Metropolis of Kyiv at the beginning of its separation from Moscow

The separate existence of the Kyiv metropolis actually begins from the time of the arrival in the Lithuanian borders of Gregory, a student of Isidor, installed in Rome. Until now, in the southwestern regions of the Russians, their own Metropolitans repeatedly appeared, there were formal attempts to form an administration separate from the Great Russian dioceses: but temporary orders soon disappeared, giving way to the original order, and the forced dissolution of the unified Russian Metropolis usually ended in the fact that the rejected or separated dioceses again returned under the control of a single All-Russian Metropolitan. The Pope took part in the formation of a separate metropolis of Kyiv: after the unfortunate union of some Greek and Russian Bishops Isidore with the Roman Church at the Council of Florence, he already considered himself an authorized administrator in the affairs of the East, as well as the West, and wanted to show his power where he did not expect contradiction. In the council of his Cardinals, Pope Callistus III decided to divide the Russian metropolis, which was previously headed by Isidore, into two parts, and entrust that half of it, which was in the possession of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir, to the new metropolitan. Isidore voluntarily agreed to cede it to Gregory, who shared his flight from Moscow (July 21, 1458). But Pope Callistus did not have time to complete the work he started: he died on August 8, 1458. His successor Pius II (installed. On the 19th of the same month) the first thing he set for himself was to confirm the election of Gregory 1, and, after his ordination by the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory Mamma, who, for his attachment to the union, lost his throne and retired to Rome, sent the newly installed Metropolitan to the Lithuanian country, with his charter or bull to the King. With this letter, he instructed Casimir to see to it that Gregory could exercise his rights unhindered; he assigned nine dioceses to the Metropolitan’s management: Bryansk, Smolensk, Przemysl, Turov, Lutsk, Vladimir, Polotsk, Chelm and Galich, and ordered that no orders of the Moscow Metropolitan, St. Jonah, whom he called a “renegade” 2. Thus, by bestowing a new primate on the southwestern regions of the Russians, the Pope, at the same time, determined the district of his metropolitanate, and tried to introduce it into new relations alien to Orthodox Rus'. The dioceses designated by the papal bull for the new metropolitanate were the same as those that were headed by Gregory Tsamblak forty years ago. They were located in Russian regions, partly connected with Poland, partly with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Only among the dioceses annexed to Poland, one, Galich, under the influence of the Latin clergy established here, no longer had its own bishops. – Meeting the long-standing desire of the Lithuanian government to have a special metropolitan for the Russian dioceses, the Pope’s order did not find any contradiction on this side. But the appointment of a metropolitan from Rome and through him subordination to the Pope was not so easy to reconcile with the attachment of the Orthodox to the Church from which Russia was enlightened by the faith. The influence of the Union of Florence was short-lived. And if Isidore, entering the southwestern borders of his metropolis, did not encounter resistance in the local clergy 3, but later, under the control of St. Jonah, Metropolitan of All Russia, through his messages and envoys, zeal for Orthodoxy should have been revived in pastors and priests, princes and people. Already upon Gregory's arrival in Lithuania, St. Jonah wrote a letter of approval to one of the local shepherds for his firmness and steadfastness amid the surrounding turmoil, and, at his request, offered him refuge in his own metropolis 4 . Probably it was Bishop Euthymius of Bryansk and Chernigov, who subsequently took advantage of the invitation of the Moscow High Hierarch 5 . The support of the Orthodox was the noble Prince of Kiev Simeon Olelkovich, famous for his courage in repelling the Tatars, and for his piety in restoring the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, whom the Lithuanians themselves desired and sought to have as their viceroy from the king 6 . And when he died (1471), the residents of Kyiv for a long time did not agree to accept Martin Gashtold, of the Roman faith, as their commander. So strong was the commitment of pastors, princes and people to their faith and the Church. With such a state of mind, Gregory could only hope for the assistance of the Polish and Lithuanian governments. True, King Vladislav III of Poland, promoting the form of union, back in 1443 granted all the rights enjoyed by the Polish clergy to the Orthodox churches and bishops in the Russian regions belonging to Poland, as if they had already entered into the long-desired union 8 . According to the meaning of the law, it turned out that those who did not enter into this union, just as previously did not have equal rights with the Polish clergy, could no longer enjoy them. – On the other hand, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, under Casimir, a direct prohibition was issued to restore dilapidated Orthodox churches and build new ones. History names young Casimir, the son of the King, as the culprit of such a ban; With his persistent requests, he managed to obtain his father’s consent to this order, with the intention of promoting the success of the Latin faith in Lithuania 9 . – However, the Polish and Lithuanian governments themselves should have been afraid of general coercive measures to accept the union. Disagreements between Lithuania and Poland beyond the