Dear Isa,
Yes, the Rus' Orthodox Church which was based in Kyiv/Kiev at first.
When the Kyivan Metropolitans moved to Moscow, they soon changed their title to "of Moscow."
Yes, that is often asserted, but no evidence is ever offered.
The Metropolitan of Kiev, in the person of St. Peter, was translated to Moscow in 1299. Yet he still was enthroned as "Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'." The Sakkos of Met. Photios (c. 1417) over a century later labels him so, although he is standing in image with the Grand Prince of Moscow on it. Isidore "
of Kiev" went to Moscow to be enthroned almost a half century later. When he was deposed, and his successor elected, St. Jonah was enthroned as "Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'" in 1448, and formally recognized by the Royal Diploma in 1451 as having possession of the Metropolitan's properties in Kiev and Novgorodok (Lithuania) and jurisdiction over the Orthodox in Poland-Lithuania by King Casimir IV of Poland. When Casimir changed his mind and accepted the usurper Gregory Bolgarin, Met. has the bishops swear loyalty on the relics of St. Peter in Moscow and denounce "Gregory, excommunicated from the Holy Catholic Church, who calls himself Metropolitan of Kiev."
And then the Metropolitanate of Kiev came about.
No, that didn't happen until EP Jerimiah came in person and orgainized it, the same time he was busy elevating the Metropolitan of Kiev into the Patriarch of Moscow.
The Metropolitan that Old Rome, ignoring the Sacred Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, ordained (by its deposed patriarch of Constantinople and the deposed Isidore, both in exile in the Vatican)-Gregory Bolgarin-sought to take possession of the Church of Moscow, and sought-and received-recognition by EP Dionysios in 1466 to that end. A few later, Old Rome tried to do the same by marrying off the heiress of New Rome, Zoe Palaeologina, to the Grand Prince of Moscow and All Rus' Ivan III-she changed her name to Sophia and returned to Orthodoxy, while her chaperon Card. Bessarion, the Greek Latin "Patriarch of Constantinople" (successor of the deposed Isidore "of Kiev," the successor of the deposed EP Gregory Mammas) was sent back home to the Vatican empty handed. When a few years later the bishops in Poland-Lithuania elected a Metropolitan, Constantinople responded by sending Spyridon (Satana) of Tver to both Moscow and Vilnius, both of whom rejected him (while the metropolitan-elect, Misael, never received confirmation from Constantinople).
(for those who wont' take my word on it, they can consult Bp. Borys'
Crisis and Reform pp. 43-53)
The situation devolved into a triangle resembling the OCA-Phanar relation in North America, or the Vatican vis-a-vis the "UGCC Patriarchate": Constantinople, Moscow and Vilnius each acted as if they had jurisdiction over All Rus', each only controlling part (Moscow and Vilnius territory, Constantinople legitimacy and the power of granting stavropegal status). This kabuki played out even at when the highest levels were directly involved with each other-like when New Rome confirmed Third Rome's adoption of the title of Czar in 1547.
Theory did not catch up with reality until EP Jermias III visit to Moscow: the see was officially set up in Moscow (it had been translated from Kiev to Vladimir in the early 14th century, and technically was still there, where the Metropolitan had a Cathedral, after which the Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow was modeled, a break from the Holy Wisdoms of Constantinople, Kiev, Novgorod etc), with an autocephalous Patriarch, with jurisdiction over Russia ( Ῥωσσία/Россiя, indicating the region ruled by Rostov-Vladimir-Suzdal-Moscow, a grouping found in episcopal lists from at least the 13th century, when Constantinople had undisputed jurisdiction over All Rus') "and the Northern Lands" (i.e. not the South or West, in Poland-Lithuania). Having set theory to reality there, EP Jeremiah proceeded to do the same in Poland-Lithuania, reorganizing the Orthodox into a Metropolitanate of Kiev, which received the blow of Brest, which made it stagger. It limped on, however, until 1620, when it was renewed, and 1633, when it blossomed into full vigor under Met. St. Peter Movila, the real founder of the Metropolitanate of Kiev of today.
The Churches were, in documents, referred to on the basis of their metropolitanical cities just as there was a "Roman Church" and the Church of Constantinople." The Duchy of Muscovy and its people (until Peter I, they were truly "Muscovites")
No. They included the old principalities of Novgorod (the birthplace of the Rus' state), Pskov, Tver, Murom-Ryazan, Smolensk, Chernigov, many of whose noble families and boyars settled in Moscow-the destination of many of the same Rus' under the yoke of Poland-Lithuania. Btw, after 1547 it was a Kingdom, no longer a Grand Duchy/Principality.
The documents continued to refer to "the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'" after 1299, when he settled in Vladimir. Shortly thereafter the see was canonically translated to Vladimir, and it continued to be referred to as the see of the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus' (like the Patriarch of Antioch resides in Damascus, and not at his Cathedral in Antioch), after he moved to 1325. That change didn't get settled until 1593.
The documents thereafter refer to the Church of "Moscow and All Russia." Later on, at which point I do not know, it reverted to "Moscow and All Rus'."
were seen as a distinct entity which stopped looking to Kiev as its ecclesial head.
Why would it? The Metropolitan of Kiev was the first bishop of Moscow, when he settled there in 1325 (although he remained listed as translated to Vladimir)
When St Peter Mohyla and his colleagues referred to the "Muscovites" they were referring to a real entity, one that they considered "barbaric."
Yes, an interesting assessment, given that it provided the Metropolitanate of Kiev with the first complete Bible and a "Muscovite" (his word-he was very open and insistent on that, in Slavic, Polish and Greek), Ivan Fedorov, brought printing-the single most important element of modernity at the time-from Moscow itself (where he was a deacon) to the Metropolitanate. Hence the Ostrog/Ostrih Bible.
So was there a "Muscovite Church of Rus'?" Yes, there was and one that soon became a patriarchate. The differences between Moscow and Kiev were based on culture. They also developed their own particular ecclesial particularities, as Metropolitan Ilarion wrote about in his works. A fascinating study.
Such differences did not begin until 1476 at the earliest, and did not become set until 1593. The differences developed in the disparity of political circumstances, which shaped the culture.
My earlier tangential on Met. Andrew related more to your statement about his being baptised in the Latin Rite etc.
I just felt what you said wasn't truly representative of the man as someone I am very close to and who could be out of range of your own experience. If I gave offense, I apologise, sir.
I wasn't offended at all. Facts are facts (and I already knew those facts), I was just pointing on that Polonization did not always take, in contrast to backgrounds not mattering-it helped the Lithuanians and Lithuania none that Józef Piłsudski came from them. The Poles who depended on Met. Sheptytskyi to act as "one of their own" packed his enthronement in L'viv, not realizing that he wasn't their lackey.
