This was posted on the Byzantine Speaks list by Mary Lancer...
KYIVAN METROPOLITAN PETRO MOHYLA AND CHURCH UNITY
Ihor Kutash
kutash@unicorne.org
I. Introduction
Archbishop Iakovos Koukoujis, head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has said:
Our own concept [that of the Orthodox Catholic(1) Communion - IGK] of Orthodoxy is that it represents the Christian church doctrine, order, worship and tradition of the first eight centuries of united Christendom...Orthodoxy being true to her history and traditions and compelled by the consciousness of her God-ordained task, is present and intends to be present and participate actively in all ecumenical conversations as long as their aim is to restore the disrupted unity of Christendom. Orthodoxy's principal aim in participating in the ecumenical movement is to make her own contribution to the sacred cause of bringing divided Christians together... (2)
These are inspiring words from a highly respected North American Church leader. They express well the rationale for the participation of the Orthodox Catholic communion in the ecumenical movement which holds much hope for peace and harmony upon our shrinking planet. They also echo the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III of 1902, who said:
Difficulties should not discourage us, nor should the thought of the apparent impossibility of it (church unity) stop us from engaging ourselves in the work of church unity which is dear to God... (3)
What is not commonly known is the important contribution of the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv, Petro Mohyla (1596-1647), not only to the work of church unity, a contribution which required immense faith, courage and determination on his part, but also to the development of the image of the Orthodox Catholic communion required to make it the important partner that it is in the movement of ecumenism, a term which he most likely had never heard. Like many geniuses of the human soul, Petro Mohyla was in many respects a man ahead of his time.
II. The Setting
Arcady Joukovsky has written an thorough study of the topic of our discussion for the Ukrainian Free University in Munich(4) . It is to be hoped that it will be translated into English or French to provide a balance to the exceedingly critical evaluation of the place of Mohyla in Orthodoxy by highly acclaimed Russian emigre scholars such as the late Fr. Georges Florovsky. Ihor Sevcenko's essay, "The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla" (5) is also very helpful - and, happily, accessible to those who do not know Slavic languages.
The time of Petro Mohyla, who was born the year of the Union of Berestya, was a time of great controversy, great danger and great opportunity. James Cracraft of Harvard University writes:
Religiously as in other ways the Ukraine was a frontier land particularly exposed to the cross-currents of controversy and a land where, accordingly, one's faith stood in special need of definition. (6)
Of Moldavian aristocratic background, and likely educated in the L'viv Brotherhood school and other west European centres of learning, Petro Mohyla ascended first to the prestigious post of Archimandrite of the Kyivan Cave Monastery and then to the Metropolitan Throne of Kyiv upon the restoration of legality to the Orthodox Church by an act of the Polish parliament in 1632. This required the deposition of the incumbent Metropolitan, Moscow-leaning Isaia Kopynsky. Such was the price of the rights acquired by the Orthodox. Metropolitan Isaia had been one of the hierarchs secretly consecrated by Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem at the request and under the protection of the Kozak Host in 1620. Petro Mohyla, formerly a fellow-soldier to Petro Sahaidachny, the Kozak leader, accepted the destiny placed upon his youthful shoulders with resolution and determination.
He became the Archpastor of a deeply troubled and divided flock. Educational resources were scarce and there was a good deal of anarchy on the liturgical front as well. The friction over the Union of Berestya was still hot. Church buildings were fought over. The struggle included bloodshed - martyrs were made for both sides of the controversy. There were prominent defectors from one side and the other. No help was available from the mother Church of Constantinople since she was under the domination of an Islamic empire and also struggling to define her faith under the onslaught of Protestantism (i.e. the "Calvinist" Confession of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris, to which Mohyla's Confession may have been a response) as well as Catholicism. A less opportune time for healing the wounds of Christ's Church can hardly be conceived.