borders of their possessions in the Russian regions 10, - the common faith of Little and White Russia with Great Russia, - the recent union of all Russian regions under the control of one Orthodox metropolitan, - the influence of noble Russian and Lithuanian families who professed the Orthodox faith, - the growing power of the Moscow state with John III, his views on the unification of all regions of the same faith under one power 11 - all this kept Casimir from slavishly fulfilling the papal demands regarding Orthodox Rus'. Yielding to necessity, the Bishops of the Kyiv Metropolis, although with a cramped conscience, had to enter into church communion with Gregory and serve with him 12: but none of them dishonored themselves by betraying the truth, or entered into an alliance with Rome. On the contrary, Gregory himself, in order to get closer to his subjects, who maintained their dependence on the throne of Constantinople, decided to seek confirmation for himself and blessing from the Patriarch of Constantinople. The patriarch then was Simeon of Trebizond, the fourth after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Wanting to gain his favor, Gregory sent his envoy Manuel to him with gifts, and promised even more gold if he helped him acquire the Moscow metropolis under his rule. The Patriarch pointed out to the messenger his misery, the disastrous state of the Church under Turkish rule: but he accepted neither gifts nor promises, and did not give the illegitimate Shepherd a blessing 13 . Thus, Gregory, without having time to do anything to subordinate his metropolis to the Pope, died in 1472 in Novogrodok, where he probably had a permanent residence 14. With his death, Casimir did not think about returning the Russian metropolis to its former unity, as it was during the life of St. Jonah: but he did not approach the Pope with the demand for a new metropolitan. The administration of the metropolis was entrusted to the one ordained during the reign of St. Jonah, Bishop of Smolensk Misail. Misail's successors, when ascending the throne, also did not turn to the Pope for a blessing, but received it from the Patriarchs of Constantinople, with whom they constantly maintained relations. – We will collect information about these Metropolitans until the end of the 15th century. Misail came from the family of princes Drutsky-Sokolinsky 15. He is known from St.'s relations with him. Iona Metropolitan, since 1454 16. While still Bishop of Smolensk, he came to Moscow to receive St. Icon of the Mother of God, Smolensk, which was released with him 17. He left a remarkable monument of piety for himself, having founded the Cherei monastery in the Orsha district, in the name of the Holy Trinity. For this purpose, he used the part of the real estate that he received after the division with his brothers; His mother, nun Agathia, brothers and other relatives also contributed to the establishment of this monastery, which remained Orthodox until the beginning of the union 18. - During his administration of the metropolis 19, another metropolitan, installed in Constantinople, from the Tverites, Spyridon 20, appeared within the Lithuanian borders. But since he received this rank not through the election of the bishops of the Kyiv metropolis and the King, he was detained by Casimir and put in prison 21. Subsequently, having managed to free himself, he arrived in Russia; but even here he was imprisoned 22. Misail's successor was Metropolitan Simeon, who was elevated to this rank, apparently from among the bishops. Archimandrite of Kiev-Pechersk, Zacharias Kopistensky testifies that until his time in the Kyiv Lavra there was preserved a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople Maxim to this High Hierarch of Kyiv, that in this letter, giving the Metropolitan a blessing, he mentions the two Greek Bishops Niphont and Theodoret sent to him, and informs about the sign that recently appeared in Constantinople over the bodies of those who died under the oath 23. The modern chronicle dates Simeon's death to 1488 24. In place of Simeon, Ion Glezna 25 was elevated from the Bishops of Polotsk, and after him Macarius from the Archimandrites of the Vilna Trinity Monastery. The circumstances of the dedication of Metropolitan Macarius, described in the same chronicle, are noteworthy. Four Bishops: Vladimir, Polotsk, Turov and Lutsk gathered (1495) for his installation, and, having consecrated, sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople Niphon to ask for his blessing. The Patriarch sent his blessed letter to the Metropolitan: but he noticed this inconsistency with the order of the matter, and demanded that henceforth they ask for a blessing before dedication, with the exception of special, extreme circumstances. The bishops answered: “We do not deny the ancient customs of the Catholic Church of Constantinople and the blessing of our father the Patriarch, but we did so out of necessity. However, even before us, under the Grand Duke Vytautas, our brother Bishops themselves also ordained Gregory Tsamblak as Metropolitan” 26 . - From this it is clear how concerned both sides were about maintaining the connection between the patriarchal throne and the metropolis. And this Metropolitan, who so clearly sealed his union with the Church of Constantinople, having ended his life as a martyr, was glorified by the Lord with incorruption. Two years after his installation, he went from Vilna to Kyiv to console his flock, which had recently suffered from the invasion of the Crimean Tatars, and to arrange the affairs of the Church there. On the way, not far from Mozyr, a gang of the same Tatars attacked him, destroyed his retinue and killed him (May 1, 1497). “Since we were baptized,” notes the Chronicler, “no such misfortune has happened in the Russian land. But I