The creation of the Kyiv metropolis at the head. Baptism of Saint Prince Vladimir
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.
- Moscow and all Rus'.
History of the Kyiv Metropolis
Pre-Mongol period (X - mid-XIII century)
By this time, in the struggle for influence in the Russian Church itself, that is, at the metropolitan level, a new factor began to play an important role - at the level of the entire Orthodox Church. In the face of the real danger of death under the uncontrollable pressure of the Ottomans, the illusory hope of receiving help from the West was the only saving straw that Byzantium desperately grabbed at - which naturally forced it to return to the idea of union. This idea, which all the last Byzantine emperors vigorously pushed through the Patriarchs of Constantinople who were actually appointed by them, gave rise to powerful resistance both in the patriarchate itself and in the Orthodox Church as a whole. The apogee of the process was the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral. All this, however, did not save Constantinople - it soon fell without waiting for help. The union was almost immediately officially rejected by the Orthodox Church (Jerusalem Council of 1443, Constantinople Council of 1472), but its idea continued to live, promoted in the Russian lands that were under the rule of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) by their ruling elite, Catholic by religion.
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 the Most Holy Metropolis of Russia” back in 1436 by the patriarch 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.
About how the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate saved the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Part 1On 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 Kyiv 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 Kyiv (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 Kyiv 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 Kyiv 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 set itself apart in order,” Patriarch Bartholomew emphasized, “to be ready to give the Ukrainian Church ecclesiastical, spiritual and material support to all , 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 Kyiv 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.
Date of creation: 988 Description:Cathedral city - Kyiv. Cathedral - Refectory Church of St. Anthony and Theodosius of Pechersk.
By the decision of the Synod of the UOC dated December 23, 2010 (magazine No. 49) in the Kyiv diocese of the vicariate: Brovary, Pereyaslav-Khmelnytsky, Makarovsky, Yagotinsky.
By the decision of the Synod of the UOC dated September 25, 2013 (magazine No. 58), it was separated from the Kyiv diocese. The Kyiv diocese includes the city of Kyiv, Vasilkovsky, Borodyansky, Ivankovsky, Kiev-Svyatoshinsky, Makarovsky, Obukhovsky, Polessky and Fastovsky districts of the Kyiv region.
Diocese today(as of December 2017)
From the report of Metropolitan Onufry of Kyiv and All Ukraine at the diocesan meeting of the Kyiv diocese on December 25, 2017:
Unites parishes and monasteries on the territory of Kyiv and 7 districts of the Kyiv region: Obukhovsky, Vasilkovsky, Fastovsky, Makarovsky, Borodyansky, Kiev-Svyatoshinsky and Ivankovsky.
There are 33 deaneries in the diocese - 32 parish (15 in Kyiv and 17 in the region) and a monastery.
There are 396 parishes in the diocese (163 in Kyiv and 233 in the region).
There are 23 monasteries: 13 male (including) and 10 female. In addition, there are 9 stauropegial monasteries of the UOC (among which 3 men’s and 5 women’s) subordinate to the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.
At the end of 2017, 777 clergy served in the parishes and monasteries of the Kyiv diocese: of them in Kyiv - 524 (443 priests and 81 deacons), in the region - 253 (229 priests and 24 deacons).
In monasteries, including stauropegial ones, 1035 people serve as monks: 455 in men’s and 580 in women’s.
There are 12 diocesan departments and 2 commissions.
