I am uncertain why the West, especially The Pillar don't comprehend the difference between the UOC and the OCU.
1. The UOC recently severed all relations with Moscow; yet, your article states otherwise.
2. The UOC is apostolic and canonical; it always has been; and it's recognized as such by all of the local Orthodox churches as such.
3.…
I am uncertain why the West, especially The Pillar don't comprehend the difference between the UOC and the OCU.
1. The UOC recently severed all relations with Moscow; yet, your article states otherwise.
2. The UOC is apostolic and canonical; it always has been; and it's recognized as such by all of the local Orthodox churches as such.
3. The OCU is a false church neither possessing apostolicity--no apostolic ordinations--and is the creation of the US Government (USG) and the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP). The OCU would be akin to the Pope creating a new church and bestowing the priesthood on a group of Protestants.
4. The acts in #3 above affect ecclesiology. How can non-apostolic OCU *priests* valid confer sacraments? Yet, the USG + EP + "The Pillar" pretend they can. How can non-apostolic OCU *priests* administer the prayers of exorcism in a baptism?
The demons are celebrating the broken ecclesiology placed forth by the naive an ill-informed USG + EP + "The Pillar." Yet, "The Pillar" states "But the dialogue has captured the imagination of Ukraine, and become a big deal in the media — with many people seeing grassroots conversation like that a sign of the vitality of Ukrainian society." Would you herald such actions and interferences by the USG in America with the American Catholic church?
Thanks Father. Our Ukrainian correspondent is, in fact, a Ukrainian, so I would be careful not to conflate the pillar with "the west," but obviously the points you raise are not held universally in Ukraine, among theologians, or even with the UOC-MP.
1. I don't know your Ukrainian correspondent and my words are not meant to disparage him/her. But invoking the logic is akin to saying Biden/Pelosi are Catholics and, therefore, knowledgeable of the Catholic faith and its ecclesiology.
2. I'm a Mexican-American from Texas, a retired military officer, and a late vocations priest, and even I understand the ecclesiological issues 'in Ukraine.' I am one of the priests who left the EP to escape the non-canonical, non-apostolic actions (of the EP)!
3. "Conflate" is a good word, but the content and context used in your article are the same as in much of the West. (And I don't want "The Pillar" to be of the West!) But saying that the "points raised are not universally [held] in Ukraine" one could say the same things of Catholicism in the West. And so, all things receive equal credence?...as do the comments concerning Ukraine? (One of the reasons I subscribe to "The Pillar" is to seek some measure of ground truth.)
I would never wish anyone to move away from a non-canonical, non-apostolic church corrupting ecclesiology.
And so, I will leave you with one thought, if the non-canonical, non-apostolic OCU is to be the means or bridge with which the Pope and the EP unite, which appears to be on the mind of many Orthodox, how much more spiritually corrupt would the RCC be? If I were a Catholic priest or lay person, I would be weeping.
The pope literally already did that. It is called the Anglican Ordinariates. Many Catholics are pretty happy about it.
Your definition of apostolic sounds like it is different from the Catholic one. I would appreciate understanding the definition of apostolic that you are using. I think it would help us understand the difference in the way of thinking. For us, an apostolic ordination is any ordination by a true bishop. What else is required for your definition?
Apostolic ordination, in Orthodoxy, is the same as in Catholicism--ordination by an apostolically ordained bishop from a canonical local Orthodox church.
I would commend to you, that in the West, the Anglican Ordinariates are not in the same category as the non-apostolic, non-canonical OCU who refuse to be ordained by an apostolic bishop, i.e., meaning no corrective measures to validate the OCU priesthood will be accepted. It's akin to a Calvinist Baptist without having attended a seminary being given authority to have a Catholic mass at a consecrated altar.
It sounds like the difference is "from a canonical local Orthodox church." We wouldn't have that stipulation.
So if a UOC bishop goes to Iraq and ordains a man, you would say that the ordination is not valid?
For Catholics the local part does not matter. Surely the OCU bishops were ordained by some bishop? But you are saying that the problem is that he was not from the UOC? So would you also say that the Ukrainian Catholic bishops are not apostolic?
