Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Autocephalous Catholic Apostolic Lineage

Ohiychuk and Prazsky

In 988, the Baptism of Kyvian Rus occurred by Saint Vladimir of Kyiv (secularly Vladimir the Great). Ukraine continued under the Metropolitante of Kyiv under the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1448. At this time, the Council of Moscow's Bishops appointed a Metropolitan of Kyiv without the Ecumenical Patriarch's blessing. Further changes to the territory came in 1596, when there was a split among Orthodox believers. Part remained Orthodox and the remaining believers joined the Roman Catholic Church. 

In 1685, the formal absorption of Kyiv as a religious entity into the Russian Orthodox Church when Patriarch Dionysius IV issued a letter granting control over Kyiv to Moscow (apparently through simony). This status of subjugation continued until Ukrainian independence in as the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1917. At this time, the Ukrainian Autocephalus Orthodox Church was proclaimed. In 1921, an All-Ukrainian Sobor was called in Ukraine declaring independence from the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Vasyl Lypkivsky was chosen as the head of the church Upon election, he used Ukrainian in the liturgy instead of Church Slavonic. Because of this, was was deposed by Russian bishops who also disagreed with his promotion of Ukraine and liberal views. 

 On October 23, 1921 Lypkivsky was consecrated as Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. No bishop would participate in his consecration so, in the Alexandrian model, he was consecrated by the laying on of hands of priests present. By 1924 the church had grown to 30 bishops and 1,500 priests and deacons in 1,100 parishes. However, it was not recognized because of the unorthodox consecration received by Lypkivsky and other bishops. By 1927, Lypkivsky was under house arrest by the Soviets until his execution on November 27, 1937 because of his Ukrainian nationalism.

Meanwhile, on November 13, 1924 the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios VII granted autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church and stated that the subjugation of the Kyvian Metropolia to Moscow was contrary to canon law. However, he did not recognize the established Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church despite appeals to do so. The church's situation changed when the Nazis invaded and took control of parts of Ukrainian territory. In 1942, in light of the 1924 Tomos, Bishop Polycarp (Sikorsky) of Lutsk (formerly of the Church of Poland) consecrated the first Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox bishops in apostolic succession. Around a dozen bishops were consecrated by 1944. As the Soviets advanced, however, those who did not escape to the West perished. 

Metropolitan Polycarp died in France in 1953 and Metropolitan Mstyslav (Skrypnyk) who was ordained by Polycarp made his way to Germany then to Canada and finally to the United States, where he settled at Bound Brook, NJ. Another bishop, Archbishop Hryhoriy Ohiychuk, formerly Archbishop of Zhytomyr fled to the United States. 

This begins the introduction of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into Autocephalous Catholicism. Archbishop Hryhoriy consecrated William Andrew Prazsky in May 1969. It has been alleged that Prazsky was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood by Walter Propheta, although Gary Ward's book lists him as a member of the Liberal Catholic Church (which is unproven; see here: https://sites.google.com/site/gnostickos/bbishopsprazsky2).

Prazsky went on to consecrate Bishop Andre Penachio who consecrated Bishop Joseph Fradale who, in 1983, consecrated sub-conditione Bishop Peter Paul Brennan (from whom many people descend). Prazsky also consecrated Alexis Nizza who, in 1999, consecrated Metropolitans Stephen Petrovitch and Michael Champion. They went on to form the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Sobornopravna). They consecrated Bishop Oleh Kulyk (Patriarch Moses) who went on to declare himself Patriarch of Kyiv and consecrated or received numerous individuals (see here: http://www.soborna.org/). 

The lineage of the UAOC entered so-called Old Calendarist Churches as well. Metropolitan Mstyslav, later elected Patriarch in 1991 upon Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union and his successor, Patriarch Dymytry (Yarema), was consecrator of Bishop Raphael (Leonid Motovilov) of Krasnoyarsk in 1996. The Russian True Orthodox Church was part of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church but left their jurisdiction. Bishop Raphael joined this group but left in 1999 to form the True Orthodox Church in Russia, and became Metropolitan Raphael and leader of this jurisdiction (see: http://ipckatakomb.ru/pages/577/). 

The True Orthodox Church of Russia later joined up with the Church of Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece under Metropolitan Angelos of Avlona. Also in the union was the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The Metropolia was a member of the Holy Synod of Milan, itself under the Patriarchiate of Kyiv from 1995-1996. 

Unfortunately, because of this history the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been condemned by other groups because of its tumultuous history. However, this is to be expected of a country which has been invaded numerous times and subject to frequent destabilization. As mentioned, Metropolitan Mstyslav was elected Patriarch in 1991 and in 1992 there was a Unification Synod between the UAOC and part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Part of the UAOC did not accept the unficiation and continued under Patriarch Dymytry (mentioned above) while the unified group continued under Patriarch Volodymyr (Romaniuk) and later Patriarch Filaret (Denysenko). This group, in 2018, joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was re-named the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church joined the OCU as well, leading to stabilization in the country of Ukrainian groups independent of Russia. 

Please note: this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. It has been simplified and reduced for space and time.

Clerical Apostasy in Autocephalous Catholicism

In the early church, there were regulations about ordaining converts too quickly. There was concern that the new ordinands would be weak in their faith or would leave the faith all together. In time, other stipulations were put on candidates, such as age of ordination at the Council of Trullo. The Church wanted to ensure that it was ordaining candidates who were strong in their faith and wise in years. The ultimate goal was to prevent scandal as well as the loss of faith by the clergy.

During times of persecution, the Church was presented with another problem—how to treat those who handed over sacred objects when faced with death or torture. The Donatists, who were condemned as heretical, said that a cleric who gave over sacred objects to persecutors did not have valid sacraments. Ultimately, the Church disagreed and said that the sins of the celebrant do not affect the validity of what is done (ex opere operato).

While the sacramental guidelines on Donatism concerned priests who avoided martyrdom, it did not address clerics who left the faith all together. The Church was initially strict on anyone who left the faith, and forgiveness was denied even unto death. However, as persecutions increased and people reverted or acquiesced to cult worship to avoid martyrdom, the Church loosened up. Despite welcoming back those who apostatized, clerics were still to be deposed. An example of this is in the canons of the Council of Ephesus (431), which indicated that those who apostatized to the Nestorians should be deposed.

With the divergent paths of the East and West, there were different views on the grace of the sacraments of clergy who were outside the church. The Augustinian view, held by the West, is that once a priest always a priest and the sacramental character remains regardless. The view of Cyprian, held by the East, is that a cleric’s orders depend on their union with the Church at large. Outside the Church, the cleric has no sacraments (although they have used economy when admitting formerly schismatic groups). Sacraments celebrated outside the Church are not licit in the West and are invalid in the East.

As I am from a Western viewpoint, I will write about the Western position. The challenge among Autocephalous Catholics is that we cannot adhere to the first two conditions of the Early Church. Almost all ordinands in our jurisdiction are converts, and if we want to have any sort of sacramental growth, we have to ordain people earlier than occurred in the Early Church. Similarly, we do not generally adhere to age requirements (within reason, of course) because they can be rigid and are not necessarily an indication of growth. Both the East and the West have granted exceptions to age requirements, meaning that while they can be helpful guides they are not set in stone.

So, we ordain people who are new-ish to our jurisdiction and they leave. The problem is less when they leave for another jurisdiction or Christian group. The bigger issue is when they leave Christianity all together. There have been several examples of this in our Autocephalous Catholic history, where someone has been ordained and left Christianity to practice another religion. Each of those examples should teach us a lesson on if there are any steps to avoid in the future to ensure such a candidate is not ordained until they are mature in the faith. Of course, we will never prevent all candidate who may become apostates. That is impossible. But we can try our best to prevent it when possible.

What we can do is prevent candidates from returning after they have apostatized. While I am of the opinion that someone who has left Holy Orders still has an indelible mark, I think it is prudent to deny them the ability to return to active ministry if they have abandoned Christianity. Of course, this does not mean those who fluctuate in their faith. We are all on a journey and some of us will explore new paths but still maintain adherence to the Nicene Creed, the sacraments, etc. There are also those who also learn what is helpful in other religious traditions while maintaining their own Christian faith. I am speaking here only of those who have publicly abandoned Christianity or formally joined another religious tradition. I stand here with the Council of Ephesus that they should be deposed and not return.

While this may seem harsh, clergy are seen as “professional Christians.” Rightly or wrongly, our example carries much sway with Christians and with non-Christians. If we give up public profession of our faith, we have abandoned our call. One can always revert to Christianity, but not as a cleric. 

 

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?'” - John 11:25-26.

Control Issues in Autocephalous Catholicism

My church believes as me,
I control all I that I see,
Titles and dressing up are so much fun,
Yet now I am but a church of one.

We have a control problem in Autocephalous Catholicism. It starts early, as my dumb little ditty says. First, we find a jurisdiction that believes (almost) everything we do. After all, we might have come from mainstream denominations that we judged had too many liberals or too many conservatives, so we want to recreate the perfect oasis for ourselves and our beliefs. Naturally, the next step is to seek ordination. Our movement is, I have argued, almost opposite to clericalism because few people aren’t ordained! Inevitably, the next step is to move towards the episcopacy. Bishop so and so wants an auxiliary, we want to ensure we have some control, the succession must be preserved, etc. There are numerous reasons for it happening. And then comes the power struggle. Over very little.

One of the tests of Independent Catholicism is that we are made up of very independent people. We all want to be in control of our own destinies. This isn’t an inherently bad thing on its own, but when we use it with the desire to rule… Well, then we fall into the quote of Saint John Chrysostom that “the desire to rule of the mother of all heresies.” Unfortunately, this is playing out in several jurisdictions I know of right now and has happen untold times in the past. In a cynical view, a bishop is ordained who then wants to be in control or the bishop in charge does not want to give up control. And a split ensues. Or, in a more neutral sense, people just can’t get along and a split ensues. The result is the same.

I think this is something we need to address. There are a couple of realities we need to face first. Ultimately, we have not been good at continuing parishes and groups past talented leadership or a generation. Since the beginning of our movement, we have had churches, some quite successful, which have come and ultimately gone because they had a charismatic pastor (until they didn’t) or had a supportive group carrying it (until they didn’t). We also have not been good at keeping groups together on a larger scale. Parishes split off or groups discontinue, leaving dioceses with few constituents and jurisdictions with few members.

We have also never been good at screening candidates who want to serve. I’m not suggesting that we are alone in this dilemma. There are plenty of mainstream clergy who want to dress up and feel important as well, lest we be condemned as such. But the essence of ministry is service, not being served. How can we call people who truly want to serve the People of God by offering the sacraments of God? And how can we find a way to support them in this role?

Some path forward: Figure out why people are joining the jurisdiction. Is it because they believe exactly what you do? Is this a good thing necessarily? What are you willing to allow in divergent beliefs before you start anathematizing each other? Next, ask candidates what they plan to do with their ministry. Hold them to that and ensure that they are doing some ministry. It does not matter if you have less clergy because you don’t want people who don’t do anything. The majority of people think we are strange anyway, so having more people doesn’t necessarily even make an impact. Is it just to dress up? Why do they want to dress up?

Then and most significantly, identify and address control issues. What is it that is trying to be controlled? Why? Does it even really matter? I’m willing to do a lot to keep communion with people because it matters. Relationships matter. We have but a short time on this earth, and it’s a pity to spend any of it fighting over stupid things.

Now, I’m not saying this is a magic bullet for us all to live in harmony and grow. But I think it is some concrete steps to identify how we can stop some of the stigma we have had since Peter Anson’s time and move forward. If we can get control of our control issues, we’ll all be a lot better off in the end.

 

“You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds. What you cannot turn to good, you must, at least, make as little bad as you can.” – St. Thomas More