Report of Metropolitan Onufry of Kyiv and All Ukraine at the diocesan meeting of the Kyiv diocese (December 25, 2017)
A country: Ukraine City: Kyiv Address: 01015, Ukraine, Kyiv, st. Lavrskaya, 15, bldg. 49 Telephone: (10-380-44) 255-12-13 Fax machine: 254-53-01 Website: http://mitropolia.kiev.ua Email: [email protected] Supervisor: Onuphry, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine (Berezovsky Orest Vladimirovich) Vicar bishop: Panteleimon, Archbishop of Buchansky, vicar of the Kiev diocese (Bashchuk Viktor Romanovich) Alexander, Archbishop of Gorodnitsky, vicar of the Kiev diocese (Nesterchuk Vasily Konstantinovich) Victor, Bishop of Baryshevsky, vicar of the Kiev diocese (Kotsaba Vladimir Dmitrievich) Jonah, Archbishop of Obukhovsky, vicar of the Kiev diocese (Cherepanov Maxim Alexandrovich) Isaac, Bishop of Vorzel, vicar of the Kiev diocese (Andronik Fedor Filippovich)in 1468-1686 a number of Orthodox Christians. dioceses under control Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia in the jurisdiction of the K-Polish Patriarch, separated from the all-Russian. metropolis. The formation of the Z. m. was a consequence of the fact that the Roman Curia tried to achieve recognition of the Ferraro-Florentine Union of Orthodoxy. population of the East Europe. To this end, on Oct. 1458 K-Polish Uniate. Patriarch Gregory III Mamma installed Met. Gregory (1458-1473), who was soon sent by Pope Pius II to the Polish. cor. Casimir IV Jagiellonczyk with a request to facilitate the transfer of the Kyiv See to Gregory from the hands of Metropolitan. St. Jonah, who was in the North-East. Rus'. Gregory was not recognized in Moscow, but a number of Orthodox Christians. bishops in Poland and Lithuania were forced to submit to him. Soon, Gregory, under the influence of his flock, who did not want to be under the authority of the pope, returned to Orthodoxy, and his metropolis entered the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church. K-Polish Patriarch. Thus, all-Russian. The metropolis was divided into the Moscow part under the control. autocephalous metropolitan Jonas and Polish-Litovs. part (Z. m.) under control. Gregory. The dioceses on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Chernigov, Polotsk, Smolensk, Turov, Lutsk, Vladimir-Volyn) and the Kingdom of Poland (Galician, Przemysl, Kholm) were included in the composition of the Zemsky Monastery. Initially, the residence of the Western Russian Metropolitan was Novogrudok, then Kyiv and Vilna, but Kyiv remained the cathedral city.
The peculiarity of the position of the Orthodox Church. Churches in Polish-Lithuanian. lands was dependent on the rulers of Poland and Lithuania, Catholics by religion. Its right of patronage, inherited from the Orthodox Church. Old Russian princes, they used predominantly to the detriment of the interests of the Orthodox Church. church institutions, guardianship over which could be transferred to Catholics. feudal lords and even Catholics. church organizations. Secular authorities interfered in the appointment of bishops and abbots of Mont-Rei, transferring the Orthodox Church. episcopal sees and mon-ri to the laity who provided services to the authorities. One of the consequences of this unfavorable situation was the weakness of hierarchical ties in the church: the power of the metropolitan over the bishops subordinate to him was limited, the dependence of the parish clergy on the diocesan bishops was weak. Both bishops and parish clergy depended to a greater extent on secular patrons than on the clergy. The power of the K-Polish Patriarch over the Kyiv Metropolitan was also insignificant and was limited to the installation of a candidate elected to the metropolitan see.
The existence of the Roman Empire was complicated by the fact that the Jagiellons, Vases and their successors actively contributed to the creation of a Catholic church within its borders. ep-stv, supported lat. The Church in its quest to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism. In this regard, the activities of the Orthodox Church. The churches are already at an end. XIV - 1st quarter. XV century was seriously limited, this situation remained in the 2nd half. XV century: there was a ban on the construction of new Orthodox churches. temples, orthodox rights. the population were discriminated against (Orthodox nobility in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were not allowed to occupy senior government positions, Orthodox burghers in the cities of Galicia (see Galician Rus) were not allowed to join the city magistrates, were not accepted into guilds, Orthodox peasants had to pay tithes for the maintenance of Catholic priests, etc.). Despite the fact that in the 1st half. XVI century in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, restrictions directed against the Orthodox were no longer in effect (this was facilitated by the desire of the authorities to ensure their loyalty in the fight against the Russian state), the relatively favorable situation was not properly used to strengthen the position of the Orthodox Church and strengthen its internal position.