III. The Work
The measure of the man is that in the midst of all this the Metropolitan commenced to systematically prepare the way for the fulfilment of the prayer offered in every Orthodox Divine Liturgy: "for the good estate of the holy Churches of God and for the union of them all." Professor Joukovsky believes that Mohyla was chiefly inspired by the Christian ideal of "one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16) together with his experience of the chaos and scandal of Church disunity in the lands of the Polish commonwealth. "Consistency demanded of every Christian that they move forward from declaration to realization", writes Joukovsky. (7)
The Metropolitan was a statesman from birth. He knew that true dialogue demanded that both sides see themselves and each other as equals. The tragic results of the Union of Berestya - strife and bloodshed instead of peace and harmony - were due to the fact that the Orthodox side was seen, and perhaps saw itself, as second-class.
The Union of Berestya is criticized in a document, whose authorship is commonly ascribed to Mohyla and Adam Kysil', a prominent Ukrainian statesman of the time. It had not been preceded by an open dialogue, including the laity - as is traditional in the Orthodox Church. Those who promoted the Union were not moved by ideals but by personal interest. Worst of all, the Union was unnatural, since it "did not aim at preserving religion but at transforming the Greek faith into the Roman". A true union would " unite two into one without destroying the united parts [emphasis added]".(8)
To prepare the way for such a true union Mohyla directed his energy at strengthening the position of the Orthodox. His efforts were three-pronged. First he set about developing a centre of higher learning, modeled after Western schools. The language of instruction was Latin. Orthodox zealots viewed this development with suspicion. Mohyla allayed their fears by merging his Monastery School with the Kyivan Brotherhood School. Thus came about the Kyivan Mohyla College, later elevated to the status of an Academy, a monument to the zeal of the Metropolitan, which prepared spiritual leaders for the entire Orthodox world for many years.
Secondly, Mohyla standardized liturgical Services by publishing his famous Trebnyk or Euchologion (Book of Needs, containing the various sacramental services of the Orthodox Church). He included certain forms adapted from Latin usage. It is possible to criticize him for introducing non-Orthodox elements. However the renowned Byzantinologist Ihor Sevcenko declares that, in intention at least, "the sources he [Mohyla] had were Greek, even if sometimes they were located in the West - in Venice or even in Eton." (9) It is possible nonetheless that Mohyla may have been trying to lay the foundations for an ultimate reconciliation between two divergent traditions. Mohyla believed that they ought to live together as good sister Churches, always preserving their uniqueness - a unity in diversity.
Thirdly, Mohyla published his famous Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church(10) . This was accepted by the Church Council held in Kyiv in 1640 and, with some revision on the part of Greek theologian, Meletios Syrigos, by the Council held in Jassy, Moldavia, in 1642. Then the Greek version was approved by all the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church in 1643 and it "was highly valued and accepted as the official profession of faith by all the leaders of Orthodox churches of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries". (11) Professor Joukovsky maintains:
We are of the opinion that the Orthodox Confession was not a polemical work; thus it was not directed against [emphasis added] anyone. Its aim was to give the Ukrainian Orthodox Church a true and consistent teaching "founded upon conscientious study of Holy Scripture" in the form of a catechism. (12)
The Metropolitan did much to put this tool for personal and community enrichment as well as inter-church dialogue into the hands of the widest possible constituency. The scholarly work appeared in Greek and Latin, while a popular abbreviated version was published in the vernacular middle Ukrainian ("Ruthenian" or "Rus'ke") and the state language, Polish.
As with the Trebnyk so with the Confession, Metropolitan Petro Mohyla has been faulted for introducing Latinism into the Orthodox Church, a charge that Fr. Ronald Peter Popivchak, endeavours to refute in his doctoral dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the School of Religious Studies, Catholic University of America (13). I have noted that, although Mohyla did make use of Western sources, as did many of his contemporaries, his Confession is rich in quotes from the Eastern Fathers of the Church.
On the other hand, Fr. Andre Partykevich, an Orthodox scholar, in a paper entitled "Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kiev and an Analysis of His Orthodox Confession of Faith" (as yet unpublished), examines several areas in which the Metropolitan may have stepped over the line due to his desire to create a theological basis for reconciliation with the Latins. He observes that "Mohyla would, of course, appeal to a Church which believes in a Catholic theology, yet practices an eastern ritual". Echoing Sevcenko's appeal to "keep the verdict of Mohyla's contemporaries [emphasis added] in mind"(14), Fr. Partykevich maintains:
The Orthodox Confession of Faith by Petro Mohyla needs to be viewed in its seventeenth-century context. To use the document today as a defense of Orthodox theology or as a response to Protestant or Roman Catholic criticism, would be a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Rather, the document's true importance and relevance lies in its role as a historical treatise of the living faith.
