On August 23 of this year, the false patriarch Mikhail Denisenko gave a detailed interview to the Ukrainian TV channel Rada, in which he directly stated the illegality of the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686. In addition, he made another, rather bold, statement that Constantinople allegedly still does not recognize the fact of this transfer and therefore the Church of Constantinople is the mother church for the Kiev Metropolis.
In truth, Mikhail Antonovich is not the only representative of Ukrainian jingoists who holds a similar point of view regarding the history of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. What can I say? Yes, indeed, the Church of Constantinople is the mother church of the Kyiv Metropolis and no one is going to argue with this fact (1). However, the point here is not at all about Denisenko and his associates, but about those manipulations, manipulation of facts and gross insinuations regarding our ancient history, which are full of modern works of Ukrainian historians who instantly changed their beliefs to suit the political situation.
In this article we will try to impartially (i.e., solely on the basis of factual material) understand why the Kiev Metropolis was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate?
What was Kievan Rus like after the Tatar conquest?
Today, among “patriotically”-minded Ukrainian historians, the dominant point of view is that talk about the complete destruction of Kyiv and the surrounding lands is a gross and unfounded exaggeration. For example, in one of his works, a researcher at the Institute of Ukrainian Studies of the National Academy of Sciences, Ivan Paslavsky, attributed to one of the “luminaries” of Ukrainian historical science, M. Grushevsky, the successful exposure of the version of the complete economic and human desolation of Kiev (2).
We will return to this work by I. Paslavsky, but now we will turn to some sources describing the state of affairs in Kievan Rus after the destruction of Kyiv by the horde of Batu Khan.
One of the leading church historians of the 20th century, Fr. G. Florovsky wrote the following about this: “The Tatar invasion was a national disaster and a state disaster. “The destruction of the Russian land,” as a contemporary put it, is “an infestation of trash.” “An unmerciful tongue will come against us, allowing God to let us go, and making our land empty.” And one should not soften the colors in the depiction of this defeat and devastation” (3).
Indeed, the picture of the devastation of Kievan Rus and especially its capital Kyiv was terrible. Kyiv, which at the time of the Mongol conquest was one of the largest and richest cities in medieval Europe, was destroyed almost to the ground by the Mongol-Tatar horde: “Most of the population either died or were taken into slavery. The city lost artisans who had accumulated experience for centuries and reached the highest peaks in their craft. Traditional ties with many regions of the country were interrupted. Kyiv was burned, destroyed, plundered. Archaeological excavations make it possible to determine the degree of destruction of the city, the fate of thousands of Kiev residents (Karger. 1961; Kilievich. 1982). During the excavations, huge mass graves were discovered... In the “city of Vladimir” and on Mikhailovskaya Hill, burnt out, collapsed dwellings were repeatedly discovered...” (4).
And even despite the fact that life in the city continued after the invasion of Batu’s hordes, still, until the beginning of the 19th century, Kiev bore little resemblance to its former greatness: “After the Tatars left, the residents began to gather in the devastated city, surrounded the mountain with a wooden wall, and The hem is like a palisade. It was a time of complete decline of Kyiv” (5).
Empress Catherine II, who visited the city at the end of the 18th century, spoke rather unflatteringly about Kyiv at that time: “This city is strange. It consists entirely of fortifications and suburbs. But I still can’t find the city itself. Meanwhile, in all likelihood, in the old days he was at least from Moscow.", - wrote Ekaterina.
And this is not surprising. The fact is that even after the Mongol invasion, the territory of Ukraine, including its capital, was repeatedly devastated and ruined. One has only to remember the two assaults on Kyiv in 1416 and 1482 and other numerous raids of the Tatars, who ravaged vast territories and took thousands of prisoners into captivity.
That is why, again, it is not surprising that after the defeat of Kyiv by the Mongols (1240), the department of the Kyiv Metropolitan remained vacant for some time. And only: “About 1246 St. was installed as metropolitan. Cyril II..., he arrived from Nicaea to Kyiv earlier than 1250.” However: “He soon left the city devastated by the Tatars and in 1250 moved to Vladimir-on-Klyazma, from where he made trips to the dioceses of the metropolitanate... In 1283, the Kiev see was occupied by the Greek Metropolitan. Maxim... In 1299 Met. Maxim moved to the capital of North-Eastern Rus', Vladimir-on-Klyazma... taking with him the cathedral clergy and administration... As a justification for the move, “violence from the Tatars in Kiev” was put forward, so that “the whole of Kiev was deserted”... The fact, that the new Metropolitan St. Peter (1308-1326) - a native of Volyn - left Vladimir-on-Klyazma as his residence (at the end of his life he settled in Moscow), speaks of the objective and irreversible nature of the changes that took place ... "(6).
So, Kyiv was devastated, and in 1453, the last stronghold of the Byzantine Empire, its capital Constantinople, fell under the onslaught of Muslims. As a result, the Patriarchate of Constantinople lost the opportunity to control the metropolises, which found themselves outside the borders of the new Islamic state that emerged from the ruins of the empire.
In this situation, the Kiev Metropolis was left to its own devices. Alas, this did not benefit her: in fact, the metropolis was quickly divided into northeastern and southwestern parts. The northeastern part of the Kiev Metropolis, as one would expect, was located within the borders of the Moscow state, and its southwestern part consisted of dioceses that remained in the territory controlled by the Kingdom of Poland, at that time very powerful, the state religion of which was Christianity of the Western rite, those. Catholicism.