All R. XVI century The Reformation spread widely in the Polish-Lithuanian state, which led to the transition to Protestantism among many. Orthodox magnates and nobles. Since the 70s. XVI century and especially in the 1st half. XVII century as a result of the intensified proselytizing activity of Catholics during the Counter-Reformation. Churches, in which the Jesuit order played the main role, became a massive transition to Western Russia. Orthodox gentry and urban philistinism into Catholicism. Having changed their faith, the feudal lords appropriated the property of the church institutions under their care. As a result of this, many people ceased to exist. ancient Orthodox monasteries, episcopal sees and mon-ri Z. m. lost part of their possessions.
Active attempts to strengthen the position of Orthodoxy in the Polish-Lithuanian state, primarily in Vilna and Lvov, were made by Orthodox associations. philistines (brotherhoods) and Orthodox. magnates, in particular princes Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrogsky and A.M. Kurbsky. With the participation of Russian pioneers Ivan Fedorov and Pyotr Mstislavets, the first Orthodox Christian books appeared. publications, in con. 70's - 80's XVI century Orthodox schools began to be created. youth (Ostrog school, Lvov and Vilna schools), polemical works were written against Catholics and Protestants. In the last decades of the 16th century all these undertakings found support from the east. patriarchs - K-Polish Jeremiah II and Alexandrian Meletius I Pigas.
The actions of the Western Russians were ambiguous. bishops to defend the interests of the Orthodox Church. Churches. The turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. marked by a number of attempts by Zemsky bishops to strengthen discipline and limit the power of secular patrons over church institutions. Of particular importance in this regard were the decisions of the Council convened in Vilna in December. 1509 Met. Joseph (Soltan). At the same time, wanting to receive equal rights with Catholics. hierarchs, some bishops sought to conclude a union with Rome, this initiative was supported by the state. power. In 1476, Metropolitan. Misail and in 1500 Metropolitan. Joseph (Bulgarinovich) turned to the popes with a proposal for union. However, their attempts were unsuccessful. The difficulties that Z. m. experienced were aggravated by the fact that episcopal sees often ended up in the hands of secular people, who were bought from the Polish. kings had the right to manage dioceses and saw in their rank only a source of enrichment.
The issue of carrying out reforms that could strengthen the Z. m. was discussed at the Councils convened in Brest in 1590-1594. The Kiev Metropolitan and bishops sought to strengthen their power and have full control over the income of the dioceses, while they refused to spend money on the establishment of printing houses and schools. The flock saw the bishops as opponents of reforms and sought their removal from their cathedras. Conflicts arose between bishops and brotherhoods, to resolve which the latter turned for support to the highest church authority - the K-Polish Patriarch. The brotherhoods asked for the sending of the Patriarchal Exarch to try the unworthy hierarchs, and they were supported by the Orthodox Church. gentry
The way out of the situation of confrontation with their flock was suggested to the metropolitan and bishops by the Jesuits, who had long called on the clergy of the Z. m. to submit to the authority of the pope. In June 1595 several. Western Russian The bishops turned to Rome with this kind of proposal. It was received favorably by both Pope Clement VIII and the Polish. cor. Sigismund III Vasa. The subordination of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Roman throne was announced on October 9. 1596 at the Council convened by the metropolitan and bishops in Brest (see Union of Brest 1596). The power of the pope was not recognized by the Bishop of Lvov. Gideon (Balaban) and the Bishop of Przemysl. Mikhail (Kopystensky), a significant part of the white clergy and monasticism, all Orthodox. brotherhood and orthodoxy gentry led by Prince. Konstantin Ostrogsky. At the Council, convened in Brest on the same days, Orthodox. Opponents of the union, led by the exarch of the K-Polish Patriarch Nicephorus, announced a decision to depose the bishops who accepted the union.
Cor. Sigismund III demanded from his Orthodox Church. subjects so that they submit to the Uniate bishops. Uniate. The church became the only Eastern Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. ritual recognized by the authorities. Uniate. hierarchs, with the support of government officials and often military force, closed churches where priests who did not accept the union served, Orthodox Christians. The townspeople were expelled from city magistrates and workshops. To the beginning 30s XVII century The union was established in most of the territory of Belarus. The position of the union was weaker in Ukraine, where in the 1st half. this century it spread ch. arr. on the territory of Western dioceses - Przemysl and Kholm, as well as in Volyn. Orthodox in Ukraine The clergy relied on the support of numerous Orthodox churches. gentry, and from the 2nd decade of the 17th century - to active support of the Cossacks. By the 20s. XVII century On the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth there was only one Orthodox Church. bishop - Lviv bishop. Jeremiah (Tissarovsky).
In 1620, Patriarch Theophan IV of Jerusalem appointed Metropolitan for Z. Job (Boretsky) and a number of bishops. This event caused a sharply hostile reaction from the authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; general notices were issued about the arrest of Orthodox Christians. bishops. In the context of the struggle against the Uniates and the state that supported them. The authorities revived the connections of Orthodox Christians from the West. Rus' and Moscow. Rus. The government supported the bishops appointed by Patriarch Theophan IV for Z. m. Various aid came from Moscow (money, church vestments, books, etc.) not only to the Kyiv Metropolitan See, but also to many others. Orthodox monasteries and brotherhoods.
In the beginning. 30s XVII century, on the eve of a new war with Russia, trying to ensure loyalty to the Orthodox Church. population, the authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth recognized the right of the Orthodox to have their own hierarchy, subordinate to the K-field. Part of the episcopal sees, Mont-Rei and parish churches that were in the hands of the Uniates was returned to the Orthodox. Member of the Kyiv Orthodox Church. The metropolis included 1 bishopric on the territory of Belarus - Mstislavskaya and 3 on the territory of Ukraine - Lvov, Lutsk and Przemysl. Polish the authorities did not agree with the episcopal orders of 1620, and with the participation of the Orthodox Church. The gentry elected new bishops headed by the Kyiv Metropolitan. St. Peter (Tomb). During the years of his primacy, the power of the metropolitan over the bishops, brotherhoods and parish clergy of the Z. m. was strengthened, which was facilitated by the creation of new governing bodies, in particular the consistory. Thanks to the efforts of Metropolitan. Peter, the education of the clergy and their pastoral activity increased. The creation in 1632 of the 1st in the territory of the East was also of great importance. European Orthodox higher educational institution - Kiev-Mohyla College. One of the most important tasks of St. Peter and his entourage was to give a systematic presentation of the Orthodox Church. creeds on which the Orthodox could rely in disputes with Protestants and Catholics. For this purpose, a “Confession of Faith” was prepared, adopted at the Council in Kyiv in 1640 and then received the approval of the Orthodox Churches. East at the Council in Iasi in 1642
Despite all the positive changes, the position of Z. m. in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth remained unfavorable. Sejm decisions early 30s XVII century were not fully implemented, a significant part of the church property, originally intended for the Orthodox, remained in the hands of the Uniates. Polish the authorities contributed in various ways to the spread of Catholicism and union. In Orthodox the hierarchy was under pressure from the state. authorities so that it begins negotiations on a “new union” (in the 20s of the 17th century it was about unification with the Uniate Church, later on a “new union” directly with Rome).