Mohyla may have been overly optimistic in his assessment of the ease with which Orthodox and Catholic theology may be reconciled. I tend to believe this to be the case. Nonetheless it is important to note that Mohyla published another work under the pseudonym "Eusebius Pimen" (Virtuous Pastor), entitled Lithos albo Kamien z procy prawdy cerkwie swietey prawoslavney Ruskiey (The Rock from the Catapult of Truth of the Holy Ruthenian Orthodox Church), in which he fiercely defends Orthodoxy against the attacks of Kasian Sakovych, formerly the Rector of the Kyivan Brotherhood School, who converted to the Berestya Union and then to the Latin Church. It was published in 1644 just after the Confession and prior to the Trebnyk.
It must have been painful to face opposition from a former ally. Sakovych was the one who, together with Kyivan Metropolitan, Iov Boretsky, greeted the young Mohyla when he first came to Kyiv for the funeral of Hetman Sahaidachny in 1622, and may have influenced him in choosing his vocation in the Church. Again, Mohyla proved equal to the challenge. He maintained his irenic disposition and work for Church unity, while resolutely rejecting and opposing the sort of union which would destroy living faith communities by assimilating and submerging its component parts. His faith and dedication survived, but he did not give way to haste in working for what he viewed as a realizable long-term project, a united Patriarchate of the Kyivan Church which would be in communion with both Constantinople and Rome. (15)
4. Conclusion
As is frequently the case with peace-makers and ecumenists, Petro Mohyla got into the line of fire of both sides in the Orthodox-Catholic dissension. As an Orthodox priest, I must admit that I myself felt uncomfortable with some statements and terms, particularly in the Sententia document where the author appears to be all too willing to recognize the immediate primacy of the current Pope of Rome, stating that doctrinal differences such as the question of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit are of minor significance, and can be dealt with later. If, as seems most likely, Mohyla was a co-author, he was wise not to sign it. But chickens do come home to roost eventually, and the Metropolitan may, in the long run, have hurt the cause of unity almost as much as he helped it.
In his zeal to name, specify and organize Church teachings and rites, Mohyla sometimes seems to have lost sight of an essential characteristic of Orthodox Catholic Christianity of the East: a prudent and reverent reticence to indulge in words lest they detract from the mystical encounter of the soul with the living God Who defies description. Fr. Thomas Hopko's observation with regard to discussion of Church unity are worth noting:
The fact that the faith and life of Rome would not be forced upon them would not be sufficient reason for the Orthodox to have union with Rome...the Orthodox say that certain elements in Latin Christianity are not all right for anyone, including the Latins...The real question concerns...terms of spirit and truth. (16)
On the other hand, I believe Metropolitan Mohyla would approve of the sort of dialogue and honest mutual searching that is currently going on at various levels between Orthodox and Catholics. Recent statements such as the one adopted in Balamand in 1993 are very promising. (17) Orthodox scholarship has gone forward a great deal from the time that the Moldavian Churchman established his pioneering "Atheneum" in Kyiv. We are learning to better appreciate the wisdom behind Orthodox reticence to grant the dignity of doctrine to matters which are otherwise acceptable as "theologoumena", i. e. matters of theological speculation, which are the privilege of all believers.
Metropolitan Mohyla would also certainly approve of the statement by Orthodox Professor Nikos Nissiotis with which I shall close this paper:
A confession should never be used as a separating force but as a uniting one pointing towards the One central event of the Church: its Oneness, realized by the trinitarian God in his historical Church. (18)
If we keep this in mind, we may indeed see the union of which Metropolitan Mohyla dreamed, to which he dedicated his life, and for which he made such significant contributions.
Bibliography (19)
Fedoriv, George. Istoriia Tserkvy v Ukraiini (History of the Church in Ukraine). Toronto, 1967.
Florovsky, Georges. Ways of Russian Theology, Part One. Vol. 5. Belmont, Mass: Nordland Co., 1979.
Hopko, Thomas. All the Fulness of God: Essays on Orthodoxy, Ecumenism and Modern Society. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982.