It was the aggressive Catholic expansion in those territories, the main population of which was Orthodox, that determined the difficult, prophetically unbearable, position of the Orthodox Church, which the current Patriarch of Constantinople spoke about in his address to the Ukrainian nation: “And in truth, the Mother Church (i.e. Constantinople - author’s note), due to the unpleasant circumstances, has isolated itself in order,” Patriarch Bartholomew emphasized, “to be ready to give the Ukrainian Church ecclesiastical, spiritual and material support to all mku, orienting not only to further strengthen the spiritual decline of Byzantium, but also to defend its Orthodox identity against the important political pressure of the expanding non-Orthodox faith, especially in this very important time for the godly Ukrainian people.” (7).
And indeed, those were difficult times of testing, times when the West exerted unprecedented pressure, including on our Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The fight against union
In 1596, at the instigation of the Vatican, a union was concluded in Brest between Orthodox and Catholics, as a result of which the current UGCC was born - the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which used Orthodox ritual practice in worship. However, in essence, i.e. in fact, it was the Catholic Church of the Eastern Rite, subordinate to the Vatican, whose head is the Roman Pontiff (8). Protopresbyter George (Metalionos), who is an ordinary professor of the history of theology at the University of Athens, described the Union of Brest as a method “... which the feudal papacy used to subjugate Orthodoxy to Rome. The ingenious premise included in this method is the so-called preservation of freedom and continuity of Eastern traditions." (9).
The situation was further aggravated by the fact that the majority of Orthodox bishops, under pressure from the Polish authorities, went over to the side of the union, i.e. actually converted to Catholicism. Thus: “The Polish authorities began an open, “legal” persecution of Orthodoxy with the goal of its complete extermination... In the cities, they declared that Orthodox Christians would not be admitted to municipal positions, and sabotaged the usual issuance of permits to engage in one or another craft or trade (10).
In his speech at the Warsaw Sejm in 1620, the Orthodox deputy Lavrentiy Drewinsky described the plight of the Orthodox as follows: “Already in large cities, churches have been sealed, church estates have been plundered, there are no monks in monasteries, and cattle are now locked up there. Children die without baptism. The dead are taken out of cities without burial, like carrion. Husbands and wives live without church blessing. People are dying without receiving communion. In Lvov, a non-Uniate cannot be assigned to a guild; one cannot openly go to the sick with the Holy Mysteries. In Vilna, the body of an Orthodox deceased must be taken out of the city only through the gates through which sewage is taken out. Monks who are adamant to union are caught and beaten, seized on the roads and thrown into prison.” In 1610, the teacher of the Vilna fraternal school, Meletiy Smotrytsky, published his book: “Phrinos or Lamentation of the Eastern Church.” In it, he described the sad situation of the persecuted and oppressed Orthodox Church in Poland... The street mob had the actual opportunity to attack Orthodox Christians with impunity. She was warmed up to these pogrom attacks by wandering ragamuffins, former Polish zholners, embittered by all their failures within Moscow during the Time of Troubles. Schoolchildren trained by the Jesuits attacked Orthodox homes, churches, especially church processions. In the courts, as applied to the Orthodox, “black untruth” prevailed... The peasants (khlopy), due to their dependence on the lords, found themselves in additional torment. They were forced to expel their Orthodox priest and accept the forcibly appointed Uniate priest. Where the lords failed to transfer the church to the Uniate priest, the church itself, like the building with all the church furnishings, was leased to the Jew. He owned the keys and, for a fee in his own favor, opened the church for religious services and services. He ruled blasphemously, without hesitation in words and actions, offending the religious feelings of the Orthodox people... In contrast to the decapitated and oppressed Orthodoxy, the protective Uniate Church, with all the assistance of the authorities, actively developed its organization. After the passive nature of Met. Mikhail Rogoza († 1599) his successor, naturally, was the creator of the union himself, Ipatiy Potei. Not embarrassed by the methods of slander, denunciations, robberies and seizures, the arrest of Orthodox priests and the sending of Uniates in their place, Hypatius also captured monasteries with their estates. He tried to capture the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra... An intelligent and conscious creator and leader of the union, Metropolitan. Hypatius fully shared the views of the government that for Poland the achieved church union was only a transitional moment. The ideal is not the preservation of the eastern style of the union, but the speediest Latinization, so that this “cotton faith” can quickly be remade into the “master faith,” become like Latinity and disappear in it. The creators of the union understood that it was not so easy, but they tried to “go ahead” and achieve the possible maximum. Hypatius acted in this spirit, hastening to latinize the union as quickly as possible. In a special In his propaganda book “Harmony,” Hypatius condemned Orthodoxy and praised Latinism. He instilled in the Uniate masses the idea that there was no point in dwelling on a bad, difficult-to-correct position. We must quickly switch to pure Latinism. Hypatius concluded his theoretical arguments with a practical program for his clergy in 12 points. These points prescribed such complete submission to Roman authority and Latin orders that they even caused bewilderment and unrest in the Uniate clergy... Hypatia did not have to create anything new, but only copy the methods that had already justified themselves in the victory over the Reformation through the Jesuit order.” (11).
As a result of such a policy of the Polish authorities and the Uniate clergy, by the beginning of the 18th century, such dioceses as Lviv, Lutsk and Przemysl finally became Uniate.