think,” he adds, “that such a death will serve the Bishop of God for greater reward” 27 . And the contemporary, of course, who knew the life of the Saint well, was not deceived, as evidenced by the incorruptible remains of the Saint, which still rests in the St. Sophia Church in Kyiv. The last Metropolitan of Kyiv in the 15th century was Joseph Soltan. Before entering monasticism, he was a zemstvo treasurer in the Principality of Lithuania. Having become a monk, he ruled the Slutsk Trinity Monastery, and in a short time managed to supply it with a good sacristy, some of which he brought from Constantinople, and many teaching books, such as the writings of St. Ephraim, Dorotheus, Theodore the Studite, Nikon the Montenegrin, Gregory of Sinaite 28. At the beginning of 1494 he was elevated to the see of Smolensk; and in 1498 he was called by V. Prince Alexander of Lithuania to higher service 29 . But he did not immediately enter the metropolis of Kyiv, but through communication with the Patriarch, as Niphon demanded. One of his crusade clergy arrived from Constantinople, from Patriarch Joachim, and in his presence, three Little Russian Bishops installed Joseph as metropolitan (May 10, 1500). Here is a series of the High Hierarchs of Kyiv from the time of the formation of a special Lithuanian-Russian metropolis until the beginning of the 16th century. Despite the paucity of information about this time, we often encountered indications of their relations with Constantinople, and no hint of relations with Rome. Let us add to the fact that when installing bishops in the Kyiv Metropolis, as before, it was required of the newly ordained not to accept another metropolitan, “unless someone was appointed from Constantinople, somehow they accepted it from the beginning” 30: while in Great Russia, remembering the fluctuations in the Orthodoxy of Constantinople before its fall, they demanded a completely different obligation from the ordained 31. True, the later perpetrators of the union, and after them their like-minded people, wanting to justify their departure from Orthodoxy, tried to assure that the first Lithuanian-Russian Metropolitans turned more willingly to the Pope than to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Hypatiy Potsey, having become a Uniate Metropolitan, in 1605 presented to the Vilna Town Hall for certification a book that he allegedly found, in the Slovenian language “velmi ancient”, where, after the description of the Council of Florence, a leaf of the Kyiv Metropolitan Misail to Pope Sixtus IV was placed. Potsey published this sheet at the same time with his advance notice 32. This is nothing more than the most humiliating expression of submission to the Roman throne; here one can see outbursts of the most unexpected zeal for the Roman High Priest, and reverent, or rather blasphemous, worship before him, similar to pagan apotheosis. Those seeking the favor of the Pope voluntarily ask him for mentors to reconcile disagreements between Greek and Latin law, on the basis of the Council of Florence; They also ask for the mercy of declaring a jubilee in favor of the Russians professing the Greek faith, which ended the previous year for Christians of the Roman Church. In conclusion, the supposed converts say to the Pope like this: “for such and such great heavenly gifts, we praise you, and all people praise him; Let us bless you, blessed by the Almighty God; We bow to you, before whom the Christian Council bows; Let us praise you with reverent voices, magnifying you great for the sake of your glory, which you have from above from God. Great Hierarch, heavenly Melchizedek, Father of spiritual gifts, containing everything, the only begotten servant of the Son, equal to Him, (may the reader forgive us that we repeat the blasphemous expressions that the champion of the union invented in mad zeal for his new “Honored”: - sometimes it is necessary to present only the matter in its true form in order to reveal all its absurdity), absolving the sins of the world, - show mercy on by us! Solver of the sins of the whole world, accept our prayers! He who sits at the right hand of the Majesty of glory in the Holy Church, as in heaven, we pray again, have mercy on us and be merciful to us: for you alone are holy, you alone are Lord, the supreme Father, the most holy and most blessed Sixte! On this sheet, signatures were allegedly found, in addition to Metropolitan Misail, two more, Archimandrites of Kiev-Pechersk John and Vilna Macarius, Jan Chodkevich Hetman of Lithuania and other noble persons. Alexander Soltan, the zemstvo treasurer, was entrusted with presenting this petition to the Pope 33 . The reliability of such a document and all the circumstances of the imaginary embassy, ​​which began to be talked about only from the time of the union, at first glance seems suspicious. And the defenders of Orthodoxy were not slow to expose this blatant deception. – The author of “Re-Warnings” or “Warnings of Orthodox Christians”, who revealed to us the true course of affairs at the beginning of the union, clearly hinting at a book that appeared at that time, speaks of the perpetrators of the union: “whoever they can, they attract to themselves with affectionate words, honors and dignity; and others are tormented, intimidated with threats, bombarded with false books, they invent books “under an old date”, written in an old letter, as proof that such an agreement with the Riga Church once existed. But look more closely at the speech itself, and you will see that, although it was written in an old letter, the image of expression is completely Potseev, as if he himself spoke with his own lips. Moreover, we will find there words of the present time, which our ancestors did not use: for, just as the Poles adopted many Latin words into their language, so