On August 23, 2022, the Polish Church issued an official statement saying it does not recognize the legality of episcopal and priestly ordinations in the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. This is reported by the press service of the Polish Orthodox Church, the Spiritual Front of Ukraine saw.
The report notes that the ordinations performed by Filaret are “dubious” due to the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate “deprived him of episcopal ordination” in 1992.
“By the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1992, former Metropolitan Filaret was deprived of episcopal and priestly ordination as an apostate from monastic vows. In 1997, as a result of his actions that violated canonical norms, he returned to the state of a layman. These decisions were approved by all Local Orthodox Churches. A person deprived of ordination cannot and does not have the right to offer them to others,” the Polish Church said in the statement.
Also, the Polish Church says that sacraments are not performed at the OCU because the priests are “laymen”
“The unsettled canonic position of the ‘Ukrainian Orthodox Church’ has far-reaching dogmatic and canonical consequences. Sacraments administered by the laity cannot be considered valid! The prolonged, irregular status of the ‘Ukrainian Orthodox Church’ causes concern and misunderstanding among confused believers and the entire Orthodox Church,” the Polish Church said in the statement.
Polish Church shows its ignorance of theology
The Polish Orthodox Church repeated the same theses about “self-ordination” as the Russian Orthodox Church. However, both the Russian Orthodox Church and the Polish Church deliberately ignore past historical precedents of similar and even more complicated cases.
In particular, the Polish Church should still not recognize Cyril of Jerusalem as a saint, because he was also ordained a bishop by a heretical Arian cleric. However, we know from history that Cyril of Jerusalem converted to Orthodoxy and was accepted as a bishop, and not only he, but also those whom he ordained, did not need a re-ordination, as the Polish Church claims.
Also, all those ordained by the heretic Peter (Monga), after they withdrew from the heresy of the Eutychians and accepted the Council of Chalcedon, were received by the Church of Christ into its bosom, without re-ordination, in their respective degrees.
In addition, in the life of Saint Sawa the Sanctified, it is mentioned that when the Patriarch Ilya of Jerusalem rested, the Sevirian heretics elected to the pulpit John, their associate, who converted to the Orthodox faith after being admonished by Saints Saqa and Theodosius. However, the fact that he was ordained by heretics was never mentioned to him as a reproach and he was not re-ordained.
But in all these historical precedents, we are talking about heretics, while the UOC KP and UAOC did not accept any new, heretical teaching of their own. It was a purely administrative split. If heretics were accepted into the Church without re-ordination, the clergy who were in an administrative schism should be accepted in full dignity.
Recent cases of schism healing without re-ordination
Something similar happened with the Bulgarian Church, which had been in schism for about 75 years. Of course, in 1945, after the removal of the schism, all the bishops, priests and deacons were never re-ordained, despite the fact that they were all schismatics before that.
It should also be noted that Reverend Yefrem Katunaktskyi, who was recently canonized by the Church, was ordained a priest in 1936 by the schismatic Old Believer, the Cycladic bishop of the Greek Church Hermanus, who was expelled from the canonical church. But despite the fact that Reverend Yefrem was not ordained by a canonical hierarch, the Church accepted him into its bosom without re-ordination (thanks to the Revelation that was given to Reverend Joseph Hesychast, due to which he and Reverend Yefrem Katunaktsky left zealotism) and counted them among Its saints.
The Polish Church in one voice with the Moscow Patriarchate foolishly accuses the Ecumenical Patriarchate of recognizing the ordination of schismatics, while the Russian Orthodox Church in 2007 did the same with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA). Those whom the ROC considered to be schismatics for almost a century, it accepted with a simple order by Putin. All the Mysteries of the schismatics were recognized, and the curses became such “that did not exist.”
Why does the church accept schismatics?
Such decisions have been made by the Church over the centuries for iconomy, to preserve unity and the possibility of salvation for man. It does not serve formally and rationally. It serves soteriologically, savingly. Its goal is to save people, and therefore it thinks how to save, not how to condemn, as the Polish and Russian Churches and a number of Russian satellites still do. It’s not the rules that established the Church, it’s the Church that established the rules. And where necessary, “according to necessity and law, change happens” (Heb. 7:12).
In the history of the Church, as we have seen, there are much more terrible events, when bishops who were ordained by heretics were recognized, who caused great damage to the Church in doctrine, not administrative divisions. In the case of the Ukrainian Church, everything is actually much simpler than in many difficult situations with heretics that the Church has encountered in the past. Here the disagreements are administrative (requests for autocephaly), not dogmatic.
Let’s not forget that the Church can also perform baptism even with air, that is, the kind that worldly people do to children before death. We also read in the Life of Athanasius the Great that when he was a child, playing with other children, he “baptized” another child, and the Church accepted this baptism. The Holy Spirit “breathes where He wills” and there is no logical explanation here. Can’t God “create children for Abraham from these stones”? Then why deny and limit the grace of God, as the Polish Church does?
With its absurd statements, the Polish Church not only exposed its ignorance of the theology and history of the Church, but also opposed itself to the other four autocephalous Churches that recognized the OCU. And these are the ancient Ecumenical, Alexandrian Patriarchates, Greek and Cypriot Churches.
The young Polish Church, which received the Tomos of autocephaly at the beginning of the 20th century, wants to teach those who wrote the canons… The Polish Church thinks that those who granted them autocephaly (the Ecumenical Patriarchate) now have no right to do so. This is truly absurd and ridiculous.
