collective conscience. Jesus tied the stones’ cries to Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD, when Israel’s zeal for violence mirrored Rome’s and left both exposed as complicit in the same sin. America stands at a similar crossroads. Our politics, like Caiaphas’, justifies flesh-and-blood victims for “national security” or “progress.” We cheer Barabbas-types—leaders promising strength through exclusion or war—while ignoring the Lamb who redefines polis not as the victors’ club but as the refuge for the least of these.

The Passion’s political implications are radical. It reveals power as a house of cards, sustained by silencing victims. The resurrection vindicates those victims, proving that no empire, no mob, can bury the truth. Jesus’ movement upended history toward the marginalized, as he predicted. But it also warns us: clinging to sacrificial violence—be it cultural scapegoating or global wars—dooms us to Rome’s fate. The cross haunts every nation, breaking us into rivalry and schism until we repent.

America must choose now. Nonviolence and repentance are not moral platitudes; they are political necessities. The alternative is more rubble, more cries from the stones we’ve buried. Holy Week is not a call to nostalgia and private religion but to revolution—a revolution of the heart that dismantles the altars of might-makes-right. The Lamb has spoken. Will we listen, or will we keep building on blood?

Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com.

Vladimir Zelensky has accused Beijing of secretly supplying arms to Russia

China has dismissed a Ukrainian claim that Beijing has been secretly providing Moscow with weapons as “groundless… political manipulation.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated on Friday that his country “has never provided lethal weapons to any party to the [Ukraine] conflict, and has kept its dual-use exports under strict control.”

Beijing favors a “ceasefire and talks for peace” between Kiev and Moscow, the official added.

The retro comes after allegations levelled by Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky on Thursday that he had received “important, not so pleasant information” that “China is supplying weapons to the Russian Federation.”

“As of today, we have general information from the Security Service [of Ukraine], from the intelligence services about gunpowder [and] artillery,” he stated.

Zelensky accused China of manufacturing certain weapons on Russian soil, promising to provide more details.

Last week the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned China’s chargé d’affaires after Zelensky announced that Kiev’s forces had captured two Chinese nationals who had allegedly served in the Russian military. “Significantly more” Chinese citizens are fighting for Moscow, he claimed.

In a post on X, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga wrote that the development “puts into question China’s declared stance for peace.”

Last Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian dismissed Kiev’s allegations as “groundless,” reiterating that Beijing consistently advises its citizens against participating in foreign armed conflicts in any capacity.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, speaking the following day, insisted that “China has always maintained a very balanced position, so Zelensky is wrong.”

Beijing has rejected Washington’s accusations that its trade with Russia is helping to fuel Moscow’s military production, maintaining that, unlike Western countries, it remains neutral in the conflict.

When we hear the Reproaches, we should not just consider them as past historical facts from the Old Testament evoked by the liturgy of the Church after the Passion, but we should apply His lamentations to our days and to ourselves. Our piety should imagine Our Lord in each step of His Passion – Agony in the Garden of Olives, Scourging, Crowning with Thorns, Way of the Cross, Crucifixion, and Death – as if He were present before us suffering only for the sins of each one of us. We should imagine Him asking each one of us those poignant questions He addresses to His people. 

It is common knowledge that Divine Providence gives special graces for each commemoration of the Church. During Holy Week, there are, therefore, torrents of graces – necessary graces, abundant graces, and super-abundant graces – that Heaven sends us so that we might unite ourselves to Our Lord and Our Lady. We should open our souls for those graces especially in the steps of the Passion with which we have more affinity.

The normal fruit of these meditations should be a sentiment of remorse for the evil we have done. Not a disturbed, agitated remorse that leads to despair, the remorse of Judas, but the tranquil, peaceful, and bitter remorse full of confidence that invites us to ask Our Lady’s help and change our lives, the remorse of St. Peter.

It is a time to remember our past life, the graces we received that cost so much suffering for Our Lord, and the bad or insufficient responses we made to those graces. Should we not repent and repair for our offenses? Should we not make reparation for the evil we have done? Should we not shift our lives in another direction in order to unite ourselves more to Our Lord? We should ask these graces by the merits of the wounds He received and the tears Our Lady shed. We should be confident that we can receive those graces because even such a great sinner like the good thief St. Dismas was forgiven and won Paradise.

