Peter Mohyla, Metropolitan of Kyiv

Peter Mogila came from the Mogila family, whose representatives at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries, under the patronage of Poland, were repeatedly rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia 1 . The disastrous fate of these countries, for which the Turks and Poles argued among themselves, and the family ties of Mogila with noble Polish families forced the unfortunate family to seek refuge in Poland. Peter, the son of the ruler of Moldavia, Simeon, also came here. Having entered military service in Poland, he participated in the Battle of Khotyn (1621), and in the battle for the fate of Moldavia 2. But this was not the field that God’s Providence intended for him. Peter renounced Peace 3 and expressed a desire to join the Kiev Pechersk Monastery. His noble origin and the disastrous state of the Orthodox in the Polish state made such a choice very unusual: and this suggests that Peter’s soul was already burning with a strong desire to devote himself to serving God and His holy Church. Archimandrite Zacharias (1624–1626) accepted him into the holy brotherhood. Here, in communication with learned brothers, who set the sole goal of their peaceful studies to maintain Orthodoxy, he could become more closely acquainted with the state and needs of the Russian Church, and complete his education received in the world 4. The Kiev-Pechersk monastery was at that time one of the main pillars of persecuted Orthodoxy. The printing house created there by Archimandrite Elisha Pletenetsky published the necessary books for Orthodox churches and the schools that were emerging at that time. Svyatogorsk monks: Cyprian, who was educated in Venice and Padua, and Joseph, the protosyncellus of the Alexandrian patriarch, the Vilna preacher Lavrenty-Zizaniy Tustanovsky, Iamva Berynda and Tarasy Zemka made translations of the writings of the fathers 5 . Archimandrite of the Lavra, Zacharias Kopystensky, in addition to translations, wrote an essay in defense of Orthodox teaching from the attack of the Latins and other infidels 6 . Thus, in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, despite persecution from enemies, everything was animated by jealousy for Orthodoxy; The learned monks wanted to arouse zeal for the Orthodox faith and the word of God in other brothers and ministers of the church. Burning with love for enlightenment and zeal for Orthodoxy, Peter deeply felt the misfortunes of the Russian Church, saw the need to spread the light of science to support it, and knew how to appreciate the works of learned ascetics. This way of thinking naturally brought him closer to those who did their best to establish others in the dogmas of faith and piety. Therefore, it is not surprising that when Archimandrite Zacharias died (in April 1626), and the brethren of the Lavra, according to their rights, began to elect a new abbot, there were votes in favor of Peter, of noble birth, a true zealot for the benefits of the Church, although he was barely thirty years old, and no more than two years had passed since he entered the monastery. True, there were those who disagreed with this election, 8 and the monastery remained without an abbot for quite a long time: but finally the learned brothers triumphed. Patriarch Kirill Lucar of Constantinople, on whom the Lavra depended as its stauropegy, approved this election. And the learned brothers, presenting the new fruit of their labors to the new abbot, joyfully greeted him: “We marvel at the will of God that has happened over you. What was impossible with man was made possible with God. Blessed be the Lord your God and ours” 9! The words of a dying person are sacred. Peter Mogila, in his spiritual testament, wrote: “When the Lord deigned to be me the Shepherd of the capital of the Kyiv Metropolis, and before that also the Archimandrite of the Pechersk Lavra; from that time, seeing the decline of piety in the Russian people due to nothing other than the fact that there was no instruction and science, I made my vow to the Lord God, with all my property inherited from my parents, to properly take care of the holy places entrusted to me, and what remains from the income from the estates (them) belonging to them, to transfer for the renovation of the destroyed houses of God, of which miserable ruins remained, and for the founding of schools in Kyiv, rights and liberties of the Russian people." History confirms that this vow was holyly fulfilled by Peter (Mogila); but it should be added that his sacred zeal was not limited to generous offerings to churches and people. The Kiev-Pechersk Lavra began to rise from the ruins only in the middle of the 16th century. As far as circumstances allowed, her abbots: Meletius, Elisha and Zechariah, took care of improving her external condition. Peter (Grave), being the archimandrite of the Lavra and in the rank of metropolitan, for nineteen years, did not spare either his money or labor on its arrangement. He renovated the Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God from the outside and inside, decorated the holy caves 10, and restored churches that were in decline 11. Under him, for the first time, a description of the lives of the saints who worked in the caves, or the Patericon, was published, in glorification of the memory of the ancient ascetics 12. With him, the miracles performed at the holy relics of the saints of God are described, which, contrary to the unfair rumors of the enemies of Orthodoxy, did not dry out even during the separation of the Uniates; and together the Lavra with its caves is described 13. He returned the ancient monastery in Kyiv to Pustynno-Nikolaevsky to the control of the Lavra, created the Goloseevsky hermitage and, at his own expense, opened and maintained an almshouse 14. Another matter that constantly occupied Peter was the establishment of a higher school in Kyiv to train worthy defenders of Orthodoxy. The school that existed at the Epiphany Brotherhood Monastery did not fulfill this goal because it did not provide higher theological education. Meanwhile, for those wishing to receive such an education, the Uniates had access to the college founded by Pope Gregory XIII for the Greeks in Rome, where (since 1615), at the request of the Uniate Metropolitan of Kyiv, it was ordered to permanently support four Russian students at public expense. And many of those who left there subsequently took high places in the Greek-Uniate hierarchy 15. The Uniate bishops also decided to establish a similar college or seminary. At the Kobrin Cathedral (1626), Metropolitan Velyamin Rutsky approved the collection of funds from the clergy and secular people for this purpose. Among the donors was King Sigismund himself. About 50,000 zlotys were collected. A school was opened in Minsk, with twenty-four mentors 16. Wanting to establish a breeding ground for defenders of Orthodoxy in his Lavra, Peter (Mogila) first of all took care of appointing good mentors for his school. To do this, at his own expense, he sent several capable monks to various foreign academies 17; he took others from the Lvov Orthodox brotherhood, and ordered to ensure their stay in the Lavra with the necessary allowance and all benefits 18. Patriarch Kirill Lukar of Constantinople and Isaiah Kopinsky, head of the Kyiv metropolis, gave their blessing to this holy cause. The bishops of Lutsk, Pinsk and Chelm, the most noble Kiev clergy and the honorable Lavra brotherhood gave their consent in writing. How great the jealousy was for this matter in the Lavra could be seen in the signature of one of her brothers, Anthony Muzhilovsky, who signed as follows: “Antony Muzhilovsky, hieromonk and elder of the Pechersk Monastery, is ready to shed his blood.” However, soon, at the request of the main classes: the Orthodox clergy, the Cossack army and the inhabitants of the city of Kyiv, Peter Mogila decided to merge his newly formed school with Epiphany 19. The reason for this change, on the one hand, was the fear that the Epiphany School would not fall into decay, having such a significant rival in the Lavra School, which had the best mentors, on the other, perhaps, the desire of Peter himself to quickly achieve the final goal of his work: for in the Bratsk School the students were already ready for higher education, while in the Lavra they still needed to be prepared. Despite all this, Peter Mogila retained the title of elder brother in the Epiphany Brotherhood, guardian-caretaker and defender in the Fraternal School. Thus his long-standing wish was fulfilled; the circle of spiritual education was expanded and the best methods that existed in foreign schools were adopted for teaching science 20 . Meanwhile, the Orthodox in southern Russia suffered persecution, either from the Latins or from their former coreligionists, since the opening of the unfortunate Union 21. The Polish government, under the influence of the Jesuits, removed Orthodox Christians from all public positions and did not heed any of their complaints about oppression. Noble Poles, owning rich villages and entire cities in Russian lands, allowed their tenants and managers to commit violence and be cruel to the Orthodox inhabitants. Priests did not have the right to perform church rites and sacraments; Churches were taken away from them or holy churches were completely destroyed. Orthodox bishops, proteges of the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophan (in 1620), were not allowed to live in their dioceses. The Polish government did not even want to recognize them as bishops. All the statements of the