Assessing the actions of the Uniates towards the Orthodox, Rev. G. Florovsky wrote: “Union in reality was and turned out to be a split. She split the Western Russian Church, separated the hierarchy and the people. It was primarily a clerical movement. The union was the work of bishops who acted in isolation from the church people, without their free and conciliar consent and advice, “hidden and secret, without understanding the peasant people.” And a strange situation was created: the Uniate hierarchy found itself at the head of the Orthodox people. At the same time, these Uniate bishops considered their subordination to Roman authority and jurisdiction to be a “union of churches.” Therefore, the resistance of the people was considered as canonical self-will and rebellion, as an uprising of the rebellious flock against the legitimate hierarchical authority. Of course, on the contrary, the Orthodox saw in this disobedience and in this inevitable anti-hierarchical struggle only the fulfillment of their Christian duty, the duty of fidelity and faith. “It is not the priests, or the rulers, or the metropolitans who will save us, but the sacrament of our faith with the keeping of God’s commandments, that will save us,” wrote John of Vishensky from Athos. He sharply substantiates the right of the church people to depose and expel apostate bishops - “let them not enter hell with your blessed eye or shepherd...”. The struggle against the Union was, first of all, a manifestation of the conciliar self-awareness of the church people... from the very beginning, the question of Union was posed as a question of cultural self-determination. Union meant self-incorporation into the Western tradition. This was precisely religious and cultural Westernism. And it was possible to overcome the Union only through loyalty and strength to Byzantine and patristic traditions."(12).
And yet the struggle against the forcibly imposed union, against the forced Catholicization of the Orthodox population of southern Rus' continued. The Orthodox Cossacks played a huge role in this struggle: “In support of the conciliar act of 1621, the Cossacks declared that they would not go to war with Turkey if the government did not recognize the Orthodox hierarchy. Here the beneficial Polish constitutional freedom softened the situation. Already in 1623, at the next General Sejm, the Orthodox ensured that the open persecution of Orthodoxy was stopped and that all decrees, exiles, and property seizures hostile to Orthodoxy were formally abolished. Of course, in reality, such a resolution was far from being literally implemented. But the declared freedom was still a relief. Unfortunately, this relief did not materialize. Everything was brought to naught by the tragic act of murder of the Uniate Bishop of Polotsk Josaphat Kuntsevich... Josaphat, when visiting Vitebsk in the fall of 1623, expelled the Orthodox from all churches, destroyed even those huts outside the city in which the Orthodox began to perform divine services. The crowd responded to the wild violence with physical resistance. The crowd rushed at Jehoshaphat, who personally led the pogrom, with sticks and stones, killed him and threw his corpse into the Dvina. The consequences of this two-sided violence were sad. Catholics and the Union received a new martyr, and his body, caught from the Dvina, became relics surrounded by miracles. Pope Urban VIII sent a message calling for vengeance and anathematizing those who would now object to the sword. About 10 citizens of Vitebsk were executed, the city was deprived of Magdeburg Law. It is forbidden everywhere not only to build again, but also to repair Orthodox churches... Thus, the hopes of the Sejm of 1623 for the legalization of Orthodoxy failed.” (13).
It was in this atmosphere that the first attempt was made to reunite southern and northern Rus'. With the full support of the Cossacks, Metropolitan. Job sent a request to Moscow to accept southern Rus' into Moscow citizenship. However, the Moscow government, weak after the Time of Troubles, fearing a new war with Poland, did not dare to take this step.
Restoring the Hierarchy
The restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy did not immediately resolve the painful tension in the Western Russian Church. And yet: “The decadent hierarchy, which had gone into union, was to be replaced by a more heroic succession. It came largely from the revived monasteries. For example, Metropolitan Isaiah Kopinsky, already when he was Bishop of Smolensk, himself dug caves to build a monastery. Such was the Bishop of Lutsk, Isaac Borisovich, who lived for a long time on Athos before he was consecrated by the patriarch. Feofan in 1620 as Bishop of Lutsk...” (14).
A favorable moment for the restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy presented itself when the Patriarch of Constantinople sent the Antiochian Patriarch Theophan on a mission to Moscow: “The Orthodox in Poland, of course, knew that Patriarch Theophan, who was traveling through the Kiev region to Moscow... had great authority from the Ecumenical Patriarch to establish the Orthodox Church in Poland. Patr. Theophan received permission from the government to visit Orthodox monasteries, churches and brotherhoods in different cities, no matter how unpleasant it was for the Uniate side... for the patronal feast of the Dormition of St. Mother of God, in the Kiev Lavra, “ambassadors”, that is, delegates of Orthodoxy from different regions of Poland, gathered in secret agreement to give formal strength to the planned secret restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy, as a revolutionary act from the Polish point of view. It was risky for the patrols. Feofan to decide on this “political rebellion”. But the Cossacks, led by Hetman Konashevich-Sagaidachny, state loyal to the Polish government, guaranteed the patriarch his protection and freedom. And so at night in the lower basement church, with the lighting hidden, under strong Cossack guard, a patrol was made. Theophan consecrated seven bishops, one of them as metropolitan... Thus, the Orthodox Church illegally restored its hierarchical fullness... The situation was tense. King Sigismund III declared Patriarch Theophan, who had already been taken abroad by the Cossacks, to be illegal, an impostor and a Turkish spy. The Orthodox hierarchs he appointed are illegal and subject to arrest and trial. For his part, Uniate Metropolitan I. Rutsky anathematized the newly installed Orthodox hierarchs as false bishops. The Uniate bishops sitting in their cathedras announced that they would not allow them into their cities. The Pope himself from Rome sent instructions to the king to “subject the Russian false bishops who incite rebellion to the punishment they deserve.” (15).