—Plinio Correa de Oliveira

The Democrat Party and Law and Journalism Schools Are Americans’ Worst Enemies

Paul Craig Roberts

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the most knowledgable and seasoned law practitioners in the US, has expressed concern about federal district judge Boasberg’s threat to hold President Trump in contempt for refusing to allow Boasberg to determine whether or not the executive branch can enforce US immigration law. Dershowitz has cautioned Boasberg against assuming power that the judiciary does not have. Dershowitz says that Boasberg’s threat shows weakness, not strength.  As for the whore media’s line that Trump’s disobeying of a judge’s order has caused a “Constitutional Crisis,” Dershowitz says pure nonsense.  https://www.youtube.com/live/k9Xi7yRZQfo 

The whore media is doing its best to create a narrative that it can use to bloody President Trump. CBS, for example, cannot imagine a president so vile that he “deliberately flouted” the orders of a legally incompetent Democrat activist judge not to deport illegal aliens.  However, by so openly supporting the Democrat judges’ attempts to prevent the president from deporting illegal aliens, the media is further displaying its highly partisan politicization.  Judge Boasberg has presented himself as so highly politicized that he has discredited his own rulings.  As Dershowitz notes, if the Justice Department holds firm, it doesn’t matter what Boasberg rules as he has no way of enforcing his controversial rulings that exceed his authority.

Boasberg, like some other Democrat judges, believes that illegal aliens are legal “migrants” who have the right of access to US courts to prevent the executive branch from deporting those who have entered our country illegally.  Soon we will be hearing from such as Boasberg that keeping illegal entrants out with border controls and a wall violates their rights and thereby gives them the right to US courts to sue for being disallowed entry.  

What we are witnessing in Boasberg is the consequence of years of teaching by US law schools that the purpose of a lawyer and a judge is not to find the truth and uphold justice, but to use law as a weapon to revolutionize American society.  Journalism schools teach their students the same: The purpose of a journalist and an editor is not to root out the facts and report the news but to create narratives that undermine the existing belief system and revolutionize society.

This has been going on in America for many years. It is part of the cultural Marxist “march through the institutions.”  The consequences are that journalists have learned to lie to support the narrative which is itself a lie, and those trained in law have learned to disrespect the Constitution and the balance of powers.  American law and journalism schools are forces for overthrowing a merit-based society and equality under law and replacing it with DEI preferences and privileges. 

The Democrat Party, which once represented the working class, has realigned itself with the illegal immigrant-invaders and the sexually perverse.  The meaning of citizenship is being destroyed.  Democrat cities and states want the franchise given to immigrant-invaders. The Biden regime issued federal IDs to immigrant-invaders.  California is willing to hire illegals with federal IDs as police officers. New York City is willing for illegals to vote in city elections, and so on.  Sexual perversion has been normalized to the point that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman.  Pedophilia is the last remaining perversion, and it is working its way toward normalization with the early sexualization of children in schools and the replacement of the term “pedophile” with “minor-attracted person,” just as homosexuals became “gays” on their route to normalization.

The cultural Marxists marched much faster and further through the Democrat Party than through the Republicans.  One of the main goals was to remove white ethnic Americans from leadership positions.  This has occurred in financial, corporate, and high tech arenas.  It was especially the case in the Biden regime’s defense appointments.

In the Biden regime the Secretary of Defense was black.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was black. The Deputy Secretary of Defense was a woman. The Chief of Naval Operations was a woman. The Secretary of the Army was a woman. The Secretary of the Navy was a Cuban-born Hispanic. The Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence was black. The Undersecretary of the Air Force was a woman. The Chief of Staff of the Secretary of Defense was a woman. The General Counsel of the Army was black. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for National Security Affairs, possibly the most important position, was a woman. Many other Assistant Secretaries and Deputy Undersecretaries of Defense were women. 