Orthodox at the Sejms about the injustices suffered by the Russian people in the Polish state, united with them on the basis of equality, were in vain. The Cossack uprisings in defense of their freedom and Orthodoxy were also unsuccessful. In extreme cases, the government limited itself to promises and decrees in favor of Orthodoxy, which were never fulfilled. The death of King Sigismund III (April 30, 1632), blindly devoted to the Jesuits, the main culprits of the Union, gave hope to the Orthodox for a better fate. The deputies sent by the Russian people to the electoral diet of the new king were instructed to demand that all bishoprics and other church dignities, along with church estates seized by the Uniates, be returned to the Orthodox. Shortly before this, the proposal made by Gustav, the Swedish king, to the Cossacks to take them under his protection and the war that began in 1632 between Poland and Russia, to which Little Russia itself turned with a request for protection, reinforced the demands of the deputies. The hope for the election of Vladislav, the son of Sigismund, who had been favorable to the Russians for a long time, further strengthened their voices 22 . – Archimandrite Pechersky, Peter Mogila, was also appointed among the deputies from the spiritual side. The deputies presented to the Sejm a short list of the violence that Orthodox Christians suffer in different cities because of their religion 23 . - The Seimas declared freedom of religion and civil rights for the Orthodox: but did not agree to give more than one bishopric, Lviv, presenting the manager, at that time, of the metropolis, after the death of Job, Isaiah Kopinsky, to own only the monastery in which he lived. He ensured the possession of the Lavra to the Archimandrite of Pechersk and approved for the Orthodox those churches in Kyiv and other cities that they owned, but did not want to do anything more. The deputies were not happy with this. In particular, Peter Mogila insisted on fulfilling their demands in full. As a result of this, a special commission, chaired by Vladislav himself, decided: to establish a metropolitanate for the Orthodox, with the provision, however, of the cathedral Kiev-Sophia Monastery to the Uniate metropolitan; transfer to them the dioceses of Lutsk and Przemysl, and re-establish Orsha, in the Principality of Lithuania 24 . – But after the electoral diet, the Orthodox, despite the opposition of the Roman and Uniate clergy, achieved even greater success from the king in their demands. The Orthodox Metropolitan was given ownership of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral Monastery, with the exception of only the estates belonging to this monastery, which were left to the Uniate Metropolitan, Velyamin Rutsky, until his death. The Lutsk diocese was ordered to be immediately transferred to the Orthodox, and the Przemysl diocese - after the death or removal of the then Uniate bishop; The cities of Mstislav and Mogilev were annexed to Orsha 25. The Lviv diocese remained with the Orthodox, according to the initial decision of the Sejm. – Thus, with the zealous zeal of Peter Mogila and his comrades 26, for the first time after the Union, the government solemnly recognized the existence of an Orthodox metropolitanate and four dioceses, the Orthodox were allowed to elect their own bishops, and many monasteries and churches were forever transferred to the Orthodox clergy. For such service, at the same time, Peter Mohyla was elected Metropolitan of Kyiv by the Orthodox. The Patriarch of Constantinople gave his consent and sent him consecrated vestments. The king approved this election, and after the coronation (February 18, 1633) he issued Peter a diploma, or confirmation of the rights granted to the Orthodox before this 27. On April 28, 1633, the Metropolitan of Volosh with the Russian bishops consecrated him in Lvov 28. One can imagine what the joy of the Orthodox was, who for the first time, after forty years of oppression, were allowed to freely profess their faith, perform their rituals, have their own shepherds - and with what gratitude the hearts of all were filled with the author of this happiness, their archpastor! “If you,” they greeted him in Kyiv, “had now decided to go to Vilna and to the borders of the Russians (Little Russians) and Lithuanians: with what joy would those who filled the dungeons, courts and dungeons for the immaculate Eastern faith would have greeted you, and would have taken you to their leader in patience, a predecessor in piety, similar to Chrysostom in eloquence, Leonty Karpovich, who died a few years before this archimandrite, so that you, looking at his incorrupt remains and the bonds endured for the faith, could feel what a great deed you did for our unfortunate people! Przemysl, Lutsk, Helm, Belz, Minsk, Brest, Polotsk, Vitebsk and many other cities would have shown you the same thing” 29 . The capital city of Orthodoxy in Russia, after repeated devastation by the Mongols and Lithuanians, abandoned for a long time by its metropolitans, in the time of Peter Mogila had no more than ten or thirteen churches 30. Since the time of the Union, the St. Sophia Cathedral Church, or monastery, which belonged to the Uniate metropolitans, was in disrepair. Peter Mogila, having returned it to the hands of the Orthodox, first of all set about restoring this sacred monument of Yaroslav’s piety, if not to its former grandeur, then at least to a splendor worthy of it 31 . Other monuments of the ancient shrine did not escape his pious guardianship. He restored the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord, revered at that time by the building of St. Vladimir 32, restored the Vydubetsky monastery 33, and began to restore the Tithe Church, under the ruins of which the remains of St. Vladimir were found 34. With such actions, Peter Mogila demonstrated not only his piety, but also his deep sympathy for everything ancient Russian. Concerned about satisfying the most important needs of his flock, Peter Mogila also paid attention to the publication of church books. When printing houses began to replace handwritten liturgical books with printed ones, then special care had to be taken so that errors that had crept into the manuscripts did not become established through printing and spread to the people. To do this, it was necessary, before publishing them, to compare the Slavic church books with the Greek ones, especially since inconsistencies were already noticed in some publications published at a time when many Little Russian churches did not have Orthodox pastors 35 . In order to eliminate this in the future, Peter Mogila demanded that no church books be published again, without comparison with the Greek ones, and he himself worked on their revision and correction 36 . With this timely order, he eliminated from his Church the turmoil that occurred in the Great Russian Church due to the first inappropriate publications that had been published for more than half a century. While still an archimandrite of the Lavra, Peter Mogila, together with the Little Russian Council of Bishops, was engaged in the revision of the Service Book. After that, he worked on preparing for the publication of the Tsvetnaya Triode and, especially, Potrebnik 37. This last work, in addition to its content, is also important for the instructions that are given to the celebrant about the essence and manner of performing the holy sacraments. When publishing the Trebnik and instructions on the sacraments, Peter Mohyla intended not only to satisfy the needs of the Church, but also to refute the unfair censure of the Orthodox by the Roman Church 38 and its adherents. In the preface to this publication, the venerable teacher of the Russian Church wrote: “Having been honored with the rank of bishop in the Russian Orthodox-Catholic Church, all the days of my life I regretted with all my heart the paucity of my knowledge. But knowing firmly that our Savior Jesus Christ will seek at the hands of my verbal sheep His sheep, entrusted to me as a flock, knowing undoubtedly that our opponents and false brethren of holy Orthodoxy gravely and violently insult the Orthodox, annoying and offending in every possible way, shamelessly calling our spiritual ignoramuses, ignoramuses, incapable of performing the divine sacraments and performing other rites of piety, and claiming that Orthodox Rus' has strayed into heresy, does not know number, form, matter, intention (intention), nor ritual divine sacraments, does not know how to give an account of them and performs them differently - I, having labored in the strength given to me by Jesus, undertook to free the Orthodox clergy of the Holy Russian Church from such a grave reproach. And, by the grace of God, he did not work on this in vain, as every enlightened and pious reader of this book, called the Trebnik, can see. Reading this book, enlightened reader, you will see that it is a complete lie that Rus' does not receive proper instructions about its salvation from its bishops and other leaders. Proof of this is the church books translated by divinely inspired men from Greek into Slavic, in which true and high theology is found. This is also proven by the uniform, not destroyed by difficult times, custom of performing the seven sacraments of the church, according to the rite of the holy Eastern Church, our mother, which, by the goodness of God, has received and preserved firmly until now. Let anyone who wants to compare the Greek handwritten Euchologies with our Russian ones: he will undoubtedly find agreement between them in the discussion of