If a UOC bishop were to seek to ordain someone in Iraq, first the UOC bishop would need permission from the local Iraqi Orthodox bishop, and, second, the person to be ordained would (likely) only be permitted to serve Ukrainians. The exception would be that the Iraqi Orthodox bishop is petitioned by the layman to have the UOC bishop perform the ordination based on a prior relationship between the two (the UOC bishop and the layman).
A bishop cannot travel into another local bishop's *territory* for the purposes of performing any Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) without the permission of the local bishop.
I won't touch the issue of the bishops of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in Ukraine; that is Rome's concern. I will say the following, if you (generally speaking) consider the UGCC bishops to be canonically & apostolically ordained & elevated to hierarchical status, why would they share an altar with the OCU?
So, yes, that is the difference. Catholics would say that a bishop cannot lose his apostolic ordination nor lose his ability to ordain apostolic bishops. For instance, when Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops, they are apostolic and validly ordained despite him not having permission to do so. This is why we recognize all the Orthodox and Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics etc as having apostolic orders despite the canonical disputes. So long as the form and matter are correct, a bishop validly ordains. Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity.
The main reason for the Catholics to be in dialogue with any Christians is to achieve what Jesus called for, "That they may be one as we are one."
"Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity." Interesting, so if the Pope were to defrock, anathematize, and laicize a bishop, that same *former bishop* could still ordain a priest?
Yes, Orthodoxy is very different. As a priest, I cannot perform the Holy Mysteries in another local Orthodox church without first getting permission from my bishop and then receiving permission from the bishop whose church I am going to visit.
Absolutely! If Mr. Theodore McCarick were to ordain his cellmate a bishop, that man would be a bishop. Sacramental authority and Canonical authority have some overlap in Catholic theology but not completely.
I do have to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in another diocese, but if I fail to get the permission, the Mass would still be valid, the bread and wine would still change.
Yes, if I were to fail to get permission, the consecration of bread and wine to body and blood would still be valid. But I would have a lot of unwanted attention from one (or two) bishops.
And the Catholic Church would also hold that a validly ordained Orthodox bishop - even if he were laicized, excommunicated, censured, etc by his patriarch or synod - could continue to perform valid ordinations or consecrations.
Perhaps this is an appropriate forum to ask this question.
How do you consider the case of the recently erected Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in Africa, within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Alexandria? Do not the priests celebrating liturgy and sacraments not have the permission from their local authorities to do so? Or do you consider the permission to come from Moscow rather than Alexandria, as these hundred-odd priests have declared their intent to abandon submission to their Patriarch in Alexandria in favour of Moscow? Does the intent of the newly-minted Exarchate priests to serve Moscow "make valid" their offerings of liturgy and holy mysteries, despite directly rejecting their "local authorities"?
Drawing this analogy out a bit further, if you consider the Exarchate priests to be offering valid liturgies and mysteries despite their rejection of local authority, what would stop a Patriachate from establishing an Exarchate inside another's geographical boundaries? If, say, the Patriarchate of Antioch declared an Exarchate in Jerusalem and decided to grant faculties to Exarchate priests there; or if the Patriarchate of Romania decided to "colonise" its neighbour Bulgaria with Exarchate priests. Would you hold these Exarchate priests to essentially be in rebellion against their rightful local authority? Or would you consider their faculties approved by the "local authority", even if said authority was carpetbagging in from another Patriarchate?
Asking as a Roman Catholic Colombian-American from California with a particular interest in the Eastern Churches.
I think I understand. He could validly ordain a priest, but it would be against the law and so be illicit. Valid because Jesus shows up, illicit because He would not be pleased.
I am uncertain why the West, especially The Pillar don't comprehend the difference between the UOC and the OCU.
1. The UOC recently severed all relations with Moscow; yet, your article states otherwise.
2. The UOC is apostolic and canonical; it always has been; and it's recognized as such by all of the local Orthodox churches as such.