And again, as in the years of the post-Mongol yoke, the Orthodox hierarchs were forced to leave Kyiv. Only Metropolitan Job (1620-1631), being under the protection of the Cossacks, could remain in Kyiv. The remaining bishops were forced to hide from the Uniates and the authorities supporting them in various monasteries.
So, in our opinion, all of the above facts convincingly show the deplorable, or better yet, virtually hopeless situation in which the Kiev Metropolis found itself at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. So it would not be an exaggeration to say that it was the transfer of its southwestern part to the Moscow Patriarchate that saved the Western Orthodox dioceses of Ukraine from complete destruction.
With regard to the internal governance of the Russian Metropolis, the metropolitans were completely independent; their decisions did not require patriarchal approval - primarily due to the remoteness and political independence of Rus' from the Eastern Roman Empire. At the same time, as a rule, metropolitans were elected from natives of the Empire and appointed there. Disputes surrounding the succession to the throne of the All-Russian See often arose due to the fact that the Russian princes sought to install metropolitans who were Russian by birth in Rus', and the Constantinople patriarchs held tightly to the previous order. So, on the occasion of the war between Grand Duke Yaroslav and the Empire, the Kiev See was empty for a long time, and in the year he ordered the Council of Russian Bishops to install the first Russian Metropolitan, St. Hilarion, blessed by the Patriarch only in retrospect. The election of Kliment Smolyatich as metropolitan at the Council of Russian Bishops that year led to a split between them - those who insisted on the impossibility of installing a metropolitan without patriarchal participation were initially persecuted, but then received the support of the new Grand Duke Yuri Dolgoruky. Grand Duke Rostislav was forcibly convinced to accept Metropolitan John IV, who was installed in the year without his consent, and declared that if the appointment of a metropolitan without his consent was repeated again, then not only would he not be accepted, but a law would be issued " elect and install metropolitans from among the Russians by order of the Grand Duke"However, the opinion that at this time, under the threat of a church schism, it was possible to obtain the consent of the Empire to appoint only candidates approved by the prince to the Kiev Metropolis remains unfounded. Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky made an attempt to divide the Russian Metropolis into two, asking the Patriarch to appoint presented by Prince Theodore as metropolitan of Vladimir, but the patriarch appointed Theodore only as bishop... Thus, the procedure for sending Kiev metropolitans from the Empire remained unchanged during the pre-Mongol period.
Mongol-Tatar yoke and Western Troubles
Metropolitan Kirill III, elected in Rus' and installed in Constantinople, headed the All-Russian Metropolis for about 40 years and established a new order of its existence under the Mongols, firmly rejecting the possibility of union with Roman Catholicism. Metropolitan Kirill called himself “Archbishop of All Rus',” adhering to the concept of his supreme supervision over all the rulers of Rus', who acted by virtue of the powers entrusted by the metropolitan. The Metropolitan could no longer rule the Russian churches from devastated Kiev and spent his life on the move, staying the longest in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and his heir, Saint Maxim, had already finally settled in Vladimir.
The transfer of the metropolitan see to the north prompted the Grand Duke of Galicia, Yuri Lvovich, to ask for the founding of an independent metropolis for his Western Russian lands. The Galician candidate, Saint Peter, was installed not as Metropolitan of Galicia, but of Kiev and All Rus', and in the year he moved to Moscow, where the All-Russian See was finally transferred from Vladimir by his successor, Saint Theognostus. At the same time, subsequent All-Russian metropolitans in Moscow continued to be called Kyiv. At the same time, from the beginning of the 14th century, Western Russian and Lithuanian princes have been trying to divide the Russian flock into eastern and western ones in church terms. Constantinople sometimes appointed Galician and Lithuanian metropolitans, and then again abolished these Western Russian metropolitanates. The stable existence of numerous Russian metropolises did not become established during the Mongol-Tatar period, but this period became a time of inter-jurisdictional church unrest in the Russian flock, reflecting the growing political and cultural disunity of the Russian lands. The separate Lithuanian metropolitanate has been known since the end of the 13th century; the Galician metropolitanate was established three times in the 14th century. Saint Theognostus managed to achieve their closure. In the year Metropolitan Theodoret, appointed Patriarch of Tarnovo, appeared in Kyiv, but the Council of Constantinople deposed him. Although Russian metropolitans were sometimes appointed earlier, the installation of St. Alexius in the Empire in the year caused a special conciliar decree that the consecration of a Russian was an exception and for the future All-Russian metropolitans should be appointed from the Greeks. At the same time, it was decided not to divide the Russian metropolitanate, which was soon violated by the will of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Olgerd, who was at enmity with Moscow. The boundaries of the Kiev-Moscow and Kiev-Lithuanian metropolitanates were not demarcated and the rivals interfered in each other's affairs until the death of the Lithuanian Metropolitan Roman in the year. Despite the resolution of the Council of Constantinople, Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople yielded to Casimir of Poland and Olgerd of Lithuania, again dividing the Russian metropolitanate now into three - in the year he installed Metropolitan Anthony in Galich, and in the year St. Cyprian in Kiev. However, the latter, after the death of Saint Alexy of Moscow and the unsuccessful confrontation of the Moscow Grand Dukes for more than ten years, was able to unite the Russian Orthodox flock towards the end of his life. Once again, the question of dividing the Russian metropolis was raised in the 1410s by the Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania, who, having been refused in Constantinople, himself convened a Council of Lithuanian bishops in the year which elected Gregory (Tsamblak) Metropolitan of Kiev-Lithuania. By the 1430s, a situation had arisen in which three were elected metropolitans of Kyiv at once - Bishop of Ryazan St. Jonah in the Moscow state, Bishop of Smolensk Gerasim in Lithuania and Isidore in Constantinople. The latter received the appointment, being the instrument of Emperor John Palaiologos to establish a union with Roman Catholicism. Isidore accepted the Union of Florence in the year, but in the year, upon returning to Russia, he was condemned by a council of Russian bishops and fled from custody to Rome. After many years of delay, Saint Jonah was installed in Russia without the knowledge of the Uniate Patriarch Gregory Mamma. From that time on, the metropolitanate of Kiev and All Rus', with its center in Moscow, no longer resumed its dependence on the Church of Constantinople and from the year began to be called Moscow and All Rus'. Its recognition at the universal level, already as an autocephalous Patriarchate, took place in the year at the Council of Eastern Hierarchs. For its history, see Russian Orthodox Church.