the performance and administration of the seven divine sacraments of the church. If any of those who are hostile against us point out some disagreement between the missals printed in Lvov, Stryatin, Ostrog and Vilna, he is given the following answer: even if there are some errors or slips in those missals, they do not harm our salvation in the least: for they do not cancel either the number, or the force, or the matter, or the form, or the rites of the holy sacraments; but they just disagree in the performance of some ceremonies, probably adhering to old customs. Moreover, the slips in these missals arose partly from the simplicity and irrationality of the correctors, partly from the inattention of the copyists, and especially during the non-existence of Orthodox pastors in the Russian Church, when those who worked in censoring and publishing those books did not have the proper knowledge about these subjects, and did not look so much at what constitutes matter or form in the sacraments, but at their customs: therefore, they omitted much that was necessary, and introduced what was unnecessary.” But a particularly important work in defense of the Orthodox faith and worship was published by Peter Mogila in response to the essay of the former rector of the Kyiv school, then Archimandrite of Dubensky, Cassian Sakovich, who first converted to the Union and then completely transferred to the Roman Church. This apostate to Orthodoxy published a book filled with the most vicious slander against his former co-religionists, the Orthodox and the Uniates, in which he especially attacked the worship and rituals of the Orthodox Church, which remained, for the most part, untouchable among the Uniates 39 . “The purpose of publishing this book,” Cassian wrote, “is to awaken Roman Catholics to pity for the Russian people and to incite them to bring Rus' into perfect unity with the Roman Church.” With such an attack on Orthodoxy, the zealous archpastor could not remain unrequited. Two years later, he published a refutation of Cassian’s slander, in a book entitled: Λινος, or Stone from the Sling of the True Holy Orthodox Church of the Russian Church, hiding his name under the name of Eusebius Pimen, i.e. pious, or Orthodox shepherd 40. With a clear knowledge of the matter 41, he refuted slander against the Orthodox order in the performance of the sacraments and rites of worship, presented the injustice of the reproaches made to the Russian clergy, and proved the groundlessness of the teachings of the Roman Church about the primacy of the Pope and the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son 42. Among other slander against the Orthodox, Cassian accused them of being too close to the Protestants. Peter Mohyla responded to this that between both of them, despite some rapprochements over time, there is no agreement in faith, that, on the contrary, in Poland, near Krakow, Poznan and other cities, there are many Lutherans, Calvinists and 43 Socinians, both among the nobles and among the simple, not from the Orthodox, but from those belonging to the Roman Church. “The Orthodox Church,” continues Peter, “as before did not have, and now does not have, agreement with those sectarians. This is evidenced recently, in the month of May 1642, issued by the Church of Constantinople, under the care of our Russian Church, a curse on heretical members of the faith, falsely issued under the name of Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, to deceive the faithful sons of the Eastern Church. All our Orthodox pastors signed this condemnation. First it was sent to our shepherd, His Grace the Metropolitan Father; then in the land of Moldova it was printed in the printing house of the ruler; after that, at the behest of the Metropolitan's father, it was translated into Polish and published again; finally, printed for the third time in Greek and Latin in Paris.” The last circumstances mentioned in the answer of Peter Mogila are closely connected with another case of the Archpastor of Kyiv, known in the annals of Orthodoxy. To explain this matter, we must touch upon the history of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lukar. In 1629 it appeared in Europe, in Latin, under the name Eastern Confession of the Orthodox Faith, and then in 1633 in Greek - a brief statement of faith, similar to the teachings of Calvin, and not at all in agreement with the true Orthodox teaching of the Eastern Catholic Church. It was accepted by the Reformed with enthusiasm, and was attributed to Cyril Lukar, according to his learned connections with some of their society, and according to the inscription in the very title of the book. The Jesuits who lived in Constantinople had long been plotting to overthrow the learned patriarch 44, who hated their machinations, and took advantage of this opportunity to spread the word about the unorthodoxy of the patriarch everywhere. This rumor soon spread to Russia. Returning from the East, Meletius Smotritsky, first a defender of Orthodoxy against the papists, together with Cyril Lukar 45, then an adherent of the Union, in a book published by him in 1629 46, directly called Cyril a heretic and assured that, while in Constantinople, he read from him a non-Orthodox explanation of the Creed. Confused by such rumors, the primates of the Orthodox Church in Little Russia immediately (in 1630) turned to Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem, who was in Iasi at that time, with the question of whether the Jesuits rightly attribute such a confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople? Theophan reassured them with the answer that Cyril was not involved in this, nor was the Orthodox Eastern Church 47 . Things remained in this situation until the death of Patriarch Lukar. Cyril of Verria, who overthrew him from the throne, after his death, at the Council of Constantinople in 1638, condemned not only the heads of the confession falsely attributed to the Orthodox Church, but also the name of Patriarch Lucar 48. This was done, as was later explained at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672, not because Cyril himself was recognized as a heretic, but because he, during the continuation of his patriarchate after the publication of those chapters, although he knew about the turmoil that arose from their spread in Poland and Russia, did not want to publish anything to refute them 49 . The condemnation of Cyril again caused unrest in the churches dependent on the throne of Constantinople. From Moldavia, Abbot Sophronius asked the teacher of Constantinople, Theophilus Coridal, about the Orthodoxy of Cyril Lukar - and received a favorable answer 50. In Kyiv, Metropolitan Peter Mogila did not limit himself to questions alone, but did everything possible to defend the honor of the patriarch, who had provided such important services to the Russian Church, presenting for his part the Statement of the Russian Faith compiled in Kyiv. It could serve as the best proof that, although the Russian Church is trying to free the name of the patriarch from criticism of non-Orthodoxy, it itself does not share the opinions set forth in the confession attributed to him. Thus, at the insistence of Peter Mogila, under the successor of Cyril of Verria, Patriarch of Parthenia (in 1642), a condemnation of the errors set forth in the so-called Orthodox confession of Lukar was again pronounced, but in the definition of the Council they were no longer attributed to Cyril Lukar 51. In this form, Peter Mogila signed this definition with other Little Russian bishops. And the “Exposition of the Russian Faith” presented by him was decided to be considered at the proposed Council in Iasi, which was appointed at the request of the Moldavian ruler Vasily Lupula 52. According to the testimony of Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem, this book was compiled in connection with the following circumstances: “Peter Mogila, when he was entrusted with the management of the Kiev Metropolis, found his flock infected with some new opinions of the unbelievers. Therefore, as a good shepherd and zealous defender of the faith, he accepted the most godly intention to position and return the Russian Church to the pure teaching that it held at first, and to destroy all new opinions that arose in it by the roots. Having thought well about this matter, he immediately began execution. He summoned men famous for enlightenment from his diocese to the metropolis, and even before that he called the bishops under his control. They discussed a lot, and finally everyone, with general advice and agreement, decided: to write a brief statement of faith, and the most accurate examination of which should be submitted to the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, which was originally followed, so that those points of teaching that he approves, and they will retain, and, on the contrary, which he rejects, they will reject them as false” 53. This business began in 1640 54. At the Kiev Council of this year, the mentioned statement of faith was considered and, at the end of the Council, submitted for approval to the Patriarch of Constantinople and his sacred council 55. Metropolitan Peter (Mogila) sent the abbot of the Nicholas Monastery Isaiah Trofimovich, the abbot of the Epiphany (Brotherhood) Monastery Joseph Kononovich and the preacher Ignatius Oksenovich to the Iasi Cathedral. And on the part of the patriarch, Porfiry, the former Metropolitan of Nicaea, and Meletius Sirig, known for his firmness in Orthodoxy and enlightenment, and especially for his extensive refutation of the