A new stage in the history of Z. m. was begun by the Ukrainian people's liberation war. people at hand Hetman B. Khmelnitsky. After the emergence of the Zaporozhye Hetmanate in 1648 in the territory of the East. In Ukraine, the activities of the Uniat were terminated. and Catholic. Churches. However, the attitude towards the rebels of the Orthodox Church. hierarchy headed by the Kyiv Metropolitan. Sylvester (Kossov) was restrained, because he conducted secret negotiations with the Polish. by the authorities. The Metropolitan and his entourage reacted negatively to the reunification of Ukraine with Russia in 1654, fearing Z. m.'s subordination to the Moscow Patriarch. During the Russian-Polish wars for Ukraine lands (1654-1667) among the Orthodox. Western Russian There was a split in the clergy. The Kyiv metropolitans Dionysius (Balaban-Tukalsky), then Joseph (Nelyubovich-Tukalsky) were guided by those hetmans (first I. E. Vygovsky, then P. D. Doroshenko), who, maneuvering between the neighbors of Ukraine, sought to achieve for the Hetmanate the broadest possible autonomy. Therefore, the metropolitans left Kyiv, which was subject to the authority of the tsar, and settled in Right Bank Ukraine, ch. arr. at the residence of the hetmans Chihyryn. Dr. part of the clergy (its most prominent representatives were the Chernigov Archbishop Lazar (Baranovich) and the rector of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery in honor of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Archimandrite Innocent (Gisel)) advocated a close connection between the Hetmanate and Russia, seeing in this a guarantee of the preservation of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
According to the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667, Left-Bank Ukraine, together with Kiev, became part of Russia, Right-Bank Ukraine and Belarus remained in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. With the active assistance of the Polish. authorities in Belarus. and Western Ukrainian lands began to restore the positions of the Uniates. Churches. Decisions of the Seimas of the Orthodox Church. the population was prohibited from traveling abroad to maintain relations with the K-field. The Orthodox group played an unseemly role in this process. bishops (the main one was Bishop Joseph (Shumlyansky) of Lvov) and priests. Already in 1677, these people secretly accepted the union and used their position to transfer parishes to supporters of the union. It became clear that Orthodoxy is Ukrainian-Belarusian. lands could only survive with direct support from Russia.
On July 8, 1685 in Kyiv, at the Council of the Clergy, it was decided to elect Gideon (Svyatopolk-Chetvertinsky) Metropolitan of Kyiv and that he should be sent to be appointed to the Moscow Patriarch. Some of the local clergy objected to this decision. 8 Sep. 1685, in the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow, Patriarch Joachim elevated Gideon to the rank of Metropolitan of Kyiv. In 1686, the K-Polish Patriarch Dionysius IV agreed to the accession of Z. m. to the Moscow Patriarchate. Meanwhile, in the territory of the West. In Ukraine, the process of approving the union was completed; by 1703, there was only one Orthodox church left in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. diocese - Mogilev (in Belarusian lands).
Lit.: Chistovich I. A. Essay on the history of Western Russia. Churches. St. Petersburg, 1882-1884. 2 t.; Levitsky O., Antonovich V. Rozvitki about church records in Ukraine-Rus' in the 16th-17th centuries. // Ruska istorichnaya library. Lviv, 1900. T. 8; Chodynicki K. Kościół prawosławny a Rzeczpospolita Polska: Zarys historyczny, 1370-1632. Warsz., 1934; Ulyanovsky V. I., Krizhanivsky O. P., Plokhiy S. M. History of the Church and religious thought in Ukraine. K., 1994. 3 books; Macarius (Bulgakov). History of the RC. Book 5, 6; Dmitriev M. V., Zaborovsky L. V., Turilov A. A., Florya B. N. Union of Brest 1596 and social-political. struggle in Ukraine and Belarus in the end. XVI - beginning XVII century M., 1996-1999. 2 hours; Zaborovsky L.V. Catholics, Orthodox, Uniates: Problems in Russian-Polish-Ukrainian. relations con. 40's - 80's XVII century M., 1998. Part 1; Florya B. N. Western Russian Metropolis: 1458-1686. // PE. T.: ROC. M., 2000. S. 101-108; aka. Research on the history of the Church: Old Russian. and glory Middle Ages. M., 2007. pp. 233-434.
B. N. Florya
- Lesson summary on the topic "Russian wooden architecture" Sounds: musical fragment "To Eliza"
- The oldest monasteries in Russia
- Old Russian art of the second half of the XII - XIII centuries Literature of the Smolensk region 10 - 15 centuries
- The Great Maitreya Walked the Path from the “Sheep Shepherd” to the Most High