www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Peter Mohila: Troparion and Kontakion

Dear Michael,

The case of Met. Isidore of Kyiv at Florence was interesting since he followed the "political" conviction of the Greek party there that ecclesial union with the West was necessary to ensure needed military assistance to save Constantinople etc.

Unlike the Greek unionists at Florence who were later obliged to recant their union with Rome due to anger at home, Isidore later went to Rome where he lived as an EC hierarch and spent the remainder of his days trying to assist his Orthodox countrymen.

I believe that he was ejected as Metropolitan of Kyiv by Moscow who then installed the fiercely anti-Western Metropolitan, St Jonah.


Alex

Two points:

1). Orthodox Catholic seems to be repeatdely dismissing the historical context of the counter reformation which could never "leave Catholics feeling at home" in Orthodox institutions. Yes, Moghila was a thomist, for Patristic study was viewed as suspect, "schismatic," and that was his downfall theologically which was to perpetrate the "pseudomorphosis" of Russian theology. No, it was only in Old Believer communities that things Latin were universally heretical. By the time of Peter I, westernization had progressed to such an extent that N Russian society assumed Western letters as a given. Again, the aristocracy was educating its children in Jesuit institutions in Moscow. Please refer to cited works by Fr. Florovsky. Platonov, Vernadsky, Kluchevsky, Riasonovsky, Karamzin, et al concur.

2). My interest is in specifically Ruthenian Old Rite groups, not N Russian or a hybrid "concord" of the two. My reasons are exploring their liturgies, chants, and differences: I believe the era of Old Rite Russian Orthodoxy--Ruthenian or Northern--would present a picture of heterogeny and varied observances from one community to another both in the Ruthenian and in the Russian lands, constituting the reason why the liturgical reforms were so easily implemented especialy amongst Ruthenians. After the work of St. Maximos the Greek and the Stoglav Council, some homogeneity and semblance of an accepted "obrjad" began to take shape in the North, but by no means were things the same everywhere. For instance, I surmise, one might find several Liturgies in use, the Liturgy of St. Peter(not much more than a Byzantinized Liturgy of St. Gregory) and the Liturgy of St. Basil being the most frequently encountered. I would bet that Znamenny and Kievan chants were dispersed across the entire range of Russian territories, north to south, with congregational singing not uncommon, and I surmise that church governance and the peasant mir to be the same institutions north or south. Moreover, I am fascinated as to how the Ruthenians responded to the controversy between the Possessors and Non-Possessors: hints are that Ruthenian monasticism had more of a non-possessor quality and that Ruthenian monasticism was a matter of skete based hesychasterions which directly impacted the monastic movement in the kingdoms of what came to be Romania. It is probable that some of the Transvolgan elders fled West...Mind you, Pochaev and the Lavra were very much Josephite institutions, but I would bet they represented a significant minority of Ruthenian monasticism. I hope this isn't tmi (too much information).

Seems like a rather fanciful version of the history to me, almost like it was incidental and hardly noticed.

I think the separation was quite apparent, and probably a good way of looking at how this played out is to read the history of how converts were received in to the Russian church in this period. There is a short history here [holy-trinity.org] .

Andrew

It is revisionist. The situation with the Slavs had become acute already when the Moravian mission was suppresssed: many Orthodox refugees fled to the western borders of Russia as a result, many more after the founding of the Hungarian kingdom. By the time ostpolitik was at work in Bulgaria, the rift between the Slavs and Rome was pronounced. Russia specifically made a point to reject Latin Christianity. Since Russian Orthodoxy was highly influenced by the monks of Studion and Mt. Athos and the primates of Russia came from their ranks, +Michael Cerularios' anathemas were already a fait accompli by 1054. Now, it is true that Rus' did maintain friendly relations with certain Scandinavian churches and the English church; however, it seems these churches were either out of Communion with Rome and with Constantinople or in Communion with BOTH. The case of the Norwegian church is irregular into the thirteenth century.

Andrew, a quick reading of your link indicates that no legislation on the matter was adopted until after Florence and the Turks were in control of Constantinople - four centuries later. Hard to quibble about "immediate".

And what is your understanding of the situation of metropolitan of Kiev after Florence? Unlike Moscow, where the Czar (like the Sultan) took action against the Florentine union, it was not until the 1500's that a split between Kiev and Rome was decided, IIRC, only to be reversed within the century.

Alex, Jonas was installed was as Metropolitan of Moscow; Gregory II succeeded Isidore as Metropolitan of Kiev, no? See here [hostkingdom.net] and here [hostkingdom.net] .

While I agree that the history of the schism between East and West is less than precise, I've always found this statement about the Kievan Church to be a bit puzzling. Many assert that Kiev and Rome maintained communion, but Kiev was see of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Wouldn't Kiev have thus been included in Constantinople's cessation of communion with Rome?