chapters attributed to Lucar, arrived here. Here the Greek teachers read the book presented by Peter Mogila and compared it, as Patriarch Nektarios testifies, with the Holy Scriptures; and having seen in it some unfaithful thoughts, they cleansed it of any admixture of the new teaching 56 . The Statement of Faith, considered at the Council of Iasi, was returned to the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius, who approved it, along with other patriarchs: Ioannikios of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, Paisius of Jerusalem, and the Council of Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople, May 11, 1643 57 . From that time on, under the name of the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, it acquired symbolic importance not only for the Russian, but for the entire Orthodox Church. – All that remained was to publish it in the world, in order to thus contrast it with the false Orthodox confession issued under the name of Kirill Lukar. Peter Mogila, of course, expected this: but this book remained unpublished for another twenty years. Meanwhile, the Little Russian Church every year more and more needed a book that would accurately and fully set out the main foundations of the Orthodox faith. Even Meletius Smotritsky spread slander against the Russian Church, as if she herself did not know what to believe. In 1643, another apostate to Orthodoxy, Fyodor Skuminovich, who was abbot, rector of schools and a member of the metropolitan consistory, tried even more to strengthen this slander, assuring that the three-year Council (which began in Kyiv in 1640 and ended in Iasi in 1642) helped his conversion to the Union. He wrote that Russian scientists do not have a firm solution to the simplest questions about the dogmas of faith; that those sent to Iasi to approve the catechism returned without success, that there is no decision from Constantinople, and what will follow is unknown; meanwhile, the Greeks at the Council allegedly said that Rus' did not have to teach them the faith 58 . It’s clear how harmful such conversations could be! In order to stop the evil that such slander could cause, Peter Mogila in 1645 decided to print an abbreviation of the Orthodox Confession in Kyiv, first in Polish, then in the local Russian. In Polish - in order, as stated in the preface to the latest edition, to stop the lips of shameless slanderers who, in the same language, dare to accuse the Orthodox-Catholic Church before the world of various heresies; in Russian - for the use of the sons of this Church, not only priests, but also laity, especially children studying in schools. And indeed, this book was compiled in such a way that it was accessible to everyone; the texts of the Holy Scriptures themselves are presented in the same vernacular in which the entire book is written 59 . At the same time, the zealous archpastor promised to soon publish a most extensive exposition of the Orthodox faith, with evidence from Holy Scripture, holy Councils and God-bearing Fathers 60. But he was not destined to fulfill this intention, as well as some other enterprises useful for the Church. He worked on correcting the Slavic translation of the Holy Scriptures, before which the first and only edition in Russia was the Ostrozh one, which had not been corrected enough, and was already collecting money for the publication of the corrected translation 61 . He intended to make a new translation of the lives of the saints, and for this he asked the monks of Holy Mount Athos for the books of Simeon Metaphrastus in Greek 62 . But the early death of the tireless archpastor prevented the completion of these great enterprises 63. Among his general concerns for the good of the Church, Peter Mogila paid special attention to the education of spiritual youth. At his request, at the very accession of Vladislav to the throne, the Orthodox were allowed by royal charter to have their own schools and seminaries 64. This ensured the existence of the Kyiv College for the future. Peter Mogila, for his part, gave her decent accommodation in a stone house built at his expense, appointed several villages from his estate and from the Lavra volosts for her maintenance, and generally provided various kinds of assistance to teachers and students. Having provided higher education to the youth of the Kyiv College, he created another lower school in Vinnitsa 65. Meanwhile, the Jesuits’ slander against the Orthodox Church, as if it had been led into various errors, also affected schools where mentors educated abroad taught. On the other hand, the common people and the uneducated clergy also rebelled against the fact that the Latin language was being taught in the newly founded schools. The irritation of the dissatisfied increased to the point that once the lives of the mentors and Peter Mogila himself were in danger, so that they could hardly calm the insane zealots 66. To justify schools in Orthodoxy, one of the former Kyiv mentors, Sylvester Kossov, soon after this unrest, published a special book 67; and the Metropolitan himself, in an essay against Cassian Sakovich, stubbornly defended the study of Latin and Polish, pointing out the need for their knowledge in the Polish state and for Russians, both in civil life and in relations with foreigners asking about the faith, and, finally, for the most perfect theological education: for, the Metropolitan wrote, there are not many theological books in the Slavic language, and they can hardly be found in Greek. Youth being prepared for the clergy must not only have a special theological education, but also have a special pious attitude of spirit. With this in mind, the saint of Kiev gave his pupils a guide for practicing prayer and pious meditation, in a book he called: Anthologion, or collection of flowers. Dedicating this book to “the well-behaved spudeom (students) of the Kyiv schools,” he wrote to the young men: “The thought often came to me that in this school not only should the highest sciences be taught, but especially piety should be sown in your hearts, young men. Therefore, I translated some spiritual reflections (written in Greek for correction) and ordered the workers under me and in your school, collecting them and dividing them by age, to publish them in the world. But not one of those people, despite all their efforts, found free time for this matter, as you are not unaware of, partly due to continuous worries and worries, partly due to other church and school matters. Seeing this and coming to the conclusion that whoever seeks time is wasting time, I decided myself, in the present blooming spring time, as a rest from daily labors and troubles, to gather, for your blooming youth and childhood, the fragrant flowers of pious reflections and touching prayers, in the meadows of inspired church teachings and Holy Scripture, and, as a sign of my fatherly zeal, to bring them as a gift to your entire community, i.e. Congregation of Kyiv schools" 68. How much love for youth and pure pastoral zeal for piety is visible in this dedication alone! Is it surprising after this that the Kiev College so quickly ascended to a high level of perfection and, as Peter Mogila himself testifies, managed to educate many pious and learned men to serve the Church? But the most impartial thing, in this case, would be to listen to the reviews of the Kyiv schools of the apostate to Orthodoxy, Kassian Sakovich. Encouraging Uniate bishops to create schools, he wrote: “You will say that you have schools at cathedral churches, such as in Vladimir, Novgrodk and Minsk, and now newly formed in Helm. I answer that those schools are small, not large. In Vladimir there are less than twenty students; in Novogrodk and Minsk there are also not too many of them. The Chelm School, as it was recently founded, will not last long 69. – What are your schools? They mean nothing, not only compared to the Latin schools, but also to the schools of Father Mogila - Kyiv and Goy." Such services of Peter Mohyla for the Church and enlightenment are all the more worthy of respect, the more Orthodoxy was exposed to danger from the zealots of the Union and the state that patronized it. Despite the fact that the rights of the Orthodox Church in Little Russia and Lithuania were approved by King Vladislav, the Uniate Metropolitan Velyamin Rutsky, from among the Calvinists converted by the Jesuits to the Union and who became its ardent champion 70, tried to take the metropolitanate of Kyiv from the Orthodox archpastor, and although he did not achieve this, he was not entirely unsuccessful. King Vladislav, after a long and vain wait for the papal decision on the measures he proposed to calm the people of the Eastern Confession, finally (in 1635) gave Velyamin a privilege, with which he forever claimed the dioceses of the Union: Polotsk, Vladimir, Pinsk, Chelm, and, moreover, then newly acquired from Russia, Smolensk. At the same time, several monasteries in dioceses allocated to the Orthodox were transferred to the Uniates, and in some cities, such as Polotsk, Vitebsk and Novogrodk, the Orthodox were completely prohibited from having their own churches 71 . And while the churches assigned to the Orthodox were not yet transferred to them everywhere 72, Velyamin planned to convert all the monasteries and churches in the lands that had ceded from Russia to Poland to the Union. But his death (1637) stopped all these plans. Rutsky's successor Rafail Korsak did not rule the metropolis for long (1637–1639), and in vain he wanted to retain the rights granted to his predecessor before his death over the patrimony of