The Secretary of State was a Jew. The Secretary of the Treasury was a Jew. The Attorney General was a Jew. The Secretary of Homeland Security was a Jew. The Deputy Director of the CIA was a Jew. The Director of National Intelligence was a Jew. The White House Chief of  Staff was a Jew. The Cybersecurity Director of the National Security Agency was a Jew.  The Deputy Secretary of State was a Jew.  https://www.timesofisrael.com/all-the-jews-biden-has-tapped-for-top-roles-in-his-new-administration/

Biden’s ambassadors to Denmark, Germany, Malta, Kazakhstan, Canada, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Singapore, Norway, Paraguay, Argentina, European Union, Belgium, Japan, Portugal,  and Jordan were Jews. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-the-biden-administration 

Where were the white gentile heterosexual men? 

They were displaced by the Democrats’ DEI policy that gave preferred standing and privilege to blacks, women, Jews, and the sexually perverse over white gentile heterosexual men.  Do you remember Biden’s non-binary drag queen appointee, Sam Brinton, appointed to a Department of Energy position?

The Biden Democrats were perfectly at home with this freak.

Do you remember Biden’s transgendered admiral, also a Jew?

Why did the Democrat Biden regime rub traditional Americans noses in it?  They rubbed our noses in it to show us that we were finished, over and done with.  We found ourselves in a new world of privilege based on entitled races and unlimited genders.  No more white supremacy tools such as merit and performance.  No more sexual morality based on male-female relationships.  Today we have Democrat judges, mayors, governors alleging that illegal immigrant-invaders have the same, and even superior rights due to their DEI status, to American citizens.  The whore media agrees.

Tell me, how is Trump going to make American Great Again when almost half of the US population has a totally different idea of what it means to be great?   More will be forthcoming on this topic.

Addendum:

The activist politicized Democrat judge Boasberg, overruled by the US Supreme Court (https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-admin-scores-second-scotus-win-allowing-move-forward-deportations/?ff_source=email&ff_medium=elliance-patriot-update&ff_campaign=CAN&ff_content=2025-04-18 ), which said the Trump administration has the authority to remove the illegal aliens and which also said that Boasberg has no jurisdiction over the case because the case belongs in Texas, not D.C., alleges that “the fact that his court lacked jurisdiction over the matter does not excuse Trump administration officials from complying with his directives.” https://www.westernjournal.com/white-house-fires-back-judge-boasberg-issues-criminal-contempt-decision-trump-admin/?ff_source=email&ff_medium=elliance-patriot-update&ff_campaign=CAN&ff_content=2025-04-18 

It appears that Boasberg is so politicized that he doesn’t mind making a fool of himself if it puts out a false narrative for the white liberal press to use to demonize President Trump.

The detention of a ‘pro-Russian’ Orthodox bishop before one of the holiest days of the year is a sign of terrible things to come

On Thursday, Moldovan authorities chose to detain Bishop Marchel of the Moldovan Metropolis, a metropolitanate under the Russian Orthodox Church, at Chișinau International Airport.

Bishop Marchel was on his way to Jerusalem to bring back the Holy Fire for Easter, one of the most sacred ceremonies of the year for Orthodox believers. According to reports, he was pulled aside for a “thorough inspection” of his person and luggage, had his passport confiscated, and was not allowed to board his flight – even though nothing suspicious was ever found. His documents were only returned thirty minutes after the plane departed.

By contrast, the rival Metropolis of Bessarabia – a different Orthodox Christian church in Moldova, canonically under the Romanian Patriarchate – sent its own delegate, Bishop Filaret, on the same mission unmolested.

This isn’t an isolated outrage but rather the latest episode in a systematic campaign against anyone deemed “pro‑Russian.” On March 25, 2025, Eugenia Gutul – the democratically elected head of the Gagauz autonomy – was detained at the very same airport. Her passport was confiscated and she was held incommunicado for 72 hours on opaque “corruption and illegal financing” charges, before being put under house arrest to await trial. Two days later, opposition figure Alexei Lungu was stopped from leaving the country on murky grounds, and Viktor Petrov – another Gagauz leader – was held for hours in February after flying in from Istanbul, an arrest he claims was orchestrated by Prime Minister Recean’s office. These incidents form a clear pattern: every pro‑Russian politician, cleric or public figure is under suspicion of destabilizing “European choice” or colluding with foreign powers.

At its core, what is being played out in Moldova in regards to the Moldovan Metropolis is an attempt to hold the spiritual life of the majority hostage to a political agenda. Nearly 70 percent of Moldovans adhere to the Moldovan Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Church. By making its shepherds and representatives into targets, the government is sending a message: worship with a Romanian or European‑aligned body and you’re free to practice your faith; profess loyalty to a politically inconvenient church and you risk being treated like a criminal. This is not a security measure – it is a politicization of religion.

Worryingly, Moldova’s airport detentions echo the trajectory taken by the Kiev authorities in Ukraine. In August 2024, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law effectively banning any religious organization “affiliated with a state engaged in armed aggression” – a barely veiled reference to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC‑MP). The bill sailed through 265–29 and obliged each parish to sever ties with Moscow or face court‑ordered closure within nine months. President Zelensky hailed it as a step toward “spiritual independence,” yet by criminalizing an entire denomination, Kiev set the stage for unprecedented state intrusion into religious life.

Since then, Ukrainian authorities have moved beyond legislation to direct law‑enforcement actions: dozens of criminal investigations into UOC‑MP clerics on charges of treason and “impeding community re‑subordination” have been opened, and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has conducted raids on church offices, seizing computers and documents, sometimes without clear warrants or transparent legal basis. Places of worship themselves have been raided and forcibly “re-subordinated” to the Kiev-backed Orthodox Church of Ukraine – like when St. Michael’s Cathedral in the city of Cherkasy was attacked by armed men wearing camouflage and balaclavas. The raiders reportedly used tear gas and stun grenades against the defending believers and clerics.

Church‑owned media outlets were also stripped of their licenses for alleged “propaganda,” and countless properties – cathedrals, monasteries, parish halls – have been expropriated or blocked from use.

International observers have warned that these measures risk violating Ukraine’s human‑rights commitments. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in its December 2024 report that Ukraine’s new law “prohibits the activities of churches affiliated with Russia” and has spurred “restrictions on religious freedom” that must be carefully scrutinized under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Watch likewise cautioned that the law’s sweeping scope could “interfere with the right to freedom of religion” if applied without narrow, evidence‑based safeguards – which are evidently nowhere in sight.

Moldova’s leaders ought to take note: by emulating Kiev’s model of cultural‑spiritual engineering, they risk undermining the very social cohesion they claim to defend. When border guards become adjudicators of faith, and when police and prosecutors are deployed to silence theological allegiance, the state forfeits the moral authority to protect its citizens’ fundamental rights. Bishop Marchel’s detention – ostensibly to prevent the arrival of the Holy Fire specifically for worshippers of a church deemed “pro-Russian” – is not an isolated misjudgment but part of a broader blueprint to “de‑Russianize” society under the banner of Western integration.

It is not too late to reverse course. The Moldovan government must immediately restore Bishop Marchel’s full rights, issue a public apology, and guarantee that no member of the clergy or laity will ever again face arbitrary obstruction in practicing their faith. More broadly, Moldova needs an urgent reassessment of the policies that equate spiritual affiliation with political threat. If the authorities persist in treating believers like suspects, they will do far more damage to Moldova’s soul than any external force ever could.

Sadly, the soul of the nation doesn’t appear to be part of the equation – the only thing that matters is the pro-Western authorities grip on power.

Inflation risk has been a significant topic of discussion in the mainstream media for the last few years. Such is unsurprising given that inflation spiked following the pandemic in 2020 as consumer spending (demand) was shot into overdrive from stimulus payments and production (supply) was shuttered. To understand why that occurred, we need to revisit "Economics 101."

"In economics, inflation is a general increase in the prices of goods and services. Changes in inflation are a function of fluctuations in actual demand for goods and services (also known as demand shocks, including changes in fiscal or monetary policy or recession), changes in available supplies such as during energy crises (also known as supply shocks), or changes in inflation expectations, which may be self-fulfilling. Note that supply and demand are key facets of the inflation equation.

Basic economics states prices will be set at a level where the supply of goods or services meets consumer demand."

The economic illustration shows this basic principle taught in every “Econ 101” class. As noted, in 2020, inflation was the consequence of restricting supply and massively increasing demand.

That massive surge in stimulus sent directly to households resulted in an unprecedented spike in “savings,” creating artificial demand. As shown, the “pig in the python” effect is evident. Over the next two years, that “bulge” of excess liquidity has reverted to the previous growth trend. Given that economic growth lags behind the reversion in savings by about 12 months, we should continue to see economic growth slow into 2025. Notably, the “lag effect” is critical to the “inflation risk” thesis.

Understanding that inflation is solely a function of supply and demand, the ongoing reversal of monetary liquidity is continuing to erode economic activity. Notably, what caused the inflation spike post-2020 was not an increase in the debt or the Federal Reserve but rather the temporary increase in the money supply caused by sending checks to households. Therefore, the inflation risk will continue to subside unless the government passes a new infrastructure spending bill of massive proportions or sends another stimulus to households.

"But Lance, tariffs are inflationary."

They aren't for two reasons, and it all starts with consumer confidence.

Consumer Is The Key To Inflation Risk

I understand the basic assumption that if you impose a tax on a product, good, or service, then the "cost" of that product, good, or service will increase, hence the inflation risk. While that is perfectly logical, it excludes two crucial factors: 1) Only producers pay the "tax" from tariffs, and 2) we measure inflation (in terms of CPI) from the consumer side of the equation.

In "Tariffs Aren't An Inflation Risk," we discussed tariffs' impact on the production side of the equation.

"Post-pandemic demand surges, supply chain disruptions, and massive fiscal and monetary interventions supported those elevated margins. As evidenced by the chart below, the correlation between economic growth rates and corporate profits is high. Note that outliers of the correlation are historically related to events such as the “Financial Crisis” and post-recession economic recoveries."

Corporations react to cost increases in their business (i.e., wages, benefits, commodities, utilities, etc.), which must be factored into the selling price to maintain profitability. Crucially, corporations can only pass on higher input costs to consumers if demand remains higher than the available supply of those goods or services. In 2020 and 2021, corporations could pass on most of the inflationary increase to consumers as they were willing to spend the Government’s money. However, as excess savings run out, inflation declines as consumers decrease spending; corporate profits weaken as the ability to pass on higher input costs to customers fades. As shown, as inflation declines, the rate of change in corporate profits also weakens."

Read that bolded sentence again.

When discussing inflation risk, consumer activity drives inflationary pulses in the economy. If we use a two-year average of corporate profits minus inflation, we can visualize that impact. As shown, inflationary increases, like tariffs, are only inflationary in the economy if they can be passed onto the consumer. Inflation surged in 2020 as corporations could pass on the bulk of the cost increases to consumers flush with cash. Today, to consumers. Today, inflation is declining due to declining demand. As such, the percentage of cost increases corporations must absorb is increasing, which reduces corporate profitability but shows up in the economy as slowing inflation.

Here is the crucial point:

“Corporations don’t create inflation. They merely react to changes in demand and adjust pricing and supply to maintain profitability. When the consumer slows down, corporations cut prices to reduce supply.”

As we should expect, consumer actions, which is how we measure inflation through the consumer price index (CPI), drive inflation risk. Consumer confidence is the key to understanding whether inflation risk is present in the economy.

Consumers Lack Confidence

Despite all the commentary about tariff-related inflation risk, inflation is hard to achieve if consumers are unwilling or, more importantly, unable to pay higher prices. As noted in this past week's commentary, "Consumers Are Tapping Out," consumers show signs of deep financial stress.

"At the heart of the problem is the collapse of household balance sheets in the lower-income and middle-income brackets. These groups have depleted the excess savings accumulated during the pandemic and are turning to high-interest borrowing to bridge the gap. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve reported that the share of active credit card accounts making only minimum payments surged to 10.75% in Q3 2024—a record high. This statistic isn’t just a warning about credit health; it points to widespread cash flow stress."

Furthermore, consumer confidence in finding employment continues to erode as the economy slows. Given that employment creates income for consumption, it is difficult to expand consumption (demand) if consumers do not have a job, fear losing their jobs, or wage growth stagnates.

We can investigate this further by examining Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE), which comprise nearly 70% of the economic equation. Historically, when consumer confidence is declining, consumption also slows.

As such, it is unsurprising that inflation is tied to consumer confidence. As consumer confidence declines, the demand for goods and services also declines. The reduction in economic activity shows up in the current inflation risks.

Conclusion

Lastly, Consumer stress isn’t limited to anecdotal indicators—it shows up in corporate earnings and executive commentary. During the company’s earnings call, Doug McMillon, CEO of Walmart, stated that many customers are under “budget pressure.” They also exhibit “stressed behaviors,” including spending reductions across general merchandise. Specifically, he warned that “For many customers, the money runs out before the month does.”

Similarly, Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos painted an equally concerning picture. He described his customers as “struggling more than ever before.” Todd added that some are now forgoing non-discretionary items, like medication or hygiene products, to afford groceries and fuel. He said, “These customers are making trade-offs we haven’t seen in years.” Concurring with that warning was Jane Fraser, CEO of Citigroup. She observed that consumers are “becoming more cautious” and focusing spending on smaller, lower-cost purchases. While this signals a growing defensive posture, often associated with recessionary conditions, they are also deflationary. When consumer behavior shifts en masse from aspirational to survival-based, the ripple effects are inevitable.

The bottom line is that inflation risks are extremely muted given the rapidly slowing economic backdrop and disruption in the stock and bond markets, which also impact consumer confidence. Could that change? Yes, but such a change would require a reinstatement of stimulus checks, a surge in Government spending, and the Federal Reserve increasing monetary policy. For now, none of those are available.

The most significant risk to the economy is not the return of inflation risks but rather the collapse in consumer confidence that leads to a recession.

We may have that data showing up sooner than later.

For more in-depth analysis and actionable investment strategies, visit RealInvestmentAdvice.com. Stay ahead of the markets with expert insights tailored to help you achieve your financial goals.

The post Inflation Risk Is Subsiding Rapidly appeared first on RIA.

Have you heard? The world is going to Hell in a handbasket. Our politicians are devils, our hierarchs are often devils themselves, and Catholics are leaving the Church in droves. The media lies to us, and our institutions turn our children into post-modern pill-addicted zombies who can’t be happy in a society where they lack no creature comfort. Marriages are failing, and a lot of men are…

Source

The US secretary of state has suggested that the White House could abandon efforts to settle the conflict if it doesn’t see progress in the coming days

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that Washington could abandon efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict if it believes Moscow and Kiev are incapable of negotiating.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Rubio commented on a meeting with representatives from Ukraine, France, Britain, and Germany in Paris the day before. He stated that while the talks on the Ukraine conflict were “constructive and helpful,” the White House is still waiting to see if a peace deal is “doable.”

Asked to comment on the ongoing negotiations, the secretary of state refused to comment on what is being discussed, but called it a “broad framework.”

He acknowledged that there will inevitably be differences between Russia and Ukraine, and that “no one is saying that this is going to get done in 12 hours.”

He explained that the US wants to see “whether those differences can even be narrowed and if it’s even possible to get movement within the period of time we have in mind.”

“We need to figure out here, now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term, because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio said, adding that “this isn’t going to go on forever.”

Russian officials have expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a ceasefire with Ukraine, claiming that Kiev and its backers in Europe are actively undermining US peace efforts.

Moscow’s UN representative, Vassily Nebenzia, recently said that Kiev has repeatedly failed to adhere to a US-mediated moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure.

He added that the West’s record of using purported peace deals to build up the Ukrainian military means that expectations for a full ceasefire are “simply unrealistic at this stage.”

The final agreement is expected to be sealed next week, US President Donald Trump has said

The US and Ukraine have signed a preliminary outline of a rare-earths deal, a senior official in Kiev has said. The potential agreement – which the US views as a way to return money spent on assistance to Kiev in the conflict with Moscow – could be signed as early as next week.

The announcement was made on Friday by Yulia Sviridenko, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister and minister of the economy.

“We are happy to announce the signing, with our American partners, of a Memorandum of Intent, which paves the way for an Economic Partnership Agreement and the establishment of the Investment Fund for the Reconstruction of Ukraine,” she wrote.

The minister, however, did not disclose any details of the document, and did not say how the fund would be sourced.

Sviridenko called the document “the result of the professional work of the negotiating teams” during talks last week. “We continue to work on the Agreement itself. There is a lot to do, but the current pace and significant progress give reason to expect that the document will be very beneficial for both countries,” she added.

Meanwhile, Trump has suggested that the final resource deal could be signed as early as next week. “We have a minerals deal which I guess is going to be signed ... next Thursday. And I assume they’re going to live up to the deal. So we’ll see. But we have a deal on that.”

Washington and Kiev have been discussing a deal for weeks that would grant the US access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare-earth minerals. The Trump administration insists that the agreement should be used to compensate the US for past aid to Ukraine. Kiev, however, has maintained that the US assistance was provided unconditionally.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that the US brought down the assessment of its assistance to Kiev from more than $300 billion to around $100 billion, but still sees it as a tool to recoup financial losses. The Trump team has also been reluctant to commit to future investments in the joint fund, which has been one of Kiev’s priorities, the agency’s sources claimed.

The sides were poised to sign a deal in late February, with a ceremony expected to take place during a visit to the White House by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. The event, however, devolved into a public spat, with Trump accusing Zelensky of disrespecting America and not being grateful for the US aid provided to Ukraine, while also being reluctant to seek peace with Russia and “gambling with World War III.”

Eight Miles High
April 18 2025

___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments

Mystical Supper Icon, All Saints Russian Orthodox Church, Las Vegas.

Look: you have never seen all these priests and deacons at one Mass.

I realize that this is a change: having Holy Thursday Mass together. 

And it may take some getting used to. 

But, if you and I are truly a family, then – like every family – 

There are moments when we’re busy in different ways.

Yet on certain occasions, it is necessary that we come together as one.

Tonight is one of only two times in the whole year

when the Church insists a parish has just a single Mass together – 

the other will be two nights from now, the Vigil of Easter.

Let’s peel back the layers of what we’re doing here.

The first reading describes the Passover, 

celebrated by the Jewish People. 

The lamb was one year old and “without blemish”; 

it was obtained several days before and lived with the family.  

Why is this important? 

This points to Jesus, who became a member of the Jewish household, 

a member of the human family.

Then, with the whole assembly present, the lamb was slaughtered. 

When we come to church tomorrow, what do we recall?

Jesus is crucified with the whole assembly present.

The blood of the lamb is then spread over the doorposts.

This is protection from divine judgment. 

By the way: when you and I are baptized, 

that’s when the blood of the Lamb covers us! 

When we fall back into mortal sin, confession renews it.

And then after the lamb is sacrificed, its flesh was eaten. 

This was necessary to complete the sacrifice.

But only those who were members of the household could eat the lamb.

So, this is why only those baptized 

and who have chosen to join themselves to the household – 

that is, the Church – and who are also in a state of grace,

receive Holy Communion at Mass. 

While the lamb is central to the Passover,

Notice the accounts of Jesus’ Last Supper never mention a lamb.

Why not? Because HE is the lamb!

Instead, he takes the bread, and says, 

“this is my body, given up for you.” 

And of course, there was a cup of wine.

But did you realize there were four cups of wine.

The first was called the “cup of sanctification,” 

and the father began the meal with a prayer, over this cup, 

and the food is brought to the table.

The second was the cup of “proclamation” – 

it was prepared, but not drunk right away; 

because while the food was on the table,

the father would tell the account of what God did 

for his people who were slaves in Egypt.

By the way, when these events were “remembered,”

the understanding was that in remembering, you were present!

You were actually brought there spiritually, through the meal.

So, when Jesus tells the Apostles, “do this in memory of me,”

two things:

That reveals he made a plan for each of us to be part of his Passover.

Jesus planned for what we call Holy Mass,

and for priests to offer this sacrifice.

And second, our “remembering” here, 1,995 years later,

likewise makes you and me truly present: 

in the Upper Room, at Calvary, at the empty tomb.

It happens not because we want it; but because he wants it!

Now, back to the Passover.

After everyone ate, the father would share the third cup, 

called the “cup of blessing.” 

And Saint Paul just told us that this was the cup Jesus took up, 

and said, “This is my Blood.”

I said earlier there were four, where’s the last one?

Tomorrow, you and I will hear these words in the Gospel of John:

After this…Jesus said, “I thirst.”

There was a vessel filled with common wine….