Rus' introduced many Polish words into its language” 34. Meletius Smotritsky, who wrote five years after the publication of this sheet, directly calls it an invention of Potsey 35. Zechariah Kopistensky in Palinodia objects: “if the people of Kiev for a long time did not want to accept the civil ruler Gashtold for the reason that he was of the Latin faith: then how could they at the same time recognize a Latin as their metropolitan? - On the other hand, John of Las, Archbishop of Gniezno, in 1514 at the Lateran Council, presenting information about the dogmas and rituals by which the Russians living within Poland and Lithuania differ from the Roman Church, everywhere exhibits only their disagreements, and does not say a word about the recent, supposedly, expression of submission by the head of the southwestern metropolis. He directly says that the Russians consider the pope equal to other high priests, do not recognize the importance of his indulgences, do not want to recognize the Roman Church as the head of all Churches, etc. 36. – And what are the consequences of this imaginary embassy in Rome? What did the Pope do? Did he really ignore the request of such zealous fans? It was possible to compose one act, but it was impossible to invent a whole series of phenomena for which no basis could be found in history. – Undoubted monuments provide completely different evidence about the relationship of the Kyiv hierarchy to the Latin Church. Consecrated as a bishop, just as in the Moscow metropolitanate of that time, he promised “not to leave in all his territory a single one from our Orthodox faith to create weddings and nepotism and brotherhood for the Armenians, and also for the Latins” 37 . Instead of drawing closer to the Latins, here we encounter a special rite “how to receive those who come from the Latin faith” 38. Not without reason, in the fictitious act between the signatories, Macarius Archimandrite of Vilna is mentioned, and Alexander Soltan is appointed as the mediator of the expression of submission. Both of these persons, soon after Misail, one after another occupied the throne of the Kyiv metropolis. And the Uniates used this as proof that not only Misail, but also his closest successors were in communion with the Roman Church. – But we already know from contemporary evidence that both of them asked for the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople for their appointment. And this clearly shows that neither one nor the other entered into any relations with the Pope. Through the Uniates, the message of Niphon, Patriarch of Constantinople to Metropolitan Joseph Soltan of Kyiv, became known, in response to his question about the Council of Florence. The person in charge represents the said Council as having legally completed its actions, and advises the Metropolitan to live in peace with the Latins 39 . Based on some expressions, one could agree that this message is imperfectly forged. By the way, it is suggested here to the Metropolitan, regarding the adoption of the union, not to take this matter upon himself, but to answer those who demand that he cannot do anything without the decision of the Patriarch. But on the other hand, the disagreement in the chronological indications of this message with the historical data 40, the absence of the usual form of the patriarchal messages in the indicated letter, the inconsistency of this answer about the Council with the well-known pious character of the Patriarch, whom the Greek Church canonized 41 - everything makes us think that this answer is known to us in a distorted form, or even completely fictitious. Let us add to this, if such a patriarchal message had really been known at one time, then it could not have been hidden during the opening disputes about the oppression of the Orthodox faith during the time of Metropolitan Joseph. In general, the state of affairs of the Orthodox in Lithuania and the Russian regions dependent on it at this time is best explained by the story of the marriage of V.K. Lithuanian Alexander with the daughter of Moscow V. Prince John Vasilyevich, Elena. Agreeing to give his daughter to the Prince of the Infidel, John demanded from him a written commitment that he would not force her to accept the Roman faith, but would allow her to adhere to her Orthodox faith. Having accepted this condition, Alexander, in the contractual document regarding the marriage, also included: not to interfere with V. Princess if she wishes to join the Roman Church. John rejected this restriction as a pretext for seduction, and demanded that it be excluded from the treaty 42. - When releasing Elena to Lithuania (Jan. 13, 1495), he repeated through his ambassadors to Alexander: “if our daughter wants to proceed to Roman law, we do not give her the will to do so, and you would not give the same will” 43. And moreover, he asked his son-in-law that the marriage be performed, in respect for Greek law, by the Metropolitan himself, or the Orthodox Bishop - so that in V. Princess’s retinue there would be people of Greek law, so that she would have her own Orthodox church at court, which she could always attend 44 . – But the marriage was performed on the Latin side by Biskup of Vilnius, and on the Orthodox side by a simple priest 45 . – After the wedding, releasing the ambassadors, Alexander replied that, without violating the laws existing in his country, he could not arrange a new church of Greek law for V. Princess, that if she wanted, she could go to the city church, which is not far 46. Soon afterwards, Alexander released the Russian boyars and boyars from Vilna, who had been left for a time by his father under V. Princess, and appointed those professing the Roman faith to her court, although in Lithuania there would have been many nobles and Orthodox Christians 47 . All John's efforts