Grace-lessness or Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Archpriest Vitalii Kuzmych, Member of the Sophia Brotherhood

In the modern world, where the flow of information seems limitless, we often rely on claims that appear indisputable. Yet it is worth asking: how well-founded are these claims? Do some of them not reduce to prejudices, stereotypes, or myths that are passed down from generation to generation or spread through the media?

This article is devoted to examining how easily we may take false or distorted information for truth and then build life principles, views, and decisions upon it. Here we propose to consider one of the myths about “absence of grace” and “lack of apostolic succession” among clerics who were outside canonical communion with the Universal Orthodox Church, as well as whether the Ecumenical Patriarch had the right to receive them in their existing orders. Thus, this short article is primarily intended to separate facts from inventions, for recognizing one’s own biases is the first step toward a deeper knowledge of oneself and of the surrounding world.

The impetus for writing this article was the numerous mythical assertions circulating online concerning the apostolic succession of the clerics of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and the question of whether the Ecumenical Patriarch had the right to receive them in their existing orders. Let us therefore try together to discern where the truth lies and where manipulative fabrications begin.

Thesis: The UOC–KP and UAOC had no canonical recognition from any of the Local Orthodox Churches before 2018.

Assessment: This statement is true. Prior to the granting of the Tomos of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) in 2019 (the decision to create which was taken in 2018), the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC–KP) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) were indeed not recognized by any canonical Local Orthodox Church, since they remained outside the bounds of World Orthodoxy.

Thesis: Filaret (Denysenko) was deprived of his orders and excommunicated from the Church (to which he belonged), therefore his subsequent ordinations cannot be considered canonical, and likewise the ordinations of the UAOC.

Assessment: In assessing this assertion, it is important to note that one of the main factors for recognizing or not recognizing the validity of ordinations is apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is a key element of the canonicity of any Orthodox hierarchy, since it ensures the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority from the apostles to contemporary bishops. In the case of Metropolitan Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko), his apostolic succession derives from the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), where he was consecrated Bishop of Luga on 4 February 1962. He subsequently held various posts, including Metropolitan of Kyiv and Halych, Exarch of Ukraine of the ROC. In 1992, after the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence, he initiated the creation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC–KP), which united a portion of the parishes of the UOC and of the UAOC.

Metropolitan Makarii (Meletych) and the hierarchs of the UAOC likewise possess canonical apostolic succession from the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church—specifically from Metropolitan Dionysius (Valedynskyi) through Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk)—as well as from the ROC through Bishop Ioann (Bondarchuk) and Metropolitan Filaret (Denysenko). For lack of space, and so as not to overload this article with information, those wishing to delve deeper into the episcopal tree of apostolic succession of the UAOC hierarchs are directed to the articles of Bishop Havryil (Kryzyna), “From Mstyslav to Makarii: The Apostolic Succession of the UAOC”¹, and of Archpriest Serhii Horbik, “A Historical Inquiry into the First Episcopal Consecration of the UAOC”².

Having established that the hierarchs of the former UAOC and UOC–KP have unbroken canonical apostolic succession of ordinations, let us turn to the question of the anathema pronounced upon Metropolitan Filaret (Denysenko) and the background to all these events, for without understanding this it will be difficult to grasp the logic of subsequent developments.

In November 1991, the Local Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) appealed to the Moscow Patriarchate for the granting of autocephaly, believing that this would promote the strengthening of Orthodox unity in Ukraine and the resolution of internal church issues; in January 1992, the UOC episcopate repeated its appeal to the Moscow Patriarchate, insisting on an urgent consideration of the issue of autocephaly³.

It is noteworthy that the episcopate unanimously supported the idea of UOC autocephaly, but within a few days—after intervention by the Moscow Patriarchate and under pressure from then-Patriarch Alexy II (Ridiger) and the security services—some bishops withdrew their signatures. The first to do so were Bishops Onufrii (Berezovskyi), Serhii (Hensytskyi), and Alipii (Pohrebniak).

