Archpriest Vitalii Kuzmych, Member of the Sophia Brotherhood
This article is a logical continuation and supplement to the previous study, “Grace-lessness or Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”, which examined the legitimacy of the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch concerning the annulment of the anathema imposed on Metropolitan Filaret and the acceptance of the clergy of the UOC KP and UAOC in their existing rank. In this article, the question of apostolic succession will be analyzed in greater detail, and we will also attempt to refute the widespread myths about the gracelessness and non-canonicity of these hierarchs, grounding our arguments in historical-theological and canonical principles, which makes it possible to understand more deeply the process of restoring church unity in Ukraine.
In this article, we will provide a more detailed analysis of the canonical and theological foundations of apostolic succession, applying them to the specific situation in Ukraine. Special attention will be given to the theological significance of recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to the decision of the Synod of Constantinople of October 11, 2018, as well as to the practice of admitting to communion those who performed sacraments during a period of schism. We will also consider the extent to which apostolic succession, preserved in form, attains its fullness only in canonical communion, which is the condition of true ecclesiality.
It is important to note that for the recognition or non-recognition of the validity of ordinations in the Orthodox tradition, one of the key factors is the profession of the faith of the Orthodox Church, along with the continuity of apostolic succession.
Apostolic succession is not merely a formal attribute, but a theological confirmation that a bishop acts within the same grace-filled vertical that originates from the apostles themselves. It guarantees that the sacraments celebrated by such a bishop belong to the same sacramental fullness that was entrusted to the Church by Christ and preserved through ordination within the catholic unity.
Therefore, let us consider the presence of apostolic succession in the hierarchs of the UOC KP.
Great — let us continue with the next part of the translation. I will pick up where we stopped (on the case of Metropolitan Filaret and the UOC KP), and then move into the section on the UAOC and its historical development.
In the case of the former Metropolitan of Kyiv, Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko), his apostolic succession has an indisputable foundation: he was consecrated Bishop of Luhsk on February 4, 1962, within the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, his consecration was performed by canonical hierarchs within a recognized ecclesiastical structure that was in full communion with the entire Orthodox world. The apostolic succession that he received within the ROC was never questioned by any of the Local Churches, even despite subsequent disputes concerning his ecclesiastical status after the self-proclamation of the Kyiv Patriarchate1.
One of the key theses of the opponents of recognizing the ordinations performed by Bishop Filaret is the assertion that he was defrocked and excommunicated from the Church, and therefore all ordinations performed by him afterwards should be considered invalid.
However, the term “defrocking” does not mean the loss of apostolic succession, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). In the Orthodox Church, there is the understanding that ordination leaves an indelible spiritual imprint. Apostolic Canon 29 states: “A cleric who has fallen into sin must be deposed, but this does not mean that he loses the very gift of the priesthood — he loses the right to serve.”
Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite, interpreting Apostolic Canon 68, notes that ordination is not repeated, since it is carried out in the image of Christ the High Priest, who once and for all entered into the Holy of Holies. He acknowledges that ordination is not repeated, and the priesthood does not disappear even in the case of excommunication.
A similar precedent of recognizing ordinations and sacraments performed by a clergyman who had been defrocked can be observed in the history of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, where, in 1992, after the fall of the communist regime, a crisis of trust began toward Patriarch Maxim, who was considered by many to have been elected under government pressure. In response, a group of hierarchs, supported by the state, created the “Alternative Synod,” headed by Metropolitan Pimen (Enev), who was declared a schismatic and even defrocked. Nevertheless, Pimen consecrated bishops who later (after the schism was overcome) were recognized by the Bulgarian Synod without re-ordinations. This in fact meant the recognition of ordinations performed by a person who had been officially defrocked — a situation close to what happened with Filaret after the anathema2.
If the situation regarding the apostolic succession of the hierarchy of the UOC KP is generally clear — since it traces its line of uninterrupted ordinations from Bishop Filaret Denysenko, consecrated within the Russian Orthodox Church — the episcopal line of the hierarchs of the UAOC requires more careful study, given the complex and fragmented history of its formation.
The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) is a unique phenomenon in the history of Ukrainian religious life, having been revived more than once on the waves of national revival and the aspiration for spiritual identity. The UAOC has a complex and at times contradictory history, in which the issue of canonicity has always occupied a central place. The activities of the three “formations” of the UAOC took place in conditions of acute political instability, national revival, and at the same time harsh pressure from external ecclesiastical centers — particularly the Moscow Patriarchate.
The First Revival (1919–1930): Self-Proclamation in the Conditions of Revolution
The first revival of the UAOC falls within the period of the Ukrainian Revolution and the formation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. The year 1919 was marked by the beginning of a movement to create an Orthodox Church in Ukraine independent of Moscow. The culmination of this process was the All-Ukrainian Council of 1921 in Kyiv, at which the autocephaly of the UAOC was proclaimed and the priest Vasyl Lypkivsky was elected “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.”
The principal canonical problem was the procedure of episcopal consecrations. Because of the absence of bishops who were prepared to support the movement toward freeing the Ukrainian Church from the ROC, Lypkivsky’s consecration was performed by the so-called “conciliar rite,” with the participation of priests and laity, without bishops. This act, although motivated by national and pastoral considerations, did not correspond to the established canons of the universal Orthodoxy, which require that consecrations be performed by bishops who possess uninterrupted apostolic succession.
For example, Apostolic Canon 1 states:
“A bishop is to be ordained by two or three bishops.”3
Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council (325) states:
“It is most fitting that a bishop be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is not possible … then at least three should assemble, and the absent should give their assent in writing; and then the ordination may be performed.”4
Canon 13 of the local Council of Carthage states:
“Many bishops having gathered should ordain a bishop, and in case of necessity three bishops.”5
Canon 60 of the same council requires:
“Let less than three bishops not be considered sufficient for the ordination of a bishop.”5
Precisely because of the absence of apostolic succession in the episcopal consecrations, the UAOC of the first revival was never recognized by any Local Church and was treated as non-canonical. In spite of this, it played a major role in forming national church consciousness among Ukrainians.
The second revival of the UAOC took place during the period of German occupation in the Second World War. The initiator of the restoration was Archbishop Polikarp Sikorsky. In 1942 a Council was held in the city of Pinsk that initiated a new canonical hierarchy.
Unlike the first revival, this time the consecrations of new bishops were performed by canonical bishops who possessed apostolic succession—particularly from the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which had received a Tomos of autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate back in 1924. This provided grounds to consider the hierarchy of the second revival of the UAOC as canonical. However, the complex political situation, the context of the Nazi regime, and the absence of a permanent ecclesiastical center led to a rapid decline after 1944.
Despite its short duration, the UAOC of the second revival succeeded in performing consecrations of several bishops, some of whom later found themselves in Western Europe, North America, and Canada, forming the basis of the UAOC in the diaspora and, a little later, joining the third revival of the UAOC in Ukraine6.
The third revival of the UAOC, which fell at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, became an important milestone in the history of the struggle for the independence of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. One of the key events of this period was the first episcopal consecrations, which became the foundation for the further institutional development of the Church and its formation as a separate ecclesiastical structure.
One of the principal accusations by the Russian Orthodox Church against the episcopate of the third revival of the UAOC was the alleged absence of apostolic succession in the consecrations performed. According to representatives of the ROC, the consecrations that took place in 1990 were non-canonical, since they were not performed by bishops who had recognized apostolic succession from Orthodox Local Churches. This position aimed to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the very existence of the UAOC as an autocephalous ecclesiastical structure.
However, this criticism is not unambiguous and requires careful historical-canonical analysis. First and foremost, one should take into account the person of the principal participant in the first consecrations—Bishop Ioann Bondarchuk, who in 1990 led the revival of the Ukrainian episcopate. By the time of the consecrations within the renewed UAOC, he had already been Bishop of Zhytomyr and Ovruch within the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having been consecrated to the episcopate in 1977—that is, he possessed valid apostolic succession and canonical episcopal status.
The life of the future Ukrainian church hierarch Vasyl Bondarchuk indicates that he belonged to those fighters for Ukraine who, even in the Stalin era, suffered precisely because of their belonging to the Ukrainian cause, since in 1949 he was arrested and deported to Kazakhstan, where he lived until 1953. Evidently for this reason, Bishop Ioann, understanding the spiritual and national need to restore the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, being at that time retired, transferred to the newly established UAOC, where, on the basis of his canonical episcopal dignity, he performed the first consecrations.
A complex and at the same time painful issue in the context of the first episcopal consecrations of the UAOC in 1990 is the participation of a person known under the name Vicentii Chekalin. He presented himself as a bishop of the so-called “Catacomb Church,” a structure that operated underground, did not recognize the ROC MP, considered it to be entirely under the control of the KGB, and regarded its head, Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky), as one who had usurped ecclesiastical authority. However, when considering the problem of Chekalin’s participation in the first consecrations of the UAOC, it is necessary to proceed not only from formal canonical analysis, but also with regard for the historical context and the good intention of the participants in the events. Bishop Ioann Bondarchuk, as the principal hierarch who performed the consecrations, did not have complete information about Chekalin’s true status. At that time, Chekalin presented himself as a bishop of the Russian Catacomb Church, and this version did not arouse suspicion. It is also important to understand that 1990 was a time of the collapse of the Soviet system; that is, the absence of communication between ecclesiastical structures, as well as fear of persecution of religious figures, contributed to the emergence of a certain chaos, in which it was almost impossible to verify information about underground hierarchs. Bishop Ioann Bondarchuk acted with a good intention and, understanding the importance of the revival of the UAOC, accepted Chekalin on trust as a concelebrant with a similar fate in the ecclesiastical underground7.
The fact that Chekalin later turned out to be an impostor should not nullify Bishop Ioann’s good intention and should not automatically devalue the consecrations themselves. For from a canonical point of view, a consecration is considered valid if it is performed by a bishop with valid apostolic succession, even in the presence of a person who did not have such a status but acted under the guise of a bishop. It is precisely this principle that underlay the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which recognized the legitimacy of the UAOC’s succession. Therefore, the first consecrations performed by Ioann Bondarchuk should be regarded as single-handed, that is, performed by one hierarch, but under exceptional circumstances.
In the history of the Universal Church there were many examples of completely single-handed consecrations performed by saints of the Church in circumstances in which it was not possible to perform a consecration with three hierarchs. Let us cite several examples of single-bishop consecrations.
Saint Meletius of Antioch (4th century). In times of Arian disputes and ecclesiastical persecutions, Saint Meletius single-handedly ordained several bishops in order to preserve the Orthodox hierarchy. Despite the canonical violation, his actions were recognized by the Church in view of the extreme circumstances.
Saint Basil the Great (4th century). Saint Basil performed consecrations without the consent of local hierarchs, at times in effect single-handedly, especially during the ecclesiastical struggle with Arianism. In one case, he himself consecrated Bishop Eusebius of Samosata, and although this provoked opposition, the consecration was later recognized.
Eusebius of Samosata. He was an Orthodox bishop in an era when the Church endured a fierce struggle with the Arian heresy. After the Arians seized control of many episcopal sees in the East, there arose an acute need to restore the Orthodox episcopate. Eusebius, acting in communion with Saint Athanasius the Great, traveled incognito and performed consecrations on his own in order to preserve apostolic succession among the Orthodox.
Saint Gregory the Theologian (4th century). He was ordained a bishop single-handedly by his father, Gregory the Elder of Nazianzus, which later drew criticism, but the consecration was accepted by the Church, considering the deep crisis of ecclesiastical hierarchy in Cappadocia.
Saint Hilary of Poitiers (4th century). During exile in Asia, Hilary carried out consecrations of new bishops, in effect without the possibility of gathering other hierarchs because of Arian persecutions. His activity was also later accepted by the Church.
Saint Athanasius the Great (4th century). In periods of exile and fierce struggle with the Arians, he likewise performed consecrations on his own to preserve the Orthodox hierarchy in Egypt. This was later not only not contested, but, on the contrary, became part of his achievement as a defender of Orthodoxy.
Hence, from these testimonies it is clear and evident that in certain cases a single-handed episcopal consecration, performed under difficult circumstances for the Holy Church, has always been recognized by the Church, in accordance with the Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII, Chapter 27, where it is stated explicitly: “If someone is ordained by one bishop, then let both he and the one who ordained him be deposed. But if the ordination is performed by one bishop because of necessity—on account of the impossibility of the presence of a greater number of bishops during persecutions or for some similar reason—then let him obtain the consent of a greater number of bishops.”8
Thus, the first consecrations of 1990 may and should be recognized as valid and canonically grounded, taking into account historical realities, the ecclesiastical tradition, and the subsequent recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
In 1990, Patriarch Mstyslav Skrypnyk came to Ukraine, and together with Bishop Antony Scherba—today the First Hierarch of the UOC in the USA—they performed three new episcopal consecrations. In this way, to the already existing canonical line of the UAOC from Bishop Ioann Bondarchuk there was added yet another line of apostolic succession from the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church9..
Having examined the question of apostolic succession, we see that the history of the Church itself testifies: juridical or administrative separation of a given community did not always automatically mean the loss of grace or the invalidity of the sacraments performed. In the history of the Orthodox Church there were periods when certain Local Churches or ecclesiastical groupings remained for a long time outside communion with the Universal Church—because of political, canonical, or pastoral reasons—but later, after misunderstandings or complex historical circumstances were overcome, this communion was restored without re-ordination of clergy or re-baptism of laity, which is clear evidence of the recognition of the gracious action of the Holy Mysteries celebrated even during the period of rupture.
In this context, the key concept is that of economy (Greek οἰκονομία)—not as a mere “indulgence,” but as a deeply theological, loving, and pastoral application of the canonical tradition of the Church. Economy does not deny the truth of the canons, but is guided by a higher aim—the healing of the ecclesial body, the restoration of unity, and the salvation of souls. It operates within the bounds of conciliar responsibility, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and witnesses that the Church is not a juridical institution, but the mystical Body of Christ, which has the power to heal divisions not by means of mechanical condemnation or formal renewal, but through the spiritual reintegration of that which has been torn.
Thus, economy allows not only for the reception of former schismatics as brothers, but also for the recognition that even during a period of separation, provided that the faith, apostolic succession, and the intention to celebrate the true Mysteries were preserved, grace could act—although outside the fullness of ecclesial communion. It is precisely communion (κοινωνία) that is that mysterious power and reality which completes, sanctifies, and, when necessary, corrects canonical or ecclesiological impairments that arose as a result of rupture.
Communion with the Universal Church is not only a sign of external unity, but an internal testimony of the action of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. Therefore, its restoration has not only a disciplinary dimension, but above all a gracious dimension. Through the restoration of communion with the Church, there takes place the inclusion of all sacraments celebrated in separation into the fullness of ecclesial life, so that what was celebrated in a state of deficiency of fullness (ἀκοινωνησία) now receives completion, correction, and confirmation.
This explains why the Ecumenical Patriarchate, acting within its canonical responsibility and tradition, in 2018 received the hierarchs of the UOC KP and UAOC in their existing orders, without new consecrations, but with the restoration of full communion. This act does not deny the canonical difficulties of the past, but testifies that grace, although not within the fullness of ecclesial communion, was not definitively rejected by the Church. On the contrary, in proportion to sincere repentance and the desire for unity, it was recognized as having been able to act economically—that is, therapeutically—for the sake of healing and restoring the ecclesial body.
An instructive example of the mysterious “fullness” (πληρότης) that is attained in communion with the catholic body of the Church is the episode recounted by Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria (†264) in a letter to Pope Sixtus, preserved in Book VII of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History (VII, 9). Saint Dionysius relates the story of a man who had been baptized in a heretical group before Dionysius’s episcopal consecration. This man had been in church communion for a long time and had received Holy Communion, but later, repenting, asked for “true purification” through baptism. Dionysius refused, affirming that his prolonged presence in the Church was already a sign of the reception of God’s grace.
Here is the episode: “In an assembly of the brethren there was a man who was regarded as a long-standing Orthodox believer and who had joined the Christian community even before my ordination, and perhaps even before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas. After his recent baptism, having listened to questions and answers, he came to me with tears and profound repentance, fell at my feet, and began to confess and to swear that the baptism which he had received from the heretics was not at all the same and had nothing in common with ours, for it was full of impiety and blasphemy. He said that his soul suffered deeply, and that because of those impious words and actions he did not even dare to lift his eyes to God. Therefore he begged me to grant him true purification, adoption, and grace. But I did not dare to do this, answering that his prolonged stay in the Church was sufficient for this, and that I did not have the boldness to prepare anew one who had heard the blessing over the gifts, who together with others had said ‘Amen,’ who had approached the table, stretched out his hands to receive the holy food, received it, and for a long time had partaken of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I ordered him with joy and firm faith, with a clear conscience, to approach Holy Communion…”10
This example is a vivid illustration that in the ancient Church communion with the fullness of the Church was perceived as an operative power that completes or even corrects sacraments performed outside it. The Church, even without formally repeating the rite, receives a person as already a partaker of grace through his entry into the fullness of Divine Grace of the Universal Church.
A similar testimony is found in the life of a near contemporary, Venerable Ephraim of Katounakia (†1998), an Athonite elder canonized by the Orthodox Church in 2020, which is an example of receiving a person ordained in a schism into the canonical Church without re-ordination. His life and ministry bear witness to the pastoral economy of the Church, which, under the condition of sincere repentance, recognizes the validity of sacraments performed in schism through participation in the common Eucharist. Detailed analysis is presented in the article “Venerable Ephraim of Katounakia and the Question of Receiving Schismatics into the Canonical Church: A Historical-Canonical Approach.” It considers the case of Elder Ephraim who, having been ordained in schism, after the death of his spiritual father returned to the canonical Church, began to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch, and was received without re-ordination.
Of no small importance for understanding the significance of remaining in unity with world Orthodoxy is the mystical experience of Venerable Ephraim: “Father Ephraim always saw the divine grace at the Divine Liturgy, which sanctified the precious gifts of the Body and Blood of Christ. When Saint Ephraim was with the zealots who were in schism from the Church, during the Liturgy he saw before him something like a veil that prevented him from clearly seeing the Divine Grace. And this vision of a veil during the Liturgy disappeared when he returned and was once again joined to the canonical body of the Church.”
This example underscores that participation in the common Eucharist of the canonical Church can serve as a complement to the sacraments received in schism, provided there is a return to the fullness of ecclesial communion. This decision was received as spiritual healing, and communion became an “augmentation” (ἀναπλήρωσις) that crowns the validity of what had been performed—in the spirit of ancient practice and patristic ecclesial thinking that inclines toward economy (οἰκονομία) and the healing of wounds through unity with the catholic Church, rather than a formal strict approach (akribeia). As Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) asserted, “Canonical communion is not only an external form of unity, but the source of grace-filled life in the Body of Christ.”
The OCU and the Ukrainian Context
This question arose with particular acuteness in Ukraine after the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) in 2019. Part of its episcopate had received consecrations during a time of unrecognized canonical status. Nevertheless, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, proceeding from principles similar to those set out above, recognized these consecrations by the act of restoring communion. In its Tomos it confirmed “the canonical status of the hierarchs and clergy who belonged to the Kyiv Patriarchate and the UAOC,” emphasizing that through union with the Mother Church they entered into the fullness of ecclesial being11.
Contrary to the assertions of critics who pointed to the formal “non-canonicity” of such consecrations, the Ecumenical Patriarch relied on historical and canonical precedents—such as the example of Dionysius of Alexandria—where the efficacy of a sacrament was determined not only by the moment of its celebration, but by the perspective of return to the fullness of the Body of Christ.
Historical and contemporary testimonies demonstrate that communion with the catholic Church does not merely legalize consecrations performed in schism, but also fills them with that grace-filled fullness which is possible only in the Church as the Body of Christ. The reception of such theology in the approach of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a life-giving path of reconciliation that overcomes canonical ruptures through mercy, truth, and Eucharistic communion.
- https://www.pomisna.info/uk/episcopate-post/filaret-denisenko/[↩]
- https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/…B4?utm_source=chatgpt.com[↩]
- Книга апостольських постанов. https://parafia.org.ua/biblioteka/svyatoottsivski-tvory/knyha-pravyl-svyatyh-apostoliv-vselenskyh-i-pomisnyh-soboriv-i-svyatyh-ottsiv/#toc—[↩]
- Книга апостольських постанов. https://parafia.org.ua/biblioteka/svyatoottsivski-tvory/knyha-pravyl-svyatyh-apostoliv-vselenskyh-i-pomisnyh-soboriv-i-svyatyh-ottsiv/#toc–318—–[↩]
- Правила Святого Помісного Собору Карфагенського https://parafia.org.ua/biblioteka/svyatoottsivski-tvory/knyha-pravyl-svyatyh-apostoliv-vselenskyh-i-pomisnyh-soboriv-i-svyatyh-ottsiv/#toc—–6[↩][↩]
- АНДРІЙ СМИРНОВ. МІЖ ХРЕСТОМ, СВАСТИКОЮ І ЧЕРВОНОЮ ЗІРКОЮ: УКРАЇНСЬКЕ ПРАВОСЛАВ’Я В РОКИ ДРУГОЇ СВІТОВОЇ ВІЙНИ, Монографія Видавничий дім «Гельветика» Одеса 2021. https://www.istvolyn.info/post/1174[↩]
- Прот. Сергій Горбік. Історична розвідка що до першої архієрейської хіротонії УАПЦ. http://kyiv-pravosl.info/2019/10/31/7043[↩]
- Апостольські постанови 8 книга, 27 розділ. https://parafia.org.ua/biblioteka/svyatoottsivski-tvory/apostolski-postanovy/knyha-vosma-pro-daruvannya-rukopokladannya-i-tserkovni-kanony/[↩]
- Прот. Сергій Горбік. Історична розвідка що до першої архієрейської хіротонії УАПЦ. http://kyiv-pravosl.info/2019/10/31/7043/[↩]
- https://www.pomisna.info/uk/episcopate-post/filaret-denisenko/ Євсевій Кесарійський. «Церковна історія». Книга VII, гл. 9[↩]
- Томос про автокефалію Православної Церкви України, 6 січня 2019. — https://ec-patr.org[↩]