to have his just demands respected were in vain. Finally, he receives news that in Lithuania not only V. Princess, but also all Orthodox Christians are being oppressed, that the Latin Bishop of Vilna Wojciech and the Bishop of Smolensk Joseph Soltan, who has gone over to the side of the Latins, together with the Bernardine monks, are trying to attract all Orthodox Christians to the Latin faith. This news was confirmed by Lithuanian defectors who fled their land, as they said, due to persecution of the Orthodox faith 48 . John, having long been indignant at various insults from Lithuania, sent his son-in-law a marking document and, after that, troops. A war broke out, which was unfortunate for the Lithuanian prince. Alexander tried to put the matter out with negotiations. Among the negotiations, despite the unfounded denials of the Lithuanian ambassadors, John did not stop reprimanding his son-in-law: “I sent the Lord of Smolensk, the mark of the Greek law, and Biskup of Vilnius, and the Bernadyn monks, to our daughter, so that she would proceed to the Roman law; also to the Russian princes and to the lords and to the Vilna mestiques, and to all Rus' of the Greek law, he sent to them the same Lord of Smolensk and Biskup of Vilna - and they were told from him to proceed to the Roman law... And now he has created a new force in Rus', John also added, which previously, under his fathers and under his ancestors, did not happen: since he ordered to supply the goddesses to the Roman law in Russian cities, in Polotsk and in other places, wives are taken from their husbands, children from their fathers are taken from their bellies, and are forcibly baptized into Roman law” 49 . In support of these words, V. Prince referred to the testimony of those captured 50. Alexander declared all such accusations to be the invention of evil people, traitors to their fatherland; he even assured that there had never been a word about the establishment of a church for V. Princess, and about the appointment of persons of the Orthodox confession to her court 51. Finally, on behalf of Elena herself, letters were written to her father, mother and her brothers with the assurance that she did not tolerate any constraint in her faith, and with a complaint that everyone considered her to be to blame for the bloodshed 52. But when peace was concluded between the Lithuanian Grand Duke - then already the Polish King - Alexander, and the Grand Duke John, the Polish ambassador partially revealed the truth. “Our Sovereign King Alexander,” said Ambassador Myshkovsky, “ordered you to say that he did not force and does not force your daughter to accept the Roman law. But even when he was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Pope sent him to tell his Grand Duchess to be obedient to the Pope and go to the Roman Church. However, our Sovereign never said a word about this to his Grand Duchess. And when our Sovereign was taken to the Polish kingdom, the Pope again sent to him with the same demand, reminding him that just as he himself recognized himself as an obedient son of the Roman Church, he tried to bring his wife into obedience to the Roman Church, and then he could crown her. At the same time, the Pope made it clear to our Sovereign,” the ambassador added, “that the Queen does not need to be baptized, that she can observe the Greek law with its customs, go to her Greek churches, even have priests of the Greek rite at her court: if only she expresses her submission to the Pope. And not only to her, but to all those who profess the Greek law, if they want to show obedience to the Pope, there is no need to be baptized (again); they can keep their Greek law, according to the charter of the Eastern Church. Briefly, the Pope wants the Queen to submit to the Roman Church and enter into union with it, on the basis of the Council of Florence" 53. So, they wanted to incline Grand Duchess Helen, if not directly to the Roman confession, then at least to union. And although the ambassador assured on behalf of King Alexander that he did not say a word about this to his wife, the Grand Duke of Moscow had every right to say to his daughter: “if the Pope has sent to your husband more than once with such a demand, then it is the same as to you; whatever he orders your husband, so does you.”54. Although from such a Pope as Alexander VI (August 11, 1492 – August 18, 1503) one could not expect zeal in converting the Orthodox to the Roman Church; however, from the letter of his successor Julius I we know that the Grand Duke of Lithuania was indeed given urgent suggestions from Rome to bring his wife into obedience to the Roman Church by all means. It is also clear that King Alexander of Poland, embarrassed, on the one hand, by the demands of the Pope, and on the other, by failures in the war with Russia, asked Pope Julius not to force Helen to renounce her religion. Here are the words of the Pope himself: “You made peace with the Grand Duke of Moscow, having sworn in advance through your ambassadors not to force your wife Helen to accept the rites of the Roman Church if she herself does not want it. Meanwhile, our predecessor Pope Alexander VI, burdening your conscience, declared that you must try all the measures and efforts that could induce your wife Elena to renounce the Russian sect (i.e., the Orthodox faith) and accept the Catholic faith (i.e., the Roman one). And you are now forced to either divorce your wife or force her to accept the rites of the Roman Church: but the Moscow Prince will not tolerate this indifferently and can easily bring war into your lands again and cause unbearable harm to your kingdoms. Arguing about this, through your ambassadors you humbly asked us for gracious permission to endure the aforementioned wife Elena with her previous rituals, until either the