Metropolis of Southwestern Rus'
The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the massive departure of its elites from Orthodoxy, the strengthening of Roman Catholic expansion through Uniateism, the consolidation of the Moscow State and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - all this led to the collapse of the unity of the Russian metropolis. In the year, the former Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory left for Rome and installed Isidore's student, the Uniate Gregory, there as metropolitan of Kyiv. Pope Pius II, sending Gregory to King Casimir IV of Poland, assigned 9 dioceses to the metropolis: Bryansk, Smolensk, Przemysl, Turov, Lutsk, Vladimir-Volyn, Polotsk, Kholm and Galicia. With the refusal of the Moscow rulers from the title of Kyiv, only the metropolitans of South-Western Rus' retained it. Metropolitan Gregory was not widely recognized among believers and soon returned to the fold of the Orthodox Church, entering under the Omophorion of Constantinople. The Church of Constantinople could do little to protect the Orthodox in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the subsequent history of the Kyiv Metropolis is a constant struggle to preserve Orthodoxy in the face of Roman Catholic pressure. The see of the Kyiv metropolitans of Southwestern Rus' often moved, defections to the union among the hierarchy were a periodic problem, and relations with the authorities were often hostile. Metropolitan George lived in Lithuania, and his heirs usually stayed in Vilna, but Metropolitan Joseph (Soltan) at the beginning of the 16th century lived mostly in Smolensk.
The struggle for the status of Orthodoxy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth went on with varying degrees of success. In the year, the Vilna Council tried to achieve greater independence for the Orthodox Church in Lithuania; The judicial privileges of the Russian clergy were confirmed by letters from Prince Alexander in 1965 and King Sigismund I in 1965. That year, the Grodno Sejm banned Orthodox Christians from holding senior positions in the state. Metropolitan Onesiphorus (Petrovich the Girl) petitioned Stefan Batory for a charter approving the rights and courts of the Orthodox Church, and from Sigismund III for a charter for church estates. Soon afterwards, the long-prepared cause of the abolition of Orthodoxy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was expressed in the year in the Union of Brest, which split the ranks of the Orthodox hierarchy.
The position of the metropolitan in ancient Rus' was very high. Being the spiritual head of all Russian lands, he stood not only at the head of the church hierarchy, but was often the closest adviser to the Grand Duke, and had an important influence on the course of state life. Thus, Saints Peter, Alexy and Jonah did a lot for the rise of the Moscow prince; During the childhood of the blessed Demetrius of Donskoy, Saint Alexy was in fact the ruler of the state. The Metropolitan often acted as an arbitrator between the princes. Princely letters often began with the words " with the blessing of our father, Metropolitan,” and were also sealed with the metropolitan signature and seal.
Device in Southwestern Rus'
With the division of metropolises, the South-Western dioceses were initially administered by the 9 dioceses listed above from the middle of the century. With the introduction of the Union of Brest, these dioceses were occupied by the Uniates, and although over the years Orthodox rulers were again appointed to some, in most cases they did not govern their dioceses. By the time of the Local Council of the Metropolis in the year, seven dioceses operated within it - the Kiev Metropolitan proper, the archdioceses of Polotsk and Smolensk, the bishoprics of Przemysl, Lutsk, Lviv and Mogilev. Since the year, four dioceses have remained under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Gideon - Galicia, Lvov, Lutsk and Przemysl; but they too were soon converted to the union, after which Gideon remained with the metropolitan diocese itself.
In political life, in the early days of the formation of the Southwestern Metropolis, the metropolitan took a place among the highest officials of the state, but with the introduction of the union, the Orthodox metropolitan lost its importance. In the 17th century, he sought to take a seat in the Senate along with the Roman Catholic metropolitans; this was promised more than once, but was not fulfilled. Metropolitans take part in councils when choosing hetmans, and also participate in the political struggle that took place in Little Russia between the Russian and Polish parties.
The sources of support for the Kiev metropolitans consisted of the ownership of real estate, from court duties, fees for provision, coronal memorials, as well as various fees: canteens - two kopecks from each courtyard, world fees - by money, malt fees - by half a ruble, office fees - by money . The immovable estates of the Kyiv department were formed mainly through grants from state authorities, hetmans and Kyiv colonels; private individuals also donated a lot; The department itself acquired a lot of land by purchase.