the Kyiv see and the Vydubetsky monastery. Pursued by the Cossacks, or, as the Lapitians write, sent by the king to Rome, he retired under the protection of the Pope, where he was accepted as one of the assistants of the papal church 73. Confirming Anthony Selyava as Rafailov's successor, Pope Urban VIII, at the same time, with an affectionate letter, invited Peter Mogila himself to the Union, promising him with his keys to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven 74; asked the king, bishops and the most interesting Russian and Polish nobles to promote the conversion of the Russian people remaining in Orthodoxy 75. – There is no need to ask how Peter Mogila accepted this invitation. But although he was completely far from agreeing to such a proposal, the Latin confession spread further and further within the boundaries of his metropolis. Latin monasteries of various orders were established in many cities and towns. In Kyiv itself there were four Latin churches and, in addition to the Dominicans and Berpardins, the Jesuits squeezed in here 76 . Before opening their college in Kyiv, the Jesuits sent their missionaries there: Stanislav Smelkovich and Nikolai Tsikhovich. With his sermon on the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. Tsikhovich summoned the then rector of the Kyiv College, Innocent Gisel, to a debate that lasted three days. If you believe Tsikhovich, who, thirteen years later, described these debates, then victory was on his side: but his book did not go unanswered by the Orthodox 77. But Peter Mogila witnessed only the beginning of these debates. Having not yet reached old age, he was already approaching the end of his earthly career. Looking at the past of his life, he could say: “I dedicated everything that I had, along with myself, to the praise and service of God.” He dedicated the remainder of his property to the same purpose. In his spiritual will, drawn up eight days before his death, he declared the Kyiv College to be his first heir, the existence of which, as the only guarantee, he wanted to strengthen for future times. He left her significant sums for maintenance, his library in different languages ​​and real estate acquired for her; entrusted her to the patronage of the then most noble defenders of Orthodoxy and begged them with the mercy of God to preserve her forever; and he obliged her mentors to live according to the rules given by him and, upon his death, to commemorate him every Thursday. Peter Mogila divided his other property to the Kiev Cathedral, the Lavra, poor monasteries and churches, which he erected from their ruins, with the exception of the estates, which he transferred to his brother Moses, then the only descendant of Mogila 78. The venerable archpastor died on December 31, 1646, and on March 9 of the following year, his body, according to his will, was laid in the large church of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra 79. Graves, or, by popular name, Mogileshty, belonged to the number of Moldavian boyars (Cantemir, Description of Moldavia. M. 1789, p. 290). One of them, Jeremiah, around 1600, with the help of Hetman Zamoyski, was installed as ruler of Moldavia, and his brother Simeon - of Wallachia (Hammer. Hist. de l`Empire Ottoman. Par. 1841 T. II. p. 298. Vlach-Bulgarian charters, ed. Venelin. St. Petersburg. 1840. p. 259.). As can be seen from the letters, Simeon, the father of Peter Mohyla, was the ruler of Wallachia in 1601 and 1602. Around 1609, under the influence of the Ottoman Porte, he replaced his brother Jeremiah on the Moldavian throne (Hammer. p.338.), but did not rule for long. After him, the son of Jeremiah, Constantine, was the ruler of Moldavia, but he was soon overthrown by the Porte (1612 Hammer. p. 348). Jeremiah's sons-in-law: Stefan Pototsky (in 1612), Samuil Koretsky and Mikhail Vishnevetsky (in 1618) repeatedly tried to elevate one of Jeremiah's sons to the throne of Moldavia. But all their efforts were unsuccessful. Pototsky, Koretsky and Vishnevetsky, together with his wife Jeremiah, were taken prisoner by the Turks and sent to Constantinople (Bandtke, History of the Polish State. Part II. p. 232. Notes of Maskevich, in Volume V of Contemporary Tales of the Pretender. 1834. pp. 125,163). Later, Peter Mogila’s brother, Moses, was appointed by the Porte itself as ruler of Moldavia, but soon left the throne (Hammer. p. 459. Chronicle of Galicia in Volume III of the Russian Historical Collection, Moscow Historical Society. p. 248.). Moskvitian 1843. Part I. p. 350. In one of the poems dedicated to Peter Mogila, on the occasion of his accession to the metropolitanate, under the image of a hand with a military banner, from which the monogram letter R is depicted, the author says: “What are you doing, knight? Do I see the banner of Mars in your hand? This is not Khotin, Peter, or Turkish abuse.” Mnemosyne. He was born in 1597 according to the testimony of the “Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral”, p.166. The writings of Peter Mogila show a wide familiarity with theological writings in Greek and Latin. But where he studied, information about this is contradictory. See Ruban's curious monthly book on 1776, p. 85. The names of these translators are found in the prefaces to the translations of the Conversations of St. John Chrysostom on the Acts and Epistles of the Apostle Paul, published in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in 1623 and 1624, and in other publications. In the book “On the Faith of the One Holy Church” (place and year of publication not indicated). For information about the author of this book, see “Description of Tsarsky’s early printed books.” page 110. In the preface to the edition of Chrysostom's Conversations on the Acts (see above), it is said, among other things, that this book was published “to inspire monks and other sacred persons to the work of writing, to publish books, especially in these years of persecution.” – In the preface to the interpretation of the letters, Zechariah offers excellent instructions for spiritual people and laity to study the sacred books. Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. page 116. On this occasion, the Lavra brethren presented Peter Mogila with translations of the Teachings of St. Dorotheus, published in the same 1628 in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The above words are borrowed from the dedication of this book to the new archimandrite. For the same book, “instructive chapters of the deacon Agapit to the Emperor Justinian” were printed, with a preface dated December 1, 1627. From the conclusion of this preface it is clear that at this time (i.e. at the end of 1627) Peter had not yet been ordained an archimandrite. “I corrected (this translation) from the Hellenic idiom with great caution, in piety to the shining one, the God-receiver (i.e. Simeon) of the same name of the Tomb, the head of the branch of the Dacian countries, the firm name of the supreme throne (i.e. the Apostle Peter) of the same name, chosen with the Lord to intercede the eldest of the flock of monks.” In the dedication to Peter Mogila of the color triode, published in Lvov in 1642, it is said: “our Eminence has renewed the church of the Pechersk Monastery inside and outside with mur (stone) and wood; no less about the caves in which the relics of the saints remain intact to this day - he did not spare a lot of money on decorating them; The monuments themselves at the mouths of the caves, made of mud and wood, testify to this.” Kalnofoisky mentions the restoration of the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in 1635. The work of Sylvester Kossov, published in 1635, in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, in Polish. In his preface to the Patericon, Kossov writes: “visiting the caves of Kyiv and the tombs of the holy fathers and marveling at the incorruption of their holy bodies, more than once I cried bitterly that an unhappy and envious time, to this day, has not revealed to the world the chosen ones of God, whom God Himself revealed. And when then the cheerful guardian of the Church of God, our real archpastor, showed his patronage, care, blessing and desire that the lives of the holy fathers of Pechersk, or the Patericon, hidden for centuries and buried in monastic repositories, be cleansed of dust and published in the world, then I willingly delved into reading Greek, Slavic, Latin, Russian and Polish chronicles and annals in order to find out who were these chosen ones of God, and when did they live? The work of the Kiev-Pechersk monk Afanasy Kalnofoysky, published in 1638, also in Polish. The hardworking collector counts up to 64 miracles contemporary to him (1594–1638), and provides an oath that was required of everyone reporting a miracle that happened to him. Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra pp. 95, 96. Ibid. p. 61, and appendix p. 145. Peter Mogila mentions the almshouse in his will. According to reports that circulated until the middle of the 17th century, the following Uniate metropolitans left the Roman College: Velyamin Rutsky (1613–1637), Rafail Korsak (1637–1641), Anthony Selyava (from 1642), Cyprian Zhokhovsky (from 1674); archbishops: Smolensk - Lavrenty Krevsha, Andrey Zloty and Polotsk Nikolai Losotsky; bishops: Vladimir in Volyn - Jerome Grokhovsky, Lutsk - Jeremiah Pochapovsky, Pinsk - Pachomius of Oransky, Turov - Alexey Dubovich and Vilna coadjutor Markiai Trizna. Allat. de Eccles. occident. et orient. perpetua consensione p. 987 et sequ. Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral p. 153. – Cassian Sakovich in his essay “On the Errors of the Russian Church.” However, this seminary soon fell into decay, as Sakovich testifies, because the teachers did not want to work, everyone was in a hurry to take some more profitable and honorable place. And the probable reason for the decline can also be considered that the amount collected for the seminary was intercepted by them during the war of 1630 with the Cossacks, as evidenced by the Galician Chronicle. Russian historical collection III p. 246. Gavril Dometsky writes: “Peter Mohyla sent from the entire Kyiv college to Constantinople to the holy patriarch to ask for his blessing to open Latin and Polish schools in Kyiv, and first having chosen the monks he liked, he sent them to different states to study the sciences, among whom was the late Innocent Gisel.” Letter to Novgorod Metropolitan Job, at the end of the 17th century. See four entries related to this case in the “Appendices to the Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra” pp. 15–31. From the first, concluded on June 15, 1631 in the city of Lvov, in the fraternal church “before the throne of the Lord,” it is clear that the following were accepted into the number of the learned Lavra brotherhood: Hieromonk Isaiah Trofimovich and monk Sylvester Kossov. Description Kiev-Sophia Cathedral. Applications, p. 210. – O. Makaria History of the Kiev D. Academy, pp. 37, 38. For its part, the grateful school, in the first year of its existence, presented Peter Mogila with a song of thanks: “ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ, albo dyachnost from the Spudean gymnasium, from the school of Rhetoric. 1632 March 29.” published in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The teacher of rhetoric was Sophrony Pochasky. Undoubted evidence of such oppression is provided by: a) the act of confederation between the Orthodox and Protestant nobility in Vilna, 1599; b) Drevinsky’s speech at the Diet of 1620; c) a letter from Chancellor Sapieha to Polotsk Archbishop Josaphat in 1622; d) supplication submitted by the Orthodox in 1623 - See Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, page 258 and Appendix No. 15; History of the Union p. 69; Russian Tamansky Store 1793 Part II. pp. 474–497. See the petition presented at the Sejm of 1632, in the Chronicler of Little Russia, published by Tumansky in the Russian Store in 1793, Part II, pp. 58, 59. Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral pp. 167, 168. History of the Union pp. 95–101, in note. In one of the poems (Mnemosyne) for the arrival of Peter Mohyla in Kyiv, after his consecration as metropolitan, the merits of Janusz Tiszkiewicz are also glorified. – What efforts it took for the Orthodox to win can be seen from the fact that one of the Uniate bishops then went with a complaint about these orders to the Pope; and neither the chancellor nor the sub-chancellor wanted to sign the privileges for the Kyiv Academy. Kwiatkew, R. 1633. ex actis Polonic. y Kulescha, in the work of Wiara prawoslawna. p. 256. History of the Union p.102. In this diploma, issued on March 14, 1633, Peter Mogila is called not only elected to the metropolitanate, but also ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is probably an inaccuracy in the Russian translation. For Peter Mohyla was not ordained, but blessed by the patriarch. About the time of the consecration of Peter Mohyla in the Lvov chronicle (Russian Ist. Collection. III p. 247) it is said: “the first dedication (naming) was on Christmastide Wednesday (St. Yura was), the second on Saturday, and the third on the week of the week.” Yuletide, i.e. on Holy Week. Easter in 1633 was April 21; but St. George the Great Martyr was not on Wednesday, but on Tuesday. Wired Week - Fomina (Russian common folk holidays, Snegireva. Issue I, p. 156). – The exact time of the dedication can also be determined from the invitation letter from Peter Mogila to the Lutsk brotherhood for this dedication, which was supposed to take place on St. Thomas Week. See Monuments, published in Kyiv 1845. T. I. dep. I. p.137. The Volosh Metropolitan is mentioned in the Description. Kiev-Sophia Cathedral. But the Lvov chronicle speaks only of four bishops who were at the consecration: Avramia of Smolensk (probably Stagonsky, e. Pinsk), Jeremiah of Lvov, Isaac (Lutsk) and Paisiya Miletsky (probably of Chelm). Mnemosyne Slawy prae y trudow Piotra Mohily. According to the testimony of Boplan and Kalnofoysky. Description Kiev-Sophia Cathedral p.179 – Description. Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. addition page 149. In the dedication of the Triode, published in Lviv in 1642, the publisher Mikhail Slezka says to Peter Mogila: “The Church of St. Sophia, in the God-saved city of Kyiv, left over from the holy prince and autocrat of All Rus' Yaroslav, was built and presented to the whole world as an example, Your Eminence, which was already in ruins, was again restored, and to its original appearance by means and through his diligence he brought it to life, and besides that, he decorated the inside with various icons of the saints of God and wondrous church apparatus.” Description old stove Tsarsky’s book, page 188 – And the apostate to Orthodoxy, Cassian Sakovich, wrote that year: “Father Mogil took the Church of St. Sophia in Kiev, which had stood empty for hundreds of years, and now he decorated it so that everyone praises him.” Kalnofoisky wrote about this church in 1638 that only ruins remained of it and had already been covered with earth. Description Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, appendix p. 148. “Kievite for 1841” pp. 14, 15. Peter Mogila himself mentions the restoration of the Transfiguration and Desyatinnaya churches in his spiritual testament - On the discovery of the relics of St. Vladimir. see History of the Russian State T. I. pr. 488. Such non-conforming editions of the Service Book in Lvov, Stryatyn, Ostrog and Vilna are mentioned by Peter Mohyla himself in the preface to his edition of the Service Book in Kiev in 1639 and the Trebnik in 1646. In the Preface to the Color Triode, ed. in Lvov in 1642, the publisher says: “Your Eminence not only deigned to work on this book himself, but also generally demands that not a single book previously translated from Greek be published without repeated revision.” Missal ed. in Kiev in 1629, Triod in 1631, and Potrebnik in 1646. For the correction of the latter, however, see Pitirim’s Sling 1721. p. 362. In Rome at that time, at the behest of Pope Urban VIII, the congregation de propaganda fide was actively engaged in correcting and translating Roman liturgical books into Slavic Croat Legakovich and the Uniate Chelm Bishop Methodius of Terletsky, in 1643, corrected the Slavic translation of the Roman service book (missale) and the prayer book from the psalter (breviavium). Asseman. Calendar. Eccles. Univers. T.IV. p. 426, 434 in 1640 the Roman breviary (Rituale) was published in a Slavic translation Ibid. p438. This book was published in Polish in 1642, in Krakow, with the approval of the local spiritual authorities. Between the manuscripts of the Moscow D Academy there is a list of this work in a modern Slavic translation, entitled: “Announcement of fornications (delusions) and heresies and zabobons, that is, bizarre rites and actions in the Greco-Russian, from the Roman Catholic Church, apostate, Church, both in faith, as well as in the service of the Divine Liturgy, and in all sorts of rites and actions found.” In the library of the Moscow D. Academy there is this book both in Polish, published in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, and in a Slavic handwritten translation, on which the following note was made by the Metropolitan of Moscow Platon: “This book, having corrected the typos, is worthy to be published: because the objections from the Uniates against our Orthodox Church have been thoroughly refuted. Platon M.M. October 21, 1805" Revealing the dignity of Orthodox rites, Peter Mohyla refers to the ancient Eastern and Western fathers and teachers of the Church, and to the later Latin writers Baronius, Thomas Aquinas and others. Without speaking of impudent censures of the decisions of the Orthodox Church regarding the sacraments and rites of worship, we will point out here some of the shortcomings of which Cassian accuses the Little Russian hierarchy, and we will present the answers of the Archpastor of Kiev, so that through this we will become better acquainted with the state of the church governed by him. Cassian reproached the Orthodox clergy for the fact that they had only recently begun to care about delivering instructions in churches. Refuting this remark, Peter Mogila points to translations of church instructions from Greek made during the reign of Saint Vladimir, to the own eloquent instructions of Cyril, Bishop of Turov, Metropolitans Cyprian and Gregory Samviacus, and many others. Moreover, he notes that not every priest, especially an unlearned one, can preach orally; For this, it is enough to read what the Holy Fathers wrote. And in Polish churches only recently they began to often speak instructions. The detractor of Orthodoxy, blinded by hatred, did not want to understand why Russians have many churches, although they are poor. “The Russians have many churches,” wrote Cassian, “and one might think that the reason for this is piety. No! The reason for this lies in disagreements either between parishioners or between priests.” “It would be amazing,” answered Peter Mogila, “that disagreements, from which no good in the world comes, produced good in our country. On the contrary, everyone sees that because of disagreements, churches and cathedrals, created with great effort, fall and are destroyed. One can see even now what dissent has done in France, in Bohemia, in Moravia, in Silesia.” And further Peter explains that the reason for the multiplication of churches in Rus' is, indeed, the piety and zeal of some for one saint, others for another saint. As for the scarcity of churches, about which Cassian also condemns the Orthodox, Peter Mogila explains that these are not the times when there would be many people zealous for decorating the churches of God; on the contrary, many even plunder what is given; - and then presents a comparative picture of the monasteries and churches selected by the Uniates and those remaining with the Orthodox. “Instead of blaming the Orthodox,” wrote the Kiev archpastor, “look better at your brethren, the Uniates, what they do with the monasteries and churches that were endowed with estates. Did the glorious Suprislsky monastery in Lithuania have little property? And now what has he been reduced to? Where previously, under the rule of the Orthodox, there were up to a hundred or at least seventy brethren, now barely a few monks live there, and what’s even worse is that the worldly master has church wealth and villages, and through his slaves gives the monks a certain salary that he wants. And the Uniates don’t care one bit about this. Ask anyone in the same monastery: where are those ancient icons that were decorated with silver gilded vestments? And you will find out that the Uniates spent it on their own needs; Instead of silver icons, Italian linen icons were placed in the church. They exchange well with God: painted linen for Him, and gilded silver for themselves. Look at the Lavrishovsky monastery, which has long been endowed with rich property, where, under the Orthodox, several dozen monks lived, and the name of God was glorified every day. Now it stands empty; not a single person lives in it. Look at the Novogrodsky monastery, to which the villages and estates of Lavrishov are assigned; you will not find more than four or five monks there; and in the church of this monastery, where the metropolitan see is, you will see paper icons. Look at the Chereysky Monastery, in which, under our management, several dozen monks lived, and now there are hardly ten. Look at the monastery called Leshch (in Pinsk): there is only one monk there, and sometimes even that is not there. Look at the Onufrievsky and Pustynsky monasteries. Where once lived several dozen dozens of monks, only Korsak now lives there (retired Uniate Metropolitan, Raphael Korsak). How many peasants do these two monasteries have? I’m not talking about other smaller monasteries that your Union destroyed to the ground. Just go to Volyn; look at what is happening in the ancient monastery of Zhidychinsky, and tell us how many monks there are and what order is maintained? Look at the ancient Dorogobuzh Monastery. Won't you find only the archimandrite and his novice there? And tell me, how is church service performed there? whereas before, at least, there were up to twenty monks under the archimandrite. Look at the worldly churches, some of which were endowed with rich property, while others were meager: to what extent have they been reduced since the time of the rule of your Uniates? Just go to Vilna and ask: who now lives in the place where the church was built in honor of the holy martyr Paraskeva? And you will find out that there is a tavern and a shameful house there (Peter Mogila, in 1635, as can be seen from the same book: Stone was in Vilna; therefore, he could reliably know about the circumstances mentioned by him.) Go to Minsk and ask: where is the Tatar mosque located? And you will find out that in the place where the church stood in honor of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. – Is this how the Uniate zeal for piety increases the glory of God among Russians? But on the other hand, look impartially at our poor Orthodox monasteries, which do not have rich contents and are oppressed by various disasters. I'm not talking about those who own estates. Look in the land of Kiev at the Mezhigorsky monastery, in which more than one and a half hundred monks live in a community, feeding on the labor of their hands, following the example of the Great Anthony the desert dweller. Look at the Dnieper; there, in the Mgarsky and Gustynsky monasteries, the brethren live in community and in monastic deeds. I'm not talking about other smaller monasteries. Look at the Trigorsky Monastery, also a communal one, and there you will see at least eighty monks, in great humility walking the narrow path of the Gospel. Go to Pokuttya in Skete: there you will find at least two hundred angels living in the flesh and imitating the life of the ancient hermits. Look at the Krekhovsky Monastery near Lvov: there, just like in the Skete, several dozen monks without any property spend their lives piously. Look also at White Rus'. There, near Orsha, in the Kuteinsky monastery you will find at least two hundred brothers, in the same way in the body imitating the life of the angels. You will find the same in the Boinitsky monastery; I don't mention many others. Having considered all this and judged sensibly, look also at the Brotherhoods: Vilna, Kiev, Lutsk and many others in the kingdom of Poland and the principality of Lithuania: how, by the grace of God, they flourish in strict piety! And do not say that this is due to strife and disagreement; but, willingly or unwillingly, you must agree that just as it was in the time of the Apostles, amidst disasters, needs and all kinds of oppression, so with us, Orthodox Russians, according to the word of God, the power of God is made perfect in weakness.” Not to the credit of his co-religionists, Cassian himself wrote: “What can I say about churches bought from landowners, especially in Podgorye, where priests pay dearly to the lords for a place, especially if the lord is a selfish man and does not look at the dignity of the priest and the spiritual benefit of the parishioners? There the lords receive special profits from the priests. For who should be sent on a long journey with a cart? Butt. Who can I take a bribe from for some empty business? From the butt, and so on. And the priests,” continues Cassian, “are already so accustomed to their difficult situation that they do not perceive this as a great misfortune, if only they could be free from the Uniates; For everything else they are not worth it." From the own words of the French envoy, who was at the Ottoman Porte in 1623 and the following years, we know that the French king, who patronized the Jesuits, ordered him: “procurer, s`il est possible, la ruine du patriarche grec de Constantinople, comme d`un heretique tres dangereux.” Historica Russ. monumenta, deprompta a Turgenevio. T. 2. pag. 424. In addition to Cyril’s participation in the compilation of the book: (inscription in Greek), or Lamentation (for which see Dictionary of writers of the clergy, ΙΙ. p. 45), about his writings against the Roman Church, written on the affairs of Orthodoxy in Russia, see “Description of the Rumyantsov manuscript. museum" and p. 554. In the book of Zachary Kopystensky: On Faith, Cyril's Epistle of 1614 is mentioned, p. 163. In 1616, he published several anathematisms against the teachings of the Roman Church in Tergovishte. Perpetuite de la foi de l'Eglise Catholique. 1841. T. IV. p. 62. Called Parenesis, or Exhortation. See Dictionary of writers of the clergy, ΙΙ, 51. About Theophanes’ answer, which consisted of 16 chapters, (inscription in Greek) T. ΙΙΙ. With. 447. This definition is published in the work of Leo Allacius: de Eccles. Occident et Orient. perpetua consens. pag. 1061 et seq. Synod. Hierosolymitan. 1672.cap. VI. This answer, given in 1640, was printed in the composition of Adam Zernikaw: Tractatus Theologici. 1775 p.1076. The conciliar determination, held in May 1612, is printed in the mentioned work of Allatius, pp. 1082 et seq. And not Ioann Vasilyevich, as it is said in the Dictionary about pisat. spiritual rank II, 161. On the meaning of the ordinary addition Io, in the title of the Moldavian Lords, etc., see Vlach-Bulgarian Charters, ed. Vekelin. 1840, p. 27, etc. The Epistle of Patriarch Nektarios, 1662, is usually published under the “Orthodox Confession”. From the work of Ioannikiy Galatovsky: The Truthful Messiah, 1669, p. 321 we see that in 1640 governors, or “ambassadors” from all the Orthodox bishops of Little Russia, abbots of the most noble monasteries, and other learned men from different Russian and Lithuanian cities were gathered in Kyiv. The learned Archimandrite of Slutsk, Samuil Shitsek, took precedence in this meeting; After general discussions, two rectors of Kiev, Joseph Kononovich, and Innokenty Gisel, of Goy, drew up and wrote down the definitions. All these definitions, of course, were then submitted to Metropolitan Peter Mogila for consideration. It is probably this council of learned men that Patriarch Nektarios means. – From the definitions of this Council, except those indicated in the Dictionary of writings. spiritual order II, 160, the following can also be cited: a) About whether St. should be worshiped. Gifts, when transferring them during the great exit? Mentioned by Peter Mogila in the book Λινος, and by Cassian Sakovich in his “Announcement”; b) About the bliss of the righteous until the general resurrection; This definition, by the way, refuted the teaching set forth in the books: Orthologist (Meletius Smotritsky) and Antigraph. Mentioned in the work of Ionnikius Galatovsky: “The Truthful Messiah” 321 pp.; c) About the state of the souls of dead saints, about private judgment, about purgatory, about the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Mentioned in the work of the apostate to Orthodoxy (in 1643), former abbot and rector, Theodore Skuminovich, known as: “Reasons for the retreat from disunia (or Eastern Orthodoxy)” Vilna 1643. in Polish. – An invitation letter from Peter Mogila to this Council was recently published in the world, dated June 24, 1640, in “Monuments”, published in Kyiv 1845. T. I department.I. pp. 149–158. The question of the author of this statement of faith, later known as the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East,” was not resolved in the same way among us. In the “reasoning” of Alexei Volkhovsky “about the book called: Orthodox Confession,” published in 1804, based on the words of the Jerusalem Council of 1672, Peter Mogila is recognized as the author of this book (see also Christian Reading. 1844. Part II. p. 232). The same is said in the preface of the Patriarch of Moscow Adrian to the publication of the Orthodox Confession in the Slavic language, in 1696. According to the Ave. Metropolitan of Kiev Eugene, who first made known the work of the Uniate Archimandrite Jan Dubovich published in 1641 about the Council of Kiev, at which this book was read, first in the “Description” Kiev-Sophia Cathedral”, published in 1825, p. 176, then in his “Dictionary of Writers of the Clerical Order”, edition 1827, Part II. page 159, directly says that the catechism, later known under the name of the Orthodox Confession, was written by Isaiah Trofimovich. Probably, the learned author borrowed this information, just like other news about the Council of 1640, from the contemporary and closest source of Dubovich’s book. The author of the “History of the Kyiv Academy”, edition of 1843, p. 80, without new research, based on the research of St. Metropolitan Eugene, calls Isaiah Trofimovich the author of the book: Orthodox Confession. See the same letter of Patriarch Nektarios, before the Orthodox Confession. What was found in this work of the unbeliever is unknown to us. Comparing this presentation, published after correction under the title of the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, with its abbreviation, published three years after this Council under the title: A short collection of the science of the Orthodox Catholic Christian faith, we find that in both works there are almost the same questions and answers, only in the latter the answers are stated shorter. The differences between one and the other presentation can be seen in the fact that the abridged version lacks questions about the universality of original sin, about predestination, about freedom, about the origin of the soul, and the difference between predestination, foreknowledge and providence, which are set out in detail in the Orthodox Confession (in the answers of the first part to questions 24, 26, 27, 28). – There is also a lack of questions about private judgment, about the degrees of bliss and torment in the future life, about the average state between those being saved and those who are perishing, about prayer for the dead, about purgatory, about the location of the blessed and the condemned (Orthodox Confession Part I. question 61–68). Perhaps, in the abbreviated presentation, these questions were excluded because the answers to them were subject to controversy at the Council, or they were completely missing in the presented presentation, and therefore it was supplemented by Meletius Sirig during the correction. The patriarchal charter is usually printed at the Orthodox Confession. Its year is shown here according to Greek publications. Przyczyny porzucenia disuniey Rozd. V §§ 3, 4. It is likely that Patriarch Nektariy of Jerusalem had this book in mind when he wrote in 1662 that “The Russians have long published this book in their own language.” For it is known that the complete edition of the Orthodox Confession in the Slavic language was published already in 1696. See the same “preface”. In the book itself, on page 52, where the fruits of the sacrament of the Eucharist are explained, it is noted: “What is more extensive in the great catechism.” But the full edition of the Orthodox Confession says no more about this. Therefore, Peter Mogila's promise must refer to another supposed publication. As the publisher of the Tsvetnaya Triode of 1642 testifies, in his dedication of the book to Peter Mogila. Description old printing. Tsarsky's books. – page 187. As Saint Demetrius of Rostov testifies in the preface to his edition of the Lives of the Saints. Let us mention here two known monuments of preaching the words of God Peter Mogila: a) The Cross of Christ the Savior and every person. This teaching was spoken and published in 1632; b) A word on the wedding of Prince Janusz Radziwiła with the daughter of the Moldavian ruler Vasily Lupula in 1645, about the dignity and responsibilities of married life. It was spoken in Iasi, and then published in Kyiv, in Polish. History of the Union p. 95.– With what triumph Peter Mohyla was received then by the Kyiv pupils can be seen from the greeting they offered to their archpastor: Mnemosyne slawy, prae y trudow przeoswieconego w Bogu Oyca, iego mosci oyca Piotra Mohily, na pozadany onego wiazd do Kiowa, od studentow gymnasium w Bractwie Kiowskim przezen fundowanego, swiatu podana. Roku 1633. in-4, in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. It consists of eleven poems, according to the number of letters in the name of Peter Mohyla, so that in each poem a thought is revealed that corresponds to the symbolic image of the letter itself - The Kiev Pechersk typographers, on this occasion, presented their Euphony to the Metropolitan. See Sotnikov Bibliography. No. 346. History of the Kyiv Academy pp. 38, 39. Spiritual testament of Peter Mogila in the “appendix” to the Description of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra pp. 34, 40. In the dedication of his book: Anthologion, Peter Mogila wrote: “to the extent of my meager strength and at the expense of the estates left to me after my parents, I took care to renew the gymnasium in Kyiv, i.e. schools, partly already in decline and empty, having provided them with books and teachers, I have provided, are providing and will provide poor students with maintenance and other needs.” – Was the Vinnitsa school also called Goy school, or was it another school? The last name is found in the work of Pyotr Mogila - Stone, in Kassian Sakovich and Galatovsky. In the letter of Gabriel Dometsky, to which the author of the “Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral” refers, p. 174. pr. 103, it is said “at that time the uneducated priests and Cossacks were very indignant, why are you creating a Latin and Polish school, there was none before and they got by?” They wanted to beat Peter Mogila himself and the teachers to death, as soon as they were dissuaded.” For this work, see Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, p. 174 and History of the Kiev Academy, pp. 41, 42. Description of Tolstoy's early printed books No. 83. Unfortunately, we do not have at hand the book itself, published in 1636 (in 16 parts, on 480 pages). But from the preface it is also clear that the prayers in it, out of respect for educational activities, were somewhat shortened, and, to adapt to adolescence, in some expressions changed. This is where Peter Mogila defends himself with his episcopal authority. Established by the Bishop of Chelm, Kirill Terletsky. See letter from Pope Urban VIII to the Krakow Academy. Historica Russian monumenta T. 2 p. 220. In the papal charter, Rutsky was given credit for attracting about two million Orthodox Christians to the Union. For such exploits, his image was erected in the Greek-Uniate Roman College, and Pope Urban VIII called him “Russian Athanasius, the stone mountain of the Union,” although the Jesuits themselves complained to the Pope about his cruelty in converting the Orthodox. Nicol. Comnen Papadopoli Praenotion. Mystagog 1697 p. 128, 129. Lequien. Or. Christ. T.1. p. 1279. See Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, page 177. The real privilege is given by Kulesh, in his book. Wiara Prawoslawna. 1704. p. 261. See Report to Velyamin Rutsky about the Pyatnitskaya and Predtechenskaya churches in Vilna 1636; in the Collection of ancient charter from the city of Volny. Part II. page 207. Description Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, pp. 177, 178. Allat. de consens Fecles. p. 987. "Cupiens deducere ad tutissimum illad itet, in quo pontificiæ claves patefaciunt fores æterni regni." Historica Russiæ monumenta, deprompt. a Turgenew. T. II. p. 209–221. A total of twenty-three certificates were issued at one time. Description Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, p. 179. Kulescha, Wiara Prawoslawna p. 263. Against the Orthodox Church, Cikhovich issued Tribunal ss. Patrum de processione Spititus Saneti a Patre et Filio. Cracov. 1659. His Colloquium Kiioviense is also included with this work. Refuting the Orthodox, Cikovich also wrote objections to the book: Stone, Petra Mogila - Cichovich’s works are discussed in detail and refuted by Adam Zernikav in his famous Theological Treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, written around 1690. Description Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Appendix No. 8. Description Manuscripts of Rumyants. Museum. page 709. You might be interested in: