Where did the grace in the OCU come from?
A former UOC-KP cleric said he was received to the Fanar as a layman through ordination in 2004. He now asks why his fellow clerics were recognized as canonical in 2018.
Father Tarasiy Petruniak, a priest of the Spanish and Portuguese metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, gave an interview to "Dialog.tut" that has left many supporters of the OCU taken aback. And no wonder.
He revealed that in 2004, when he was still a cleric in the Kyiv Patriarchate, he was accepted into the clergy of the Ecumenical Church as a layman, through ordination. The Phanar justified this by stating that his "ordination" by Filaret was "not filled with the Holy Spirit". Why, he sincerely wonders, were the clerics of the UOC-KP and UAOC in 2018 called canonical priests on the Phanar? After all, their "ordination" was no different from his?
In this regard, Father Tarasiy poses a completely fair question: "At what moment were the ordinations of the former Kyiv Patriarchate filled with grace?"
"If they were filled with the Holy Spirit from the very beginning, then I should be deprived of the priesthood as a twice ordained priest (as the canons of the Church require – Ed.). If the ordinations of the representatives of the UOC-KP were invalid, just like mine, why weren't they accepted into the bosom of Constantinople as laypeople?" asks the priest.
And Father Tarasiy's question is indeed very serious; it is worth periodically putting it before those who call members of the OCU a part of the Church of Christ and count on "dialogue" with them. After all, a Ukrainian priest of the Phanar has simply updated the shock and bewilderment of the Local Orthodox Churches when Patriarch Bartholomew suddenly named people without ordination canonical bishops and presbyters.
The issue of the validity of ordinations within the OCU was raised by the Local Orthodox Churches and individual hierarchs long before it became known that the Ecumenical Patriarchate had decided to grant the Ukrainian schismatics a Tomos.
But before recalling the position of the Synods and Church hierarchs, there are a few introductory remarks to be made.
The Phanar and Denisenko's "ordinations" before the Tomos
Serhiy Dumenko, who currently heads the OCU, was "ordained" by Filaret Denisenko. Denisenko himself, at that time, was not only deprived of his priestly rank but was also anathematized. This anathema was recognized by all Local Orthodox Churches, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
On April 15, 1997, in response to the notification of the anathematization of Filaret by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew sent a letter to Patriarch Alexy of Moscow, in which he wrote, "Upon receiving the notification of the mentioned decision (anathema against Denisenko and Gleb Yakunin, as well as the defrocking of several former hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church who joined the schism), we communicated it to the hierarchy of our Ecumenical See and requested that henceforth there be no ecclesiastical communion with the mentioned individuals."
Refusing ecclesiastical communion means agreeing with the decision of anathema. From 1997 until 2018, neither Bartholomew nor any other canonical hierarch raised the issue of the invalidity of this anathema.
The second point is that an anathematized person is outside the Church and therefore cannot ordain anyone. This axiom is known to all hierarchs, including Denisenko. For example, in 2019, Filaret said in an interview with Ukrainian Radio, "If the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted the anathema from me in 2018, does that mean I was under anathema before 2018, or not? If I was under anathema, it means that all these bishops of the OCU are invalid. And Epifaniy is not just a metropolitan; he's not even a priest. If the Ecumenical Patriarch lifted the anathema from me in 2018, then the entire episcopate is invalid."
And Filaret is absolutely correct in this case; the entire episcopate of the OCU does not have canonical ordination and, therefore, is invalid.
There is another point to remember. Immediately after the war in 1945, a significant part of Ukrainian autocephalists emigrated to the United States, where they were led by the self-proclaimed bishop Ivan Teodorovych. In 1949, he and his deputy Mstyslav Skrypnyk were reordained by two canonical bishops of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in the United States. However, until 1995 (when their structure "UOC in the USA" entered the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate), their status was not canonically defined. It was in this awkward status that its representative, Mstyslav Skrypnyk, reordained the same "bishops" whom the regular bishop of the ROC, Ioann (Bondarchuk), together with the deacon prohibited by the ROC, V. Chekalin, had "ordained" for the UOC-KP. Filaret reordained these same "bishops" again when he himself was already in schism, doubting the canonicity of Mstyslav's ordinations.
But that's not all. As we mentioned earlier, in 1995, the "UOC in the USA" entered the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But how did this happen? Through reordinations.
The resource "Sedmitsa" writes: "In 1995, Konstantin (Bahan) and the schismatic structure led by him submitted a request to the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to accept them under the omophorion of Patriarch Bartholomew. On March 12, 1995, the Synod of the Constantinople Church granted this request. After that, the hierarchs and clergy of the former 'Metropolitanate' of the UAOC in the USA were reordained, although this happened without any public announcement. Konstantin (Bahan) subsequently received the title of Metropolitan of Irinoupolis and was appointed to head the autonomous Metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the USA."
Therefore, as we can see from the examples provided above, the absence of canonical ordinations for Ukrainian schismatics did not raise any questions for anyone; they were ordained even in cases of minor doubts.
How surprised was the global Orthodoxy when the Ecumenical Patriarchate first lifted the anathema from Filaret and then, "by oikonomia," accepted all Ukrainian schismatics as fully ordained! This is precisely why the majority of Local Orthodox Churches categorically refused to recognize the OCU after the granting of the Tomos. Let's turn to specific examples.
The Phanar and "ordinations" of the OCU after the Tomos
For example, the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church requested from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to "clarify the problem of non-canonical hierarchs and priests who belonged to the former 'Kyiv Patriarchate.'"
The Synod of the Albanian Church expressed an even stronger position: "How can we, according to oikonomia, recognize these ordinations as having the grace of the Holy Spirit when all these ordinations (of schismatics – Ed.) were blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?... It is impossible to retrospectively recognize ordinations performed by Filaret Denisenko, who was excommunicated and anathematized, as valid, devoid of grace and the action of the Holy Spirit."
The Synod of the Cypriot Church also expressed a very clear view: "The 2000-year history of both the Cypriot Church and the entire Orthodox Church calls into question the possibility of legalizing sacraments performed by bishops who were defrocked, excommunicated from the Church, and anathematized."
Furthermore, many clergy of the Greek Orthodox Church also voiced their perspective on the issue of the "ordinations" of the OCU. According to their statements, there has been "no convincing response regarding the canonically non-existent 'sacred orders' of the new church."
The monastics of Mount Athos also pointed that the "episcopal ordination" of Makary Maletich cannot be considered valid, as well as the subsequent "ordinations" of other schismatic "bishops."
What is most interesting is that even within the OCU itself, they are well aware that the majority of their "bishops" lack any valid ordinations. For example, the former hierarch of the UOC, Metropolitan Simeon (Shostatsky), stated that he had proposed to Patriarch Bartholomew to reordain the "hierarchs" of the OCU, but the Patriarch refused.
Similar claims were made by the former Metropolitan of the UOC, Oleksandr Drabinko, who stated that if it were not for his "impeccable canonical integrity," there would not have been a Tomos (from these words, one can infer that Drabinko believes that his colleagues in the OCU do not possess such "integrity").
Conclusions
Numerous statements, both from individual hierarchs and the Synods of various Orthodox Churches (such as the Polish, Serbian, and Macedonian Churches), make it clear that there are no canonical ordinations for the representatives of the OCU. Where could they come from if this structure was initially established by a person excommunicated from the Church?
On the other hand, the non-canonical nature of all "sacraments" performed by representatives of the OCU should not only be remembered by the hierarchs of other Orthodox Churches who participate in joint worship with them, but also by laypeople and anyone within the UOC who considers possible "trade-off" with the OCU.
Until the issue of the "ordinations" of Dumenko and his associates is resolved, all compromises are self-deception and a departure from Christ's Church. The solution to this problem is clearly and explicitly laid out in the resolutions of the Local Council of the Ukrainian Church on May 27, 2022: "To recognize the canonicity of the hierarchy of the OCU, it is necessary to restore the apostolic succession of its bishops." In the current situation, this restoration is only possible through the ordination of all members of the OCU who, through repentance, desire to return to unity with the Body of Christ.
Furthermore, for most believers, all these intricacies about correct or incorrect ordinations are abstract and detached concepts. However, the actions of OCU members that they witness firsthand are very concrete. The widespread falsehood, hatred, violence, mass seizures of churches where Dumenko's clerics cut locks, break down doors with hammers — all of this is far from abstract; it vividly demonstrates that these individuals lack the seal of the Holy Spirit. They are not Christ's.
As Father Tarasiy Petruniak was succinctly addressed by the Phanar, "Your ordination is not filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit."