death of the Prince of Moscow, already elderly, or some other favorable case arranges things differently” 55 . Julius was more accommodating than his predecessor and agreed that the Queen of Poland should remain her religion: only she was not crowned. As for the admiration of others for an alliance with the Roman Church, John was not deceived in this either. The same Pope Alexander, who insisted on the annexation of Helena to the Roman Church, wrote to the Latin Bishop of Vilna Wojciech (April 23, 1501): “not without great spiritual joy we learned that some Russians, in the Principality of Lithuania and others, living according to Greek rites, but professing the Christian faith, in Vilna, Kyiv, Lutsk, Minsk (Mednicensem civitatem) and other cities and dioceses of the same principality, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, having been enlightened, they express a desire and propose to completely reject from their hearts some errors, which until now, living according to Greek rites and customs, they have held, and to enter into the unity of faith with the Latin, Roman Church and to live according to the rites of the same Latin, Roman Church" 56 . Where did such a movement in favor of the Roman Church come from in Lithuanian Rus'? In the fifteenth century, with the general decline of spiritual life in the monasteries in the West, two remarkable zealots of the transformation into the order of mendicants, or Franciscans, appeared: Bernard of Siena and John of Capistran, who tried to restore the institutions of their founder to their former severity, and with their lives and the gift of eloquence attracted general attention. One of them, Capistran, was invited by King Casimir to Krakow (in 1453), and with his glory and his tireless preaching he disposed many to accept monasticism according to the rules of his transformed order (Fratres regularis observantiæ). Thus, the first monastery of strict Franciscans was founded here, and the first church was dedicated to the name of Bernardin 57. But Casimir was dissatisfied with this: he asked the Pope for permission, in addition to the two monasteries of this order in Poland, to establish two of the same monasteries in Lithuania and in the Russian regions 58. At the end of the 15th century, the monasteries of this order in Poland were headed by the Provincial Vladislav, who was ranked among the saints by the Roman Church. He then, at the invitation of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander, sent his monks to Lithuania to arouse the spirit of piety in the clergy and to instruct the common people. They quickly spread throughout Lithuania and Belarus, preaching against social vices, converting those entrenched in paganism, and attracting Russian Orthodox Christians into the depths of the Roman Church. “They even penetrated to Polotsk, the extreme city of Belarus,” says Vladislav’s biography, Vicentius of Moravia, “in addition to preaching, they helped (Latin) priests in the performance of their duties, received penitents, and destroyed idols. “I could,” he says, “point out exactly in which places they dispersed deep darkness, drove out error, saved souls from the ditch of ignorance. Ancient chronicles say that more than ten thousand were plucked by them from darkness and the shadow of death, from the errors of paganism. “Then the Russians,” the narrator continues, “persistently separated from unity with the Catholic Church (i.e. Latin) and, with the depletion of pure oil, true and intact teaching, in their lamps, enveloped in the darkness of ignorance, they saw the light of truth and desired a union with the Roman Church; - and they remained in this union until these Fathers 59 shone for them. So, these are the Bernardine monks whom John pointed out to the Lithuanian and Polish ambassadors; This is the reason for the multiplication of Latin churches in Russian cities: Polotsk and others, which aroused complaints in the Grand Duke of Moscow! The ban on building and renewing former Orthodox churches in Lithuanian cities, rumors about Pope Alexander’s insistence that Grand Duchess Helen enter into an alliance with the Roman Church, the successes of the Bernardines in Russian cities and regions - all this gave credibility to the news brought from Lithuania about the persecution of Orthodoxy in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. To what extent Biskup of Vilnius Wojciech (1492–1507) assisted these Bernardines is not yet clear from the disclosed circumstances. But from other acts it is known that he obtained a charter from Pope Alexander, which granted him, his successors and the entire clergy the right (saeculare jus gladii) to put to death heretics and pagans, as well as those who would interfere with the collection of tithes, and that the Vilna courts were filled with complaints from residents about oppression from him 60 . It is also known that he instructed the Krakow canon and doctor of theology John Sakran to compile, based on the canonical writings and definitions of theologians, a note “on the errors of the Russians in faith and rituals.” And this note, written in the most hostile spirit against the Russian religion, filled with unfair reproaches and false testimonies about the Orthodox faith and worship, was printed with dedication to Wojciech 61. In forty points, Sakran not only presents our legitimate deviations from Roman rituals and beliefs as errors, but also invents his own, reinterprets and distorts reality. And the Bishop of Vilna, who had the opportunity to believe everything that was said in practice, in the Orthodox churches, of which there were many in Vilna itself, did not want to spend any effort on this, but was the first to give rise to the spread of false opinions about the Russian Church in Europe 62 . It is noteworthy that Sakran, without