Bishops
- St. Michael I (988 - 992)
- Theophylact (988 - to 1018)
- John I (before 1018 - ca. 1030)
- Theopempt (1035 - 1040s)
- Cyril I (mentioned 1050)
- St. Hilarion Rusin (1051 - to 1055)
- Ephraim (c. 1055 - c. 1065)
- George (c. 1065 - c. 1076)
- St. John II (1076/1077 - 1089)
- John III (1090 - 1091)
- Nicholas (mentioned 1097 - 1101)
- Nikephoros I (1104 - 1121)
- Nikita (1122 - 1126)
- Michael II (I) (1130 - 1145/1146)
- Onufry Chernigovsky (1145 - 1147) v/u
- Theodore (1160 - 1161/1162)
- John IV (1163 - 1166)
- Constantine II (mentioned 1167 - 1169)
- Michael III (II) (1170 - ?)
- Nikephoros II (mentioned 1183 - 1198)
- Cyril II (1224 - 1233)
- Joseph (1236 - 1240)
Kyiv metropolitans of the Horde-Lithuanian period
- Cyril III (installed before 1242/1243, ordained ca. 1246/1247, in Rus' mentioned 1250 - 1281)
- St. Maxim (1283 - December 6, 1305) in Kyiv, on his travels, from 1299/1303 in Vladimir-on-Klyazma
- St. Peter (June 1308 - December 21, 1326) in Kyiv, from 1309 in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, from 1325 in Moscow
- ? St. Prokhor (December 1326 - 1328) v/u, ep. Rostovsky in Moscow
- St. Theognostus (1328 - March 11, 1353) in Moscow
- St. Alexy (Byakont) (1354 - February 12, 1378) in Moscow
- St. Cyprian (Tsamblak) (1375 - September 16, 1406) in Kyiv, from 1381 in Moscow, from 1382 in Kyiv, from 1390 in Moscow
- Michael IV (Mityai) (1378 - 1379) named
- Pimen the Greek (ordained in 1380, accepted in 1382, deposed 1384/1385) in Moscow
- St. Dionysius (1384 - October 15, 1385) imprisoned in Lithuania
- St.
Orthodox Church in Lithuania.
Earlier it was said that Metropolitan Maxim of Kiev and All Rus' moved to Vladimir in 1299, and his successor, Metropolitan Peter, moved to Moscow in 1333. As the two warring states of Poland-Lithuania and Moscow emerged, the presence of a single metropolitan see located in one of the capitals increasingly caused rejection on the part of Lithuania. The question was increasingly asked how the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' could be located not in Kyiv, but in Moscow. The Moscow princes considered this order quite logical, since they considered the Moscow Principality the only and natural successor of Kievan Rus, and themselves as direct descendants of the Rurikovichs. Moscow was not satisfied with only one thing - the dependence in the appointment of metropolitans by the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, neither Byzantium nor Rome were satisfied with Moscow’s desire for independence. For a century, attempts were made to divide the one church into two.
The Lithuanian princes, striving to maintain relative independence from Poland, did not interfere with the activities of the Orthodox Church. This was facilitated by the attack on the Catholic Church by reformers, of whom the most dangerous enemy of Rome was the Czech Hussites, a movement that could capture the Orthodox lower classes of Rus' with its ideas. To avoid this, Catholics were forced to formally assure the Orthodox of their recognition of the tenets of the Eastern Greek faith. The Emperor of the Roman Empire Sigismund himself solemnly declared that “... the Orthodox faith in the holiness of its dogmas is not inferior to the Roman Catholic one, and the Orthodox differ from Catholics in essence only in their beards and the wives of priests.” The Polish king Wladislaus II, son of Jagiello, taking into account the political situation, granted the Orthodox equal rights with Catholics in the performance of worship. At the same time, the Polish-Lithuanian authorities sought to tear their Orthodox subjects away from Moscow, seeking the restoration of the metropolitanate in Kyiv. The election of Gregory Tsamblak, a well-known preacher of Eastern Orthodoxy at that time, as Metropolitan of Kyiv, writer and preacher, took place in 1415 at a council of Ukrainian and Belarusian bishops. He performed his duties for only five years, after which he was forced, apparently as a result of political intrigue, to leave for a German monastery. Until 1431, the Orthodox dioceses united again under the hand of Moscow Metropolitan Photius. After his death in 1431, Bishop Jonah of Ryazan was elected metropolitan in Moscow. And two years later, the Lithuanian prince Svidrigailo, an ardent supporter of Orthodoxy, asked the Patriarch of Constantinople for the new metropolitan in Kyiv - Smolensk Bishop Gerasim, who was soon burned alive on suspicion of treason against Svidrigailo. After this, the dioceses united again, although not very willingly, since Jonah was not ordained according to the Eastern rite by the Patriarch of Constantinople. It ended with the Patriarch of Constantinople ordaining in 1435 his protege, a supporter of the union, the Greek Isidore, who arrived in Moscow in 1437.
Union of Florence.
The Western Catholic and Eastern Greek churches split, as we noted earlier, in 1054, and since then have repeatedly declared their desire to unite. Naturally, provided that the opposite side recognizes the “true” dogmas. While Byzantium was at the zenith of its glory, the unification could not happen. But as soon as the advance of the Ottoman Empire threatened the very existence of the Byzantine Empire, its ambitions diminished significantly, and the patriarchs and the emperor became supporters of unification with Rome under certain conditions. This was precisely the goal pursued by the Council of Florence, convened on the initiative of Pope Eugene and the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos. Moscow Prince Vasily II had great hopes for this cathedral, hoping to ask the Patriarch of Constantinople for the right of autocephaly (church independence). He sent an entire delegation to Florence, headed by Metropolitan Isidore, which included the princely ambassador.
A fairly large delegation of the Eastern Orthodox Church took part in the work of the Florence Council (1439 - 1442). In the process of preparing the most important decisions on the unification of churches, dogmatic disputes flared up at the council. However, due to the same reasons associated with the Turkish danger, the Byzantine representatives were forced to recognize the supremacy of the Pope and accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith with the condition of preserving Orthodox rituals. Metropolitan Isidore, being the sole representative of the Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow and Kyiv, he defended the need for union, but encountered opposition from the secular representative of the Moscow prince - Bishop Thomas of Tver.
As a result of long discussions and heated dogmatic debates, the union was accepted, but when Isidore returned to Moscow, Vasily II was furious with the results of the activities of the Russian delegation and Isidore personally. Hoping to gain autonomy and independence from Constantinople in church affairs, the newly created “legate from the side of St. Peter" Isidore brought the Moscow prince a papal letter, in which the Grand Duke was invited to be a "zealous assistant" to Isidore in exchange for the "papal blessing." By order of the prince, Isidore was imprisoned in the Miracle Monastery, from where he fled first to Lithuania, then to Kiev and finally to Rome, where he became a cardinal, formally remaining the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'.
An interesting situation has arisen. Relations with Byzantium were spoiled, since the patriarch himself turned out to be a supporter of the union; all attempts by Vasily II to obtain permission from Constantinople to independently elect a metropolitan were unsuccessful. The Kiev prince Olelko was also at a loss about Isidore’s behavior and intentions. In response to his request (6 years after Isidore’s departure) to Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople, the latter replied that Cardinal Cyrus-Isidore is the legitimate Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'.
Isidore himself was not at all involved in the affairs of the Kyiv metropolis, although he repeatedly planned to come to Kyiv. Meanwhile, Vasily II, having learned about the patriarch’s response regarding Isidore, in 1448 again initiated the election of Bishop Jonah of Ryazan as metropolitan. But the time came when the idea of union ceased to be relevant. Both initiators of this action (Pope Eugene and Emperor John) died, the new Pope Nicholas V was a supporter of Catholicism, the Polish king and the Lithuanian prince Casimir expressed his complete subordination to Rome. However, the military successes of the Moscow prince forced Casimir to turn to Bishop Jonah for assistance in signing peace with Moscow in exchange for a promise to unite the metropolises. Jonah really became a truly united metropolitan of all Rus' and Moscow and Ukrainian and Belarusian, but some bishops did not recognize him.
Division of metropolitan areas.
Meanwhile, in 1453, a terrible catastrophe occurred for the entire Orthodox world: the Turks took Constantinople and destroyed it. In Moscow, this event was regarded as God's punishment for betrayal of Orthodoxy at the Council of Florence and from now on did not consider themselves connected with Byzantium in terms of the mandatory ordination of metropolitans. Isidore, who called himself Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus', was a direct witness to the fall of Constantinople, after which he returned to Rome and became an adviser to the new pope, Calistos III, who again returned to the ideas of union. On the advice of Isidore, he appointed Bishop Macarius as metropolitan in Galicia by a special bull in 1458. And after that he began to seek the resumption of a separate Kyiv metropolitanate. The split of the once united church occurred on September 3, 1458, when Calistus III's successor, Pope Pius II, issued a bull dividing the Kyiv Metropolis into an upper (Moscow) and a lower (Polish-Lithuanian) metropolitanate. At the same time, the upper metropolis was retained by the same Isidore, and the lower one by the abbot of the Greek monastery Gregory, a student of Isidore with the title Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'. At the same time, Pius II appealed to Casimir and the Russian flock within the Principality of Lithuania not to allow either Moscow or Constantinople envoys into the Lithuanian part, and to the flock in the upper metropolis - with an appeal not to recognize Jonah. The fact is that after the defeat of Byzantium there were two ecumenical Orthodox patriarchs - one in Constantinople under the rule of the Turkish Sultan, and the other in Rome.
Accordingly, Moscow Metropolitan Jonah convened a local council of Russian bishops and took an oath of allegiance from them. However, the heads of the bishoprics that were part of Lithuania were in no hurry to recognize him. At the same time, the Kiev prince Semyon Olelkovich recognized Jonah as the head of the Russian church. Both Patriarchs of Constantinople (Roman in exile, recognized by the Pope, and Istanbul, approved by Sultan Mohammed II), while at odds with each other, nevertheless confirmed the legality of the appointment of Metropolitan Gregory of Kiev. By the way, the same Isidore became the Patriarch of Constantinople in exile in 1461, who, naturally, could not help but recognize his student and protege. This is how the once united Russian Orthodox Church was divided into two metropolises. Around this intricacy of events and interests, debate among historians and politicians continues about who has more rights to be considered ordained metropolitan on a legal basis. Formally, Moscow Metropolitan Jonah was not ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople, but Gregory of Kiev was, and not one, but two at once. But one of them was in Rome and acted on behalf of the pope, that is, in fact, he was a Uniate, and the second consecrated metropolitans with the gracious permission of the Turkish Sultan. In Moscow, as is known, the union was not recognized, and trust in Byzantium was undermined by the fall of the ancient center of Orthodoxy - Constantinople.