Janiw, Wolodymyr, ed. Zbirnyk prats' Iuvileinoho Kongresu (A Collection of the Works of the Anniversary Congress). Munich: Komittee des Wissenschaftlichen Kongresses zum Millennium des Christentums in der Ukraine, 1988/1989.
Joukovsky, Arcady. Petro Mohyla y pytannia iednosty tserkov (Petro Mohyla and the Question of the Unity of the Churches). Paris: Ukrainian Free University, 1969.
Keleher, Serge, ed. Eastern Churches Journal: A Journal of Eastern Christendom. Vols. 1 & 2. London, England/Fairfax, Virginia: Eastern Christian Publications Inc., 1994.
Kubijovyc, Volodymyr, ed. Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia. Vol. II. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press for The Ukrainian National Association, 1971.
Partykevich, Andre: "Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kiev and an Analysis of His Orthodox Confession of Faith". An unpublished paper, 1986.
Patelos, Constantin G., ed. The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement. Documents and Statements 1902-1975. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978.
Popivchak, Ronald Peter. Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47). Translation and Evaluation of His "Orthodox Confession of Faith: (1640). Washington, D. C., 1975.
Pritsak, Omeljan and Sevcenko, Ihor, eds. The Kiev Mohyla Academy. Commemorating the 350th Anniversary of Its Founding (1632). Cambridge, Mass.: Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University, 1984.
Saint Paul University. Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine: A Symposium. Ottawa, Ontario: Saint Paul University, 1985, 1987.
1. 0 The term "Orthodox Catholic" is a more appropriate term then "Eastern Orthodox": (1) it is inaccurate and misleading to refer to Orthodoxy in geographic terms, for it is eastern and western, as well as southern and northern; (2) catholicity, i. e., all that is implied by the theological use of the term, applies as much to Orthodoxy as it does to Roman Catholicism; and (3) it may be helpful in breaking down stereotypes that prolong the scandal of Church disunity.
2. 0 "The Contribution of Eastern Orthodoxy to the Ecumenical Movement", The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement. World Council of Churches: 1978. P. 211.
3. 0 Cited in ibid. p. 211.
4. 0 (Petro Mohyla and the Problem of Unity of Churches), Ukrainian Free University: Paris 1969.
5. 0 Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. VIII, no. 1/2, June 1984: The Kiev Mohyla Academy, pp. 9-44.
6. 0 "Theology at the Kiev Academy", Harvard Ukrainian Studies, op. cit., p. 78.
7. 0 Joukovsky, op. cit., p. 204.
8. 0 Quote from Joukovsky's Ukrainian translation of the document Sententia cuiusdam nobilis Poloni Graecae religionis in op. cit. pp. 156-7.
9. 0 Sevcenko, op. cit., p. 17.
10. 0 Note the adjectives used to preface the term "Eastern" Church. Is it significant, as Fr. Ronald Popivchak (see below) maintains, that "Orthodox" is used as an adjective for "Confession" rather than "Faith" ( p.15)?
11. 0 Sevcenko, op. cit., p. 34.
12. 0 Joukovsky, op. cit., p. 179.
13. 0 Washington, D.C., March 1975, 236 pages. The dissertation includes the text of the Confession translated into English.
14. 0 Sevcenko, op. cit., pp. 33-4.
15. 0 On the other hand, it is interesting that in his Confession Metropolitan Mohyla speaks of the Church of Jerusalem as the Mother of all Christian Churches. See Popivchak, pp. 55-6.
16. 0 "Reflections on Eastern Rite Catholicism", All the Fulness of God: Essays on Orthodoxy, Ecumenism and Modern Society, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press: Crestwood, New York, 1982. P. 126.
17. 0 Published in Eastern Church Journal, London, England and Fairfax, Virginia; winter 1993/94, vol. 1, no. 1. Pp. 17-28.
18. 0 "The Witness and the Service of Eastern Orthodoxy to the One Undivided Church", The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, World Council of Churches: 1978. P. 240.
19. 0 I am much indebted to Fr. Andriy Chirovsky of The Szeptytsky Institute at St. Paul University in Ottawa for giving me access to the Institute library while I was preparing this paper.