a doubt, through the Bishop of Vilna, knowing about the types of the Lithuanian government, clearly speaks of the intention of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander - to attract all his Russian subjects into the bowels of the Roman Church. Having spoken about the unyielding firmness of the Russians in their religion, which he calls unparalleled tenacity, and mentioning how they dealt with the traitor to Orthodoxy Isidore, he continues: “leaving this, I want to point out the recent atrocity that was committed in 1500, in the sight of everyone. The most pious Sovereign Alexander, the current Grand Duke of Lithuania, inflamed with zealous love for the Catholic faith, following the example of his grandfather Vytautas, who laid the first foundations of the faith and the Church in Lithuania, began to reason with himself by what honest means he could lead his Russian subjects to the unity of the Church. And when he decided to approach them with a meek, supportive, fatherly admonition. The Russian princes and other noble persons, having a presentiment of his pious intention, in a frantic rage, conspiring to destroy him and his faithful subjects, immediately handed themselves over to the Grand Duke of Moscow, the defender of their schism and sect (as the Latin calls our Orthodox Church) 63. So, the complaints and accusations of the Grand Duke of Moscow are confirmed: the Pope, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, the Bishop of Vilna, the Bernardines, all unite in the intention to destroy Orthodoxy in the Lithuanian principality. And, if it had not been for the God-blessed success of the weapons of the Grand Duke of Moscow, which averted the danger, the Orthodox Church was ready to undergo the suffering that it experienced in the southwestern regions of Russia a century later. But did the then Metropolitan Joseph deserve the title of “marker of our faith”, which John gave him, based on the testimony of those who retired from Lithuania?... To his credit, it should be said at least that none of the accomplices against Orthodoxy put him on their side. And his subsequent activities in favor of the Orthodox Church do not give any reason to think that he himself had a desire to change his faith. The affirmative letter is printed in the appendices to 2 Sophia. Years. in Full Assembled. Letop. T. VI, p. 319. It is inscribed: “dilecto Gregorio, Electo Kyoviensi, Lithuaniae et totius Rossiae inferioris. Dana Sep 11 1458 Soph. 2 Letop. ibid., p. 167. See Isidore's sheet to the Kholm elders and governors, in Chten. Moscow Historical Society of 1846 N 1. About searches in the Poznań library, p. 14. – Gram. St. Jonah to Bishop Daniel of Vladimir, in Act. Histor. T. I. N 52. Additional to Act. Histor. T. I. N 13. In 1465, it is said in the Chronicle, Euthymius, Bishop, came running to Moscow. Bryansk and Chernigov, leaving his bishopric, and giving him Suzhdal and Koluga and Torus. Chronicle published 1784 p. 261. Narbulh Dzieje narodu Litewskiego T. VIII. s. 153. Dlugoss. Hist. Polon. L. XIII, an. 1461. p. 265. Dlugosh, a contemporary, directly testifies that in addition to his Lithuanian, and, moreover, not princely, origin, the people of Kiev pointed out his difference of faith with them: alterius ritus ob disparitatem cnltus. Ibid. an. 1471. p. 462. Act. Western Russia. T.I.N 42. Casimir died in 1484 and was canonized by the Latins as a saint. In his life (written in 1520) it is said “Rutheuos, qui S. Apostolicae sedi minime parent et quorum per Lithuaniam ipsam maximus est numerus, eo sancto insectaretur o dio, ut regi Poloniae parenti suo eorum antiqua Fana instaurari publico edicto prohiberetur, modo opportune, modo importune persvaderet (Act. SS. Martii. T. I. d. 4. pag. 349.). Another biography of the same Casimir, who lived later (1554), adds that in his time the royal act itself was kept in the cathedral church of Vilnius, which prohibited the restoration of old churches and the building of new ones. (Ibidem). Zubritsky - about Chervonnaya Rus'. 1845, pp. 379, 383 and others. John said to the ambassadors of the King of Poland: “not only those Russian cities and volosts that are now behind us are our fatherland and the entire Russian land, with God’s will and from ancient times, from our ancestors - our fatherland.” Act. Zap. Ross. T. I, p. 280. “We now feel sorry for our fatherland; and their homeland is Latian and Lithuanian land.” Page 331, see Monuments Diplomat. relations between Russia. T. I, p. 11. Act. Histor. T. I. N 63. “We hear that the Netsyn tamo in you join him and serve with him (Gregory), wrote St. Jonah to the Bishops of Lithuania. We know this from the letter of V.K. Ioann Vasilyevich in Novgorod, and Joseph Metropolitan of Caesarea of ​​Palestine wrote to him. Act. Archaeographer. Exped. T. I. N. 80. Pskov. 1 Letop. in Full Assembled. Letop. T. IV, p. 246. Act. Western Ross. T. IV, pr. 91. Act. Histor. T. I. N 56. See also: N 62 and 272. Russian Temporary under 1456 Act. Zap. Ross. T. III. N 101. T. IV. N 136. In the registration for the Chereysky monastery, given in October 1474, he simply calls himself the ruler of Smolensk. But there is doubt against this indication; the indictment does not agree with the indication of the year indicated in the record. Act. 3. R. T. III. N 101. The time of the accession of Misailov’s successor to the Smolensk department, Joachim, is also definitely dissatisfied (See Act. 3. R. T. I. N 70, etc. 54.) Letop. ed. 1784, p. 286, mentions this under 1476. Soph. 2 years. in Full Collection Years. T. VI, p. 233. In 1482, Spiridon sent to V.K. Moscow with a notification about himself, as well as that he had brought a lot of saints for him from Constantinople. relics; but V.K. John did not find it convenient to alleviate his fate. While living in the Ferapontov Monastery, he was compiling the life of St. Zosima and Savvaty of Solovetsky (in 1493), where he mentions his imprisonment. See Bibliography. search in Moskvityan. 