This appeal testifies to the UOC’s striving for independence and self-governance from the early 1990s. Yet in June 1992 Metropolitan Filaret was removed from the post of Metropolitan of Kyiv, after which he initiated the creation of the UOC–KP. This was perceived by the ROC as a schism. The ROC first deprived him of his orders (June 1992) and in 1997 pronounced an anathema, i.e., excommunication. The decision was based on charges of disobedience, schism, and violation of his oath.

Metropolitan Filaret, however, asserted that his removal and the subsequent anathema were politically, not canonically, motivated. The UOC–KP and its supporters considered the ROC’s decision uncanonical and politically driven, aimed, in their view, at preserving Moscow’s jurisdiction over Ukraine. Metropolitan Filaret’s position on this matter is set out more fully in “The Uncanonicity of the Moscow Anathema upon His Holiness the Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’–Ukraine Filaret”⁴.

In light of the above and following petitions for appeal, on 11 October 2018 the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate considered the appeals of Metropolitan Filaret (Denysenko) and Metropolitan Makarii (Maletych), who had previously been cut off from the Church. The Synod decided to receive and examine their appeals, since they had fallen into schism not for dogmatic reasons, in accordance with the canonical prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to accept such appeals from hierarchs and other clergy of all autocephalous Churches. Thus, they were canonically restored to their episcopal rank and returned to communion with the Church.

The consideration of the appeals was made possible on the basis of archival acts of 1686 which, according to the interpretation of the Phanar, did not provide for a full transfer of Kyiv to Moscow. For those wishing a deeper dive into the history of this document, see the article by Candidate of Historical Sciences Vira Chentsova, “The Missing Charter: On What Is Autocephaly Based?”⁵.

In brief, this study examines historical documents concerning the transfer of the Metropolis of Kyiv under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686. The author emphasizes that the original Greek texts of these documents, long considered lost, were found in an Athenian manuscript collection in 2015.

Chentsova stresses that these documents testify to a temporary right of administration over the Kyiv Metropolis by the Moscow patriarch, on the condition of preserving the commemoration of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and not to a transfer of jurisdiction—even a temporary one. She also notes that the annulment by the Ecumenical Patriarch of the 1686 charter opened the way for granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

It is likewise significant that, according to the canons, the Ecumenical Patriarchate serves as the highest instance of ecclesiastical court for bishops and clergy who believe they have been unjustly condemned or whose rights have been violated within another Church—i.e., the ecclesiastical form of an “appeals court.” Not all patriarchs possess such a right; it belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople as first among equals. This is part of his “primacy of honor,” which has not only a symbolic but also a functional character.

The canonical basis for the primacy and the right of appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch rests on the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, namely: Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (381): “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because this city is New Rome.”

This canon recognizes Constantinople (New Rome) as second after Rome in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is not merely a place of honor: from this point the Patriarch of Constantinople acquired special ecclesiastical-administrative weight, since his see was in the imperial capital. Byzantine tradition interpreted this as grounds for broader privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarch, including in matters of appeal.

Also relevant are Canons 9 and 17 and especially Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451): “Following in all respects the decrees of the holy Fathers, we also decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, New Rome… so that, in ecclesiastical matters, it shall be equal to Old Rome and enjoy equal privileges, holding the second place after it… Accordingly, the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, as well as the bishops of the barbarian lands, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople….”

From all the above it follows that the decisions of the Second and Fourth Ecumenical Councils form the canonical foundation of the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church. According to these decisions, he has primacy of honor and certain administrative and judicial privileges—among them, the right to receive appeals and to intervene in the affairs of other Churches in defined cases. It should also be noted that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils may be altered only by a subsequent Ecumenical Council, and it is precisely this foundation to which the Ecumenical Patriarchate appealed in 2018 in addressing the situation in Ukraine—specifically, in lifting the anathemas and granting autocephaly to the OCU.

Thesis: The absence of grace in the “sacraments” of schismatic structures. According to Orthodox teaching, the grace of the Holy Spirit acts in the Church through lawful hierarchical ministry. If the hierarchy is uncanonical, then the sacraments it performs cannot be considered grace-bearing—ordination included. St Cyprian of Carthage held that outside the Church there are no sacraments, for there is no source of grace.

Assessment: This claim rests on the theological views of St Cyprian of Carthage, which were later re-interpreted by the Church in the persons of St Basil the Great, St John Chrysostom, and other Fathers. The Church began to apply oikonomia (a merciful, pastoral accommodation) to certain structures that were formally outside canonical unity but preserved the apostolic tradition and apostolic succession of ordinations.

This made it possible not to repeat baptisms and ordinations if the sacrament had been performed correctly and the hierarchy had apostolic succession—to recognize grace among “schismatics” who sincerely return to the Church.

An example of such reception according to oikonomia may be seen in Antioch in 362 in the schism between the followers of Meletius of Antioch and of Paulinus. Both sides professed the Orthodox faith but were administratively divided. At the Council of Alexandria (362), with St Athanasius the Great and St Basil the Great participating, it was resolved to receive clergy and faithful from both sides without re-baptism or re-ordination if they maintained the confession of faith.

St John Chrysostom reconciled these groups without repeating the sacraments; as Archbishop of Constantinople he repeatedly received clergy and laity who had been in schism or had temporarily fallen away from unity with the Church, restoring them without new ordination when there was no dogmatic deviation and apostolic succession of ordinations had been preserved. Among such were clergy from the Meletian party in the Antiochene schism, whom he received into communion without re-ordination; those from the party of Bishop Paulinus were also received without new ordination, provided they agreed with the Church in dogma.

Another example of oikonomia is the reception of the Donatists. In most cases they were not re-ordained when returning to unity with the Orthodox Church. The Donatists were not dogmatic heretics; they believed in the Holy Trinity, held the correct Creed, and administered the sacraments in proper form. Their problem lay in ecclesiology—they held that sacraments could be valid only when performed by “pure” clergy and rejected the ministry of those who had shown weakness in times of persecution. St Augustine of Hippo, their chief opponent, nonetheless consistently defended in his writings (especially Against the Letter of Parmenian) the validity of Donatist baptisms and ordinations when performed canonically (in form and in faith). At the Council of Carthage (411), after three days of debate between Orthodox and Donatists, the council supported Augustine’s position: the Donatists were not condemned as heretics but only as schismatics; their sacraments were not repeated, and those who returned remained in their orders if they had been ordained canonically.

In the 20th–21st centuries, Local Churches recognized the sacraments of former schismatics in Bulgaria and Romania without requiring re-ordinations.

These examples show that schism—even prolonged—does not necessarily annul the validity of sacraments when the faith is not distorted and the form is preserved.

Accordingly, the claim that “schismatic structures have no grace and their sacraments are invalid” is an extreme position that does not accord with the canonical and historical practice of the Orthodox Church.

As noted repeatedly above, Church history contains many precedents for receiving those from schism with full recognition of their sacraments. It should also be noted that, according to Apostolic Canon 68, it is forbidden to ordain someone twice to the same sacred order:

“If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon is ordained a second time, let both the one who ordained and the one who was ordained be deposed—except in the case where the first ordination was by heretics.”

That is, ordination cannot be repeated unless the first was performed by heretics or outside the Church without apostolic succession. This rule is one of the reasons why the Church has often received hierarchs from schisms without re-ordination, by oikonomia.

It is also noteworthy that those who today refuse to recognize the ordinations of former clergy of the UAOC and UOC–KP—demanding, contrary to the canons and Church history, repeated ordinations—turn a blind eye to the historical fact that in 1946 the ROC absorbed all the parishes of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, along with clergy and faithful, without repeating ordinations and even without performing the rite of reception into the Orthodox faith from the Trebnyk (Euchologion).

To summarize: the question of a Church’s canonicity and grace-bearing character is not reduced merely to formal participation in unity; it requires a deeper understanding of Church law, canonical tradition, and pastoral oikonomia. The Ecumenical Patriarch acted within his canonical competencies when he recognized the apostolic succession and ecclesial validity of the sacraments of the hierarchs of the UOC–KP and the UAOC. Assertions of their “absence of grace” are theologically unfounded and contradict both the Church’s historical practice and the Orthodox understanding of the operation of grace, which is not restricted by formal boundaries but is active where true faith is preserved. The 2019 Tomos for the OCU clearly recognized its hierarchy, bringing it out of isolation; therefore the Church, by oikonomia, acknowledged the efficacy of ordinations performed during the schism.