Dose the UAOC have valid orders?

[Tidus]

Dose the Ukrainain Autocephalous Orthodox Church have valid orders (according to Catholicism)? Where they the ones who ordained a new bishop in the 1920s using the laying on hands from from the corpse of a dead eparch?

 

[Filioque]

Don’t know if the RCC has even considered the case. However the Catholic teaching on a sacrament is that there are three components, (aside from it being instituted by Christ to confect Grace) Those are Matter, Form, and Intention. As Ordination requires the bishop to not simply lay hands on the candidate, but recite the prayer instituting the sacrament, and intending to ordain, a corpse cannot do any of these on it’s own. So even without a positive statement from the RCC, I would feel safe in stating the ordinations would not be held valid.

 

[Deacon_Lance]

The UAOC later received valid ordinations via the Orthodox Metropolitan of Warsaw.

Fr. Deacon Lance

 

[Filioque]

The UAOC later received valid ordinations via the Orthodox Metropolitan of Warsaw.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon:

Then the matter was settled, and for good reasons, I gave myself an out. I know a former Ukranian Orthodox (now Anglican) priest who mentioned the first part of the story, but not the latter.

God grant you many years!!!

 

[Diak]

The Ecumenical Patriarch Gregorios VII issued a Tomos in 1924 recognizing the validity of orders and episcopal succession of Metropolitan Dionisy (Valadynsky) of Warsaw, who was the exarch for the UAOC outside of Ukraine.

Patriarch Gregory IV (another Gregory) of Antioch actually consecrated Metropolitan Dionisiy, so there is no question of his Apostolic Succession. Metropolitan Dionisy then consecrated numerous bishops in the 1930s and 1940s (often having to consecrate another bishop for the same eparchy within a few years or even months due to imprisonments).

It is interesting that this Tomos recognizes the right for an autonomous Kyivan Metropolia free from direct control by the Moscow Patriarchate, and states the forced incorporation of the Kyivan Metropolia into the Moscow Patriarchate was uncanonical. This Tomos was never formally rescinded by Constantinople to my knoweldge.
FDRLB

 

[dixibehr]

This Ukrainian Jurisdictdion, otherwise known as the “South Bound Brook Ukrainians”, was formally received into the Ecumenical Patriarchate by a stroke of the Patriarch’s pen and concelebration in the mid '90’s.

 

[Diak]

The act of the Ecumenical Patriarch accepting the UOC-USA is more an issue of “canonicity” and from the Catholic perspective does not reflect a change in the validity of orders and Apostolic Succession before the union with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Actually one group of Ukrainian Orthodox were accepted under the EP even in the late 1930s.

From the Catholic perspective there was no question of the validity of orders or Apostolic succession of the hierarchy except possibly early on with Metropolitan Ivan (Teodorovych). But even this was resolved after the conditional re-consecration of Metropolitan Ivan in the late 1940s by two co-re-consecrators who enjoyed valid Apostolic Succession, namely the future Patriarch Mystyslav Skrypnyk (who was one of those validly consecrated in the early 1940s in Kyiv in the lineage of Metropolitan Dionisy) and the Exarch of the Patriarchate of Alexandria at that time, Metropolitan Christopher.

 

[deepa2000]

The paper presents a critical examination of the way certain central aspects of concurrent programs are formally modeled. The main formal model examined is the operational model of fair transition system which represents concurrency by interleaving of actions considered atomic. Several questions concerning the faithfulness of this representation naturally arise. The paper considers some of these questions and, while presenting and analyzing some of the alternatives, attempts to justify the design decisions actually taken in the construction of the model.​

Brustverkleinerung
Risks of Bariatric Surgery