1846 T. 6, p. 184. Zechariah in his Palinodia says that the signature of the message indicates the year 6989, indict 14. The indication of the indict corresponds to the year. It is also known that Patriarch Maxim the question of the bodies of those who died under oath was proposed by the Sultan himself. Tureograec. L.I.r. 27. Kyiv years. in Supraslsk. handwritten ed. 1836, p. 139. Mentioned in the same chronicle in 1492, on the occasion of the consecration of the church. Kyiv Suprasl. years. pp. 141, 142. Kyiv Suprasl. years. Art. 144, 145. Joseph’s predecessor, Archimandrite Macarius, then transferred to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, was still the abbot of the Slutsk monastery in May 1492 (Act. 3. Ross. T. 1. N 99.) - And Joseph at the beginning of 1494 had already surrendered the Slutsk monastery. There is also N 115. Kyiv. Suprasl. The chronicle says: in the summer of May 7006, 30 days of the 1st Indictment, V.K. Alexander of Lithuania gave the metropolis of Neva and All Rus' to Joseph Bishop of Smolensk. Rk. Trebnik Mosk. Synod. Bible N 310 l. 174 rev. This breviary, writing. at the beginning of the 16th century, belonged, in all likelihood, to the Smolensk see, because in it, at the bishop's liturgy, not only the names of the deceased Russian Metropolitans, but also the Smolensk Bishops are remembered. And the series of both ends with the name of Joseph (Soltan), who was both the Bishop of Smolensk and then the Metropolitan of Kiev (fol. 226 vol.). See Add. to ed. TV Holy Fathers 1848 Part VI. With. 146 Act. Zap. Ross. T. IV N 164. We write out the words of the mentioned sheet from the book Θρῆνος, ed. in Polish by Meletius Smotrytsky in 1610. 67 and 68.-On the embassy, ​​see Narbuth. T. VIII. §. 205. Die neueste Zustände d. Katholischen Kirche in Polen. § 57. Act. Zap. Russian T. IV. N 149 p. 229. Hist. Russ. Monum T. 1 N 123. Trebnik RK. Synod. N 310. l. 174 rev. Printed by Lequien Oriens Chr. T. 1. r. 1271. from the chronicles of Rainald, under 1486. ​​The Greek text of the message is unknown, but only the Latin one. The time of the message at the end is indicated as follows - 7000 on April 5, indictment on the 11th. In April 1492 there was the 10th indictment, not the 11th. Joseph Soltan, whom the Patriarch calls here his co-celebrant, became Metropolitan, as we have seen, no earlier than 1498, and the Bishop of Smolensk no earlier than 1494. - For other signs of forgery, see Description of Kiev-Soph. Sob. pp. 113 et seq. He is commemorated in the Greek menaions on August 11th. Patriarch Niphon, before ascending the throne, labored on Mount Athos and there he ended his life after being removed from the throne. His saints also rest there. Relics, about which see Barsky. (Journey to holy places. 1778 p. 729). The Greeks have a service in his memory. Συν αξαρισῆς τοῦ Νικοδ ἠ μου Ἁ γιορἱτου. 1818 T. III. 251. Act. West. Ross. T. 1. N 116. act III and IV. The letter itself is a contractual act. V. Full personal years. T. IV. Novgorod. IV years. With. 165. “They were crowned in Stanislav, in the Roman church law, the Biskup of Vilnius in Latin, and the Grand Duke priest Thomas in Greek law.” Act. Zap. Ross. T. I. N 116. act. VIII. Act. Zap. Ross. T. 1. N 134. The first news was received secretly from clerk Shestakov, who was with Elena. Act. Zap. Ross. T. I. N 155. The publishers, according to a guess, dated it to 1498 before May, probably at the time of the election of Joseph of Smolensk to the Metropolitan. This news was supplemented by news brought to Moscow by Belsky and other defectors. See also there. Polish embassy to Moscow in February 1500 N 179. John's response to the Lithuanian embassy in April 1500 N 179. “That his people are among us, and they also say.” N 192. p. 235. “That matter was true, obvious; this is known to all the people in your Sovereign’s lands and in our Sovereign’s lands who sent (Biskup of Vilna and Joseph to the Grand Duchess)” p. 243. Act. 3. R. T. I. pp. 205, 230. Act. Apx. Exp. T. I N 138. Act. 3. R. T. I. N 192. pp. 293, 294 Negotiations in April 1503 Act. Zap. Ross. T I. approx. 115. Papal charter dated May 18, 1505. This bull is fully cited by Herberstein in his work Rerum Moscoviticarum commentarii. Ed. Slarczewsky. Vol. I p. 26. It is also placed in the chronicles of Rainald 1501. n. 37 sq. Dlugossi Annales Polon. Lib. XIII. p. 122. Histor. Russiæ. mon. T.I.N 122. p. 121. Act SS. Vita S. Ladislai. Mai d 4. p 569 et sq. The last words hint at the fate of the Bernardines after the capture of Polotsk by Tsar John Vasilyevich. East. State Ross. T. IX. approx. 69. The charter was given on July 1, 1501. Act. Zap. Ross. T.I. approx. 115. In the dedication, Sakran writes, among other things, that Wojciech personally asked him about it when he was in Lithuanian land from his King John Albert (1492–1501). See Lucaszewiz... Geschichte d. Reform. Kirch. in Litthaven. 1. B. S. 1. The book was published under the title Elucidarius errorum ritus Ruthenici, without indicating the year and place of publication. Later editions directly state that it was written in 1500. This note was used (albeit anonymously) by Archbishop John of Lasski of Gniezno, repeating forty points word for word in his review of the Russian Church at the Lateran Council of 1514 (Hist. Russ. Monum. TI N123.). It was then translated into German, and Prince Buchavsky again translated it into Latin and placed it in his notes on Russia (1577). Scriptores rer. Livonic. 1853 T. II. r. 712. Lazitzky, Guagnoni reprinted it in their editions with an abbreviation. The latest edition is Rerum. Polon. tomi tres T. II. p. 347, and we used it. Rer. Polon. T. II. pag. 349. You might be interested in: