Why the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is Canonical

Assertions - see below - have been made as to why the canonical autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine is not canonical. This is in reply.

I'll state again the gist of how the OCU came into being: Historically, Kyiv is the mother of Moscow and not the other way around. The dominance of Moscow was affirmed in the 17th century when it uncanonically took over the Kyiv Metropolitanate. Given the independence of Ukraine, the EP corrected the 17th century theft by Moscow by inviting in 2018 the various Orthodox factions - at least 3 of them - in Ukraine to unite in order to receive the Tomos of autocephaly. All three main jurisdictions were represented in the unification council. They affirmed their commitment to a canonical Church, elected a Primate, and was bestowed the Tomos. Thus was formed the canonical autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine. It has 5 college and above educational theological institutions, many monasteries, and many historical churches and cathedrals galore, etc.

It is due to Moscow's uncanonical actions in the 17th century that in 2018, Ukraine had 3 fully functional Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine, 2 of which had no desire to commemorate Moscow's archbishop. In addition, the Greek Catholic church (Uniate but orthodox practicing) was formed in Ukraine in reaction to the actions of Moscow even prior to the decisive blow to Kyiv in the 18th century. So there were 3 fully formed Orthodox and 'Orthodox like' bodies that were developed in Ukraine due to Moscow. This was a mess and without the EP's action would remain so today. Today, there is still the Greek Catholic church, which is on friendly terms with the OCU's Primate, the canonical OCU, and the renegade UOC under Moscow. The renegade UOC has 9 months to break its link to Moscow.

To deny the validity of the EP's actions in Ukraine is to deny that Kyiv is the mother of Moscow, and to assert that there is a canonical way for one canonical Church (Moscow) to take over another canonical Church (Kyiv). That isn't Orthodoxy. That is uncanonical, un-Orthodox.

This document, very readable, in English, details the basis for the EP's actions regarding Kyiv. THE ECUMENICAL THRONE AND THE CHURCH OF UKRAINE: The Documents Speak

As to the assertions below:
There was no uncanonical action taken by the EP in granting the Tomos. See the link above.

1'. Yes, there is no canonical way for a functioning church to be taken over by another in Orthodoxy. That point is made in the link given above. The uncanonical action was Moscow's in the 17th century.

2'. There has been violence, but it has been the actions of the UOC and not the OCU. Ukraine has a detailed statute governing transfer of church property and affiliations of governance. Parishioners have taken legal actions - documents, votes, etc. - fulfilling the statute only for the UOC remnant to bully the majority from taking control of the properties, padlocking the churches, stripping the churches of icons and accoutrements - candle stands, and divine utensils, etc. Legal actions have been prolonged in order to gain access to legally transferred churches. Prior to the full scale invasion, some regional authorities purposely frustrated communities from switching to the OCU.

As to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra - a critical state historic property, there are still UOC monks there and a system of occupation by UOC people have prevented the full inventory of the property (this may have been done) by the state. No UOC monk has been expelled. The UOC ran full businesses on the property, and added/changed buildings in violation of its lease.

3'. As the EP has said, the banning and defrocking of hierarchs and priests by Moscow was based on lack of conformance to Moscow's uncanonical control (the concept, but my words) and not for canonical reasons. Those actions were and are invalid - un-Orthodox, uncanonical.

The link gives the relevant references. Yes, the canons should not be violated, but they were in the 17th century and for years thereafter. The EP fixed that in 2018/2019 with the Tomos delivered to the canonical Church.

I cannot make out the meaning of the last sentences. The OCU has been recognized by the EP, Alexandria, Cyprus, and the Church of Greece. When the war is over, there are very likely 3 national churches that will quickly recognize the OCU. And the monks of Mount Athos pray for Kyiv/Ukraine against Moscow. Slava Ukraini!

Assertions made against the OCU: (shortened, but not edited):
The Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) began by violating the canons from the moment of its creation. As for the historical aspects, one can argue for a long time, but as of 2019, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) was the only canonical, world-recognized church in the entire Orthodox world.

1. According to Orthodox canons, it is impossible to create a church on the canonical territory of another church. Thus, the very creation of the OCU on the territory of the UOC was non-canonical.

2. The second argument is that the activists supporting the OCU began with violence. I am not saying that all members of the OCU agree with this. But the violent seizure of churches and monasteries is true. There were 150-200 monks of the UOC in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, now there is 1 monk of the OCU instead of them, because the OCU has almost no monks.

3. The personnel of the OCU priesthood raises serious doubts. They have 3 types of clergy:
3.1. clergy ordained in the ROC and UOC, but defrocked banned from serving by their church;
3.2. clergy who transferred from the Kyiv Patriarchate and ordained by former Metropolitan Filaret Denisenko, who was not only defrocked and banned from serving, but is also under the anathema of the ROC. Also clergymen ordained by other clergymen who had already been defrocked at the time of ordination;
3.3. clergymen who came from the UOC and are under a ban on church service. Thus, the OCU has no canonical clergymen.

The canons of the Orthodox Church were adopted at the Ecumenical Councils more than 1100 years ago and it is not for us to change them.

At the same time, the only canonical orthodox church of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Due to the adoption of such a law [what law?], where the terms are written ambiguously, and other actions of the authorities, there cannot be canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine with officially legally registered canonical orthodox religious organizations.

The assertions were made here, last entry - then closed: In what cases can a traditional church be banned in democratic states? The Ukrainian Orthodox Church may be banned.

All4Christ said:

Why are you creating a new thread if the other was closed? (I honestly am very happy when these types of threads - including the other one - are avoided, as it seems to just invite attacks against each other. Hopefully we can all keep this thread limited to fellowship and discussion - and if it becomes too much of a debate, consider moving it to the debate subforum).

Click to expand...

The closed thread was closed immediately after the last comment was made, the one I addressed here, BEFORE anyone, like me, could respond to it. That is patently unfair and not conducive to open discussion.

As to your general thrust, if someone wants to expand on a topic, particularly one involving a closed thread, then that should be welcomed.

I am asserting a point, not debating. My point is backed up with scholarship that used Moscow sources to support it. Pretty strong case for those who will see.

rusmeister said:

The chief weakness in this view is that the issue of control is not about canons, but about the real events that led to the EP ceding control and accepting the change in control to Moscow. Realpolitik matters. If not, then let us dig up the ancient canons about Rome and assert the Roman bishop’s authority. The EP ACCEPTED the change, and for three centuries did nothing to even try to claim otherwise. Such accepted changes become de facto in the Church, and some canons really are outdated and irrelevant due to changed situations. The Church works according to what is, not according to what people wish it might be. Both the Russian patriarch and the EP are committing sins of pursuing or supporting secular power and authority in this world instead of proclaiming the gospel. The Russian patriarch supports a bloody war for territory in exchange for government support of the Church. The EP seeks to restore the lost prestige of Constantinople, and consequently, his own. The reason for Constantinople’s prestige went down the tubes with the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century, which is WHY the Russian patriarchy took over (and that belatedly) in the 17th.

So sorry, I do not buy your claim that because the EP has now decided to do this, and because you believe that Moscow taking action in the 17th century because the EP literally couldn’t, to be “theft“, that therefore the claimants to canonicity now are therefore canonical. On the contrary, your assertion that groups that went into schism deliberately must be legitimized when a canonical church was present for centuries is itself schismatic. Yes, the current Russian war crossed the red line and became bad, just as Ukrainian government’s provocation sought to cross the red line in the other direction and was also bad. That the OCU, like the Russian Church, focuses on and supports the secular aims of the nation over the interests of the Church itself, is evidence of this. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

And I am really not partisan to either of those two sides, as I hope my statements make clear.

Click to expand...

Realpolitik does matter. In the US there is an expression about possession is nine-tenths of the law. Realpolitik is that the USSR was dissolved and Ukraine as a sovereign nation was formed. Once that occurred, possibilities and opportunities open.
As to Realpolitik trumping canon law, not so. We can see what is happening in Estonia today.
It is a false equivalency to weigh the EP and Moscow on the same scale. Moscow wallows in sin for its stance as to the murderer Putin's war in/with Ukraine. Which would you rather be: Bartholomew or Cyril at Judgment?
There is no schism if the separation is due, and it was, to an uncanonical act. Ukrainians have a right to their own Church. Realpolitik has made it in our time.
Read the documents including the footnotes. Should be sufficient for any fair minded person.

rusmeister said:

I’m not going to quarrel. Both did things that really are wicked, that incited war and foment nationalist hatred of each other, in contrary to the mission of the Church. All the documents in the world won’t change that. Pat Bartholomew started it, Pat Kirill, alas, answered in kind. But you’re just going to repeat your same talking points. It’s schism. I’m not playing.

Click to expand...

It is only a schism one way. EP has no schism.