Dave

The Florentine union restored communion between Rome and Kiev until Isidore was ejected from the see of Kiev; his accession to that throne is what brought it about (this is also when Constantinople created another Kievan See). After the triumph of the party of St. Mark Evgenikos, the fall of Constantinople, the Florentine union was rejected by Constantinople and all her dependencies, the installed Metroplia of Litovskaja Rus' being one of them. It is clear that Communion had been breached with Rome before the 15th. century. The Swedish knights referred to the Russians as "schismatics" and had a papal commission to convert them, likewise the Teutonic Kinghts. Prior to this, upon the death of St. Vladimir (c. 1016), wars of succession arose where the king of Poland offered his daughter in marriage to prince svjatopolk who in turn promised to turn Rus' "to the Holy Roman Faith" upon accession to the Throne of Kiev. Already in this pre-schism era, strife had arisen between East and West and an informal breach in Communion existed, stemming from unpleasantries which arose after the Bulgarian affair. This was when SS Boris & Gleb were martyred as "Passion Bearers." Even after the defeat of svjatopolk, the Polish crown was blessed to "undertake the conversion of the Russians" by the papacy, just as the Germans had been blessed to convert the Moravians 2 centuries before. King Daniel of Galicia (13th. cent.)did accept a papal tiara and recognized the political supremacy of the papacy, but it is unclear as to whether or not Communion was restored. In any event, this was short lived, as no military aid from Rome was forthcoming to Galicia and King Daniel renounced the crown and cursed the agreement he had made...

The article quotes a letter sent by Metropolitan Kirik of Kiev to Bishop Niphon on Novgorod. In it Bishop Niphon asks the Metropolitan about how Latins are to be received in to the church, which the Metropolitan instructs him on how to go about doing (prayer, fasting and Chrismation in this case). The correspondence is not dated, but I believe the article notes that Bishop Niphon reposed in 1156. I couldn�t provide precise dating for when the practice started, but I would assume it had been going on for a while. This is fairly immediate after the schism in my mind.

I think it�s also safe to assume that the churches in question shared the same status of Constantinople vis-�-vis the western church since at the time they were still canonically dependent on the Patriarch of that city. A lack of �legislation� seems beside the point to me.

Andrew

Dear Kollyvas,

I agree with your assessment and I think you agree with mine on the score of the Kyivan Baroque and St Peter Mohyla.

I think we are quibbling over things we also are in agreement on.

I also agree that Old Ritualist Orthodoxy would indeed represent a very consistent and "Latin-free" Slavic Orthodoxy - in fact, the two "Orthodoxies" clashed quite severely, as we see in St Dmitri of Rostov's writings who condemned the Old Believers as barbaric and uneducated etc. The scholars of the Kyivan Baroque era all agreed here and the resistance of the Old Believers to even grammatical changes to the Liturgy confirmed this view as well.

On the other hand, I don't see the legacy of the Kyivan Baroque as a downfall of Orthodoxy. The Old Believers were generally isolated and moreso after their excommunication. Their attitude toward the challenges faced by the Jesuit education and European culture and civilization was to ignore it at best and condemn it as heretical at worst.

As the Orthodox Metropolitan Ilarion Ohienko wrote, "Ukrainian/Kyivan Orthodoxy was never afraid of European culture as was the Muscovite Church."

By your own admission, Russia itself was permeated by the Baroque culture of Europe and, frankly, this was a cultural highpoint for Tsarist and Orthodox Russia, even though contemporary Orthodox historians and theologians decry it as a corruption of Orthodoxy etc.

That's my view, in any case, and you've certainly more than well-presented arguments for your case.

Alex

Dear djs,

I believe St Jonah was the Metropolitan of Kiev which had moved to Moscow and later he was referred to as "Metropolitan of Moscow."

The Old Believers, as I understand it, NEVER made this change and continue to refer to Sts Peter, Alexis and Jonah as "Metropolitans of Kiev" in their calendar.

I should check, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Alex

Dear Dave,

You are so brilliant - how is it you are still just a Chtec?

(You are a great credit to your parish and your Church as a whole, Friend, and it is always exciting to read your posts!)

The point you raise is one that a lot has been written on, especially by EC polemicists over the years!

Some say that Kiev opposed imperial/ecclesial domination by the Byzantines from the very beginning.

St Vladimir of Kiev never submitted to the Byzantine Emperor and, in Baptism, took the imperious name of "Basil" along with the daughter of the Emperor, Anna, for his wife. Militarily, he easily outclassed the Byzantine Emperor at Korsun who was basically at his mercy anyway and he governed the empire of Kyivan Rus' that was at least five times the land mass of the then Byzantine Empire.

I've seen old Orthodox icons that name St Vladimir as "Tsar" and "King" - certainly old Vatican documents refer to him as "Rex Ruthenorum."

I think it is safe to assume that he didn't see either his empire or his new Church as vassals of Constantinople. He was also related to the Roman Catholic Emperor Otto and had ties with the Catholic West (as did his grandmother St Olha) and left the Catholic missions at Kiev alone.

And certainly St Yaroslav the Wise appeared to have no problem giving his daughters in marriage to Western Catholic monarchs . . . the granddaughter of St Vladimir the Great, ST Edigna, became a Catholic recluse in Germany where her shrine is venerated to this day.

Then there is the openness of the Kievan Church to the West that began from its inception. I just don't see Kiev walking away in a "huff" from the West just because Constantinople did, in lock-step fashion.

And it was really the Sack of Constantinople that sealed the gradual estrangement of East from West, not the events involving two individual churchmen of 1054.

I just don't see it, anyway.

Alex

Andrew wrote:
But the context from which you draw this passage is a discussion of the gradual, not immediate, process by which Rus began to adopt the extreme point of view of the Greeks with respect to the Latins.

Dave, I've read on this forum that the EP excommunicated the JP a few years back. How was this news, in this era of facile communication, promulgted within ACROD? Were laity in California, for example, advised to steer clear of JP parishes there?

Bingo. This adds to the complexity of the situation: how to differentiate unpleasantries or even informal breaches from formal breaches.