They put a sponge soaked in wine…up to his mouth. 

When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” 

And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.

So, we don’t finish this Mass tonight. No final blessing.

We do go on a procession – to a special altar – recalling the Garden.

Let me share something very special 

about how Father Manning arranged this church.

By the way, Father Jim wanted to be here 

for this first gathering tonight as a family. 

He was a huge part of the work that brought us together.

Now, notice: the window to your left shows Melchizedek and Abraham. 

That meeting foreshadows the Holy Mass, 

and it’s referenced in the Eucharistic Prayer.

Look over to your right: that shows the Apostles 

gathered with Jesus on the night before his death. This night!

There’s still another detail I want to share with you.

In Jesus’ time, when the lamb was prepared for the meal, 

in order to roast it, do you know how they did it? 

They took two skewers, made of wood. 

One was speared through the torso, from head to tail. 

The other was speared through both shoulders. A cross.

Tomorrow we will worship the Cross on which our Savior, 

our Lamb of God, was slain. 

Tonight is our Passover. It begins tonight. 

There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death.  And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left… Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”  But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?  And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”  Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:32-33, 39-43, NKJV)

The second man has come to be known as the “good thief” or the “penitent thief,” because his words indicate repentance.  His reference to fear of God evinces a reverent attitude.  His acknowledgement that, in being put to death, he is receiving his just deserts shows that he ultimately put righteousness above the goods of this life.  His plea to Christ indicates faith that Jesus was who he claimed to be, and could secure for him an eternal reward. 

The first man has come to be known as the “impenitent thief,” because his words indicate the opposite of repentance.  He is not reverent, but mocking.  He shows no concern about whether his punishment is deserved and ought to be accepted, but worries only about saving his life.  He doubts and perhaps dismisses altogether the idea that Jesus really is the Christ, and evinces no hope for the hereafter. 

The penitent thief was saved, and it stands to reason that the impenitent thief was damned.  Indeed, in his treatment of the significance of the two thieves, Thomas Aquinas writes:

As Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Passione): “Two thieves were crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, to set forth by the very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made in His hour of judgment.”  And Augustine on John 7:36: “The very cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the judge being set in the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who mocked Him was condemned.  Already He has signified what He shall do to the quick and the dead; some He will set on His right, others on His left hand.” (Summa Theologiae III.46.11)

We are used to hearing, in the story of the good thief, reassurance that salvation is possible even for the worst of us, and even until the point of death.  And it is indeed that.  We are perhaps less used to thinking of the story of the two thieves as also a warning about damnation.  But that is how saints Leo, Augustine, and Thomas understood it. 

Now, Christ explicitly promises Paradise to the one thief, but we are not told whether he said anything to the other.  Is it possible that the apparently impenitent thief may also have repented before death?  Interestingly, Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 speak of both thieves reviling Jesus, whereas Luke has one of them reviling him and the other rebuking the first.  Commenting on this fact, St. Ambrose suggests that “perhaps this other at first reviled, but was suddenly converted” (as quoted in Aquinas’s Catena Aurea).  But Ambrose does not suggest that the bad thief too may have repented, and if anything the scriptural evidence implies the opposite.  Judging just from Matthew and Mark, you’d think neither of them repented.  If Luke is essentially telling us that reviling Christ was not in fact the end of the story in the case of one of the thieves, it would be bizarre if he didn’t also mention that it was not the end of the story in the case of the other one.

In any event, Ambrose goes on to say that “mystically, the two thieves represent the two sinful people who were to be crucified by baptism with Christ (Rom. 6:3), whose disagreement likewise represents the difference of believers.”  He appears to mean that the good and bad thieves represent, respectively, those among the baptized who persevere in righteousness until death, and those among the baptized who fall away.

If this is so, then the story of the two thieves gives us, as Aquinas says, a foreshadowing of the Last Judgment, and the eternal salvation or damnation of those judged.  Each of us will share the fate of either the good thief or the bad thief, and as with them, which destiny we face will not be a settled matter until we draw our last breath.  The story of the two thieves thus does indeed provide grounds for hope, but also a grave warning against presumption. 

Related posts:

The meaning of the Passion

The meaning of the Resurrection

Damnation roundup