Over the next few years, the Turks conquered Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Bosnia. The Orthodox world was losing its historical roots. Muscovite Rus' increasingly dissociated itself from the old Christian centers - Rome and Constantinople and strengthened its independence in church life, while the Kiev Metropolis, continuing communication with both centers, was torn between the West and the East. The advancing Polonization of Ukrainian society threatened a complete loss of its identity and even a change of faith. But this did not happen, at the cost of titanic efforts; Orthodoxy did not dissolve either in Catholicism or in Protestant reformism.
| | Moscow metropolitans who had a see in Moscow - Moscow and all Rus'.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 2
✪ Lecture 25. History of the Western Russian (Lithuanian) Metropolis
✪ Lecture 25. History of the Western Russian (Lithuanian) Metropolis. Answers on questions
Subtitles
History of the Kyiv Metropolis
Pre-Mongol period (X - mid-XIII century)
In 1441, in the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev and All Rus', who recognized the Union of Florence, was captured in Moscow and then fled. In 1448, a council of Russian bishops elected in Moscow a new Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', Jonah (possibly named patriarch back in 1436 at the consecration of Isidore). The installation of Jonah is considered the beginning of the actual independence (autocephaly) of the northeastern Russian dioceses, although it did not raise any objections from Constantinople and was recognized by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir IV (), who sanctioned the subordination of the Lithuanian-Russian dioceses to Metropolitan Jonah. Isidore only in 1458 renounced the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus' in favor of his disciple Gregory (Bulgarin), whom the former Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory III Mamma appointed to the Western Russian lands with a see in Kiev. He and his successors began to bear the title Metropolitans of Kyiv, Galicia and All Rus'. After the death of Jonah (), Metropolitan Theodosius, elected in Moscow, and his successors began to bear the title Metropolitans of Moscow and All Rus', retaining only formal subordination to Constantinople.
In 1439, the highest hierarchs of the Greek and Roman churches, having gathered at a council in Florence, concluded a union - an act of uniting both branches of Christianity.
For participation in this action, the council of Moscow rulers expels the then Metropolitan Isidore, electing Bishop Jonah of Ryazan instead. The Ecumenical Patriarch did not recognize this election, and in 1458 he appointed Gregory Bulgarian Metropolitan of Kyiv. In response, Moscow does not recognize Gregory. At the council assembled by Jonah in 1448, the metropolitans of the dioceses located in the territory controlled by the Moscow prince swore an oath “not to deviate from the holy Church of Moscow.” In this document, for the first time, the Russian Church is called Moscow.
Thus, in 1448, it was Moscow that split the Kyiv Metropolis, proclaiming its autocephaly, which Constantinople and other churches did not recognize for 141 years. Moscow metropolitans no longer claim the title of "Kiev", they call themselves "Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'".
P Okrovskaya Church in the village of Sutkivtsi (Khmelnitsky region) - a temple of the 15th century. At the top you can see the loopholes of the battle tier; if necessary, the church turned into a fortress
So in the first history textbook - published according to the editorship of Innocent Gisel "Synopsis" - a section appeared "Where two metropolitans came from in Rus'."
Moscow does not recognize the Kyiv metropolitan, Constantinople and Kyiv - the Moscow one. This is the beginning of the confrontation between Constantinople and Moscow.
1589: Moscow Patriarchate
1453 Constantinople fell under the attacks of the Ottoman Turks. Moscow declares itself the “third Rome”, and a century later it is already aiming for the patriarchate. This was done for political reasons - they even write it down in their documents, saying, “The Tsar-Father said, and we sentenced.” In 1589, Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II came to Moscow. Ruler Boris Godunov invited him to negotiations about a possible move from the city captured by the Turks, but it turned out that the patriarch was being offered the “ancient capital” - Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and would leave his own metropolitan in Moscow.
Dormition Prechistensky Cathedral in Vilnius - the residence of the Kyiv Metropolitan in the 15th-18th centuries
When Jeremiah refused, secular authorities pressured him to recognize the Moscow Metropolitan as an independent patriarch.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan of Kyiv continued to be confirmed by Constantinople. This satisfied everyone, especially since Kyiv de facto enjoyed autocephalous powers - the cathedral elected the metropolitan, and in Phanar (the residence of the Patriarch of Constantinople) they only issued a charter that confirmed his ordination.
Due to Turkish aggression, the patriarch sat in his residence and did not even try to leave there unless necessary. The Metropolitan of Kyiv, however, was entitled to a huge territory - from Vilnius and the White Church, from Przemysl to Smolensk.
1620: The Patriarch of Jerusalem consecrates the Metropolitan
After attempts by Rome and Warsaw to introduce a union in Ukraine (1596), the national elite had another idea about autocephaly - this time in the form of the Kyiv Patriarchate. Both Prince Vasily-Konstantin Ostrozhsky and later Peter Mogila thought about this. The Kyiv Patriarch, after painstaking work, had to be recognized by all hierarchs, including the Pope - this would allow those who transferred to the union to return without problems to the fold of a single local church.
Meanwhile, the problem of the Uniate schism arose already at the beginning of the 17th century. Even the Kiev Metropolitan accepts the union, and the throne becomes vacant. Finally, in 1620, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, having the necessary powers from Constantinople, secretly, under the protection of the Cossacks, ordained a new metropolitan. Then the union ceased to be a problem: after the Khmelnytsky War, when the Ukrainians reached the Vistula, it was simply abolished. It is significant that the Ukrainian clergy categorically refused to swear allegiance to the Moscow Tsar in Pereyaslav in 1654. A spiritual (Not Cossack and not bourgeois) mission led by the theologian Innocent Gisel also went to Moscow for negotiations - they signed nothing.
Elias Church in the village of Subotov (Cherkasy region). Khmelnytsky family tomb
After concluding a political union, Moscow also wanted a church union. Patriarch Kakim (Savelov) especially insisted on this. Together with the Moscow Tsar, he turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople several times, asking him to cede the Ukrainian Church to Moscow, but did not receive consent.