3. The OCU is a false church neither possessing apostolicity--no apostolic ordinations--and is the creation of the US Government (USG) and the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP). The OCU would be akin to the Pope creating a new church and bestowing the priesthood on a group of Protestants.
4. The acts in #3 above affect ecclesiology. How can non-apostolic OCU *priests* valid confer sacraments? Yet, the USG + EP + "The Pillar" pretend they can. How can non-apostolic OCU *priests* administer the prayers of exorcism in a baptism?
The demons are celebrating the broken ecclesiology placed forth by the naive an ill-informed USG + EP + "The Pillar." Yet, "The Pillar" states "But the dialogue has captured the imagination of Ukraine, and become a big deal in the media — with many people seeing grassroots conversation like that a sign of the vitality of Ukrainian society." Would you herald such actions and interferences by the USG in America with the American Catholic church?
May God have mercy!
Thanks Father. Our Ukrainian correspondent is, in fact, a Ukrainian, so I would be careful not to conflate the pillar with "the west," but obviously the points you raise are not held universally in Ukraine, among theologians, or even with the UOC-MP.
Glad you're weighing in though!
Mr. Flynn, thanks for your feedback.
1. I don't know your Ukrainian correspondent and my words are not meant to disparage him/her. But invoking the logic is akin to saying Biden/Pelosi are Catholics and, therefore, knowledgeable of the Catholic faith and its ecclesiology.
2. I'm a Mexican-American from Texas, a retired military officer, and a late vocations priest, and even I understand the ecclesiological issues 'in Ukraine.' I am one of the priests who left the EP to escape the non-canonical, non-apostolic actions (of the EP)!
3. "Conflate" is a good word, but the content and context used in your article are the same as in much of the West. (And I don't want "The Pillar" to be of the West!) But saying that the "points raised are not universally [held] in Ukraine" one could say the same things of Catholicism in the West. And so, all things receive equal credence?...as do the comments concerning Ukraine? (One of the reasons I subscribe to "The Pillar" is to seek some measure of ground truth.)
I would never wish anyone to move away from a non-canonical, non-apostolic church corrupting ecclesiology.
And so, I will leave you with one thought, if the non-canonical, non-apostolic OCU is to be the means or bridge with which the Pope and the EP unite, which appears to be on the mind of many Orthodox, how much more spiritually corrupt would the RCC be? If I were a Catholic priest or lay person, I would be weeping.
God bless you for all you do.
Good article for consideration on the dynamics of Ukraine.
Ukrainian Church statutes no longer have any connection to Russian Church, state official confirms / OrthoChristian.Com
https://orthochristian.com/147137.html
The pope literally already did that. It is called the Anglican Ordinariates. Many Catholics are pretty happy about it.
Your definition of apostolic sounds like it is different from the Catholic one. I would appreciate understanding the definition of apostolic that you are using. I think it would help us understand the difference in the way of thinking. For us, an apostolic ordination is any ordination by a true bishop. What else is required for your definition?
Apostolic ordination, in Orthodoxy, is the same as in Catholicism--ordination by an apostolically ordained bishop from a canonical local Orthodox church.
I would commend to you, that in the West, the Anglican Ordinariates are not in the same category as the non-apostolic, non-canonical OCU who refuse to be ordained by an apostolic bishop, i.e., meaning no corrective measures to validate the OCU priesthood will be accepted. It's akin to a Calvinist Baptist without having attended a seminary being given authority to have a Catholic mass at a consecrated altar.
It sounds like the difference is "from a canonical local Orthodox church." We wouldn't have that stipulation.
So if a UOC bishop goes to Iraq and ordains a man, you would say that the ordination is not valid?
For Catholics the local part does not matter. Surely the OCU bishops were ordained by some bishop? But you are saying that the problem is that he was not from the UOC? So would you also say that the Ukrainian Catholic bishops are not apostolic?
If a UOC bishop were to seek to ordain someone in Iraq, first the UOC bishop would need permission from the local Iraqi Orthodox bishop, and, second, the person to be ordained would (likely) only be permitted to serve Ukrainians. The exception would be that the Iraqi Orthodox bishop is petitioned by the layman to have the UOC bishop perform the ordination based on a prior relationship between the two (the UOC bishop and the layman).
A bishop cannot travel into another local bishop's *territory* for the purposes of performing any Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) without the permission of the local bishop.
Yes, the OCU bishops were *ordained* by a defrocked, anathematized bishop, Metropolitan Filaret - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1992/06/13/ukraines-top-cleric-defrocked/18c1fa4d-0ace-4adf-8e96-cff335e97d36/ - defrocked by Moscow, and recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch. After being defrocked, Filaret then created his own church! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Orthodox_Church_%E2%80%93_Kyiv_Patriarchate
I won't touch the issue of the bishops of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in Ukraine; that is Rome's concern. I will say the following, if you (generally speaking) consider the UGCC bishops to be canonically & apostolically ordained & elevated to hierarchical status, why would they share an altar with the OCU?
So, yes, that is the difference. Catholics would say that a bishop cannot lose his apostolic ordination nor lose his ability to ordain apostolic bishops. For instance, when Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops, they are apostolic and validly ordained despite him not having permission to do so. This is why we recognize all the Orthodox and Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics etc as having apostolic orders despite the canonical disputes. So long as the form and matter are correct, a bishop validly ordains. Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity.
The main reason for the Catholics to be in dialogue with any Christians is to achieve what Jesus called for, "That they may be one as we are one."
"Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity." Interesting, so if the Pope were to defrock, anathematize, and laicize a bishop, that same *former bishop* could still ordain a priest?
Yes, Orthodoxy is very different. As a priest, I cannot perform the Holy Mysteries in another local Orthodox church without first getting permission from my bishop and then receiving permission from the bishop whose church I am going to visit.
Absolutely! If Mr. Theodore McCarick were to ordain his cellmate a bishop, that man would be a bishop. Sacramental authority and Canonical authority have some overlap in Catholic theology but not completely.
I do have to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in another diocese, but if I fail to get the permission, the Mass would still be valid, the bread and wine would still change.
Wow! No wonder there's new photos available.
Yes, if I were to fail to get permission, the consecration of bread and wine to body and blood would still be valid. But I would have a lot of unwanted attention from one (or two) bishops.
And the Catholic Church would also hold that a validly ordained Orthodox bishop - even if he were laicized, excommunicated, censured, etc by his patriarch or synod - could continue to perform valid ordinations or consecrations.
That's just fascinating.
In Orthodoxy, it is completely the opposite; the bishop, priest, or deacon would have no authorities; hence the scandal.
Come to think of it, if you guys want Metropolitans Filaret & Epifaniy (OCU), please by all means, take them!
Perhaps this is an appropriate forum to ask this question.
How do you consider the case of the recently erected Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in Africa, within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Alexandria? Do not the priests celebrating liturgy and sacraments not have the permission from their local authorities to do so? Or do you consider the permission to come from Moscow rather than Alexandria, as these hundred-odd priests have declared their intent to abandon submission to their Patriarch in Alexandria in favour of Moscow? Does the intent of the newly-minted Exarchate priests to serve Moscow "make valid" their offerings of liturgy and holy mysteries, despite directly rejecting their "local authorities"?
Drawing this analogy out a bit further, if you consider the Exarchate priests to be offering valid liturgies and mysteries despite their rejection of local authority, what would stop a Patriachate from establishing an Exarchate inside another's geographical boundaries? If, say, the Patriarchate of Antioch declared an Exarchate in Jerusalem and decided to grant faculties to Exarchate priests there; or if the Patriarchate of Romania decided to "colonise" its neighbour Bulgaria with Exarchate priests. Would you hold these Exarchate priests to essentially be in rebellion against their rightful local authority? Or would you consider their faculties approved by the "local authority", even if said authority was carpetbagging in from another Patriarchate?
Asking as a Roman Catholic Colombian-American from California with a particular interest in the Eastern Churches.
I think I understand. He could validly ordain a priest, but it would be against the law and so be illicit. Valid because Jesus shows up, illicit because He would not be pleased.
I don't want to make Jesus mad.