“We need to learn”

It was precisely 375 years ago that Petro Mohyla (1596-1647) ascended to the cathedra of the metropolitan of Kyiv in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to make a significant contribution on Ukrainian Orthodoxy and society in general, which, however, has not won universal positive appraisal. Both approving and critical assessments testify in equal measure that this was a person of great caliber in the history of Ukraine. Mohyla’s personality compelled the attention of our ancestors and still attracts that of contemporary scholars, the students of the church’s history both in Ukraine and in the West. Ironically, the majority of analytical studies on metropolitan Mohyla were written not by Ukrainians (as the saying goes, a prophet is without honor in his own country), but by Russians, Romanians, Poles, the French, Germans, and Italians. The bibliography on Mohyla runs dozens of pages and includes publications in several languages. This is because he is one of those heroes in the history of Ukraine, who, like Khmelnytsky, Nemyrych, Mazepa, and Shevchenko, became part of European history.

IN LIEU OF BIOGRAPHY

The story of Mohyla’s life engendered legends even while he was still alive. According to one of them, he is a descendant of Mucius Scaevola, a legendary hero of Ancient Rome, who lived in 500 BC and whose loyalty to his Motherland became proverbial. The legend holds it that about 2,000 years ago Scaevola’s family migrated to Moldova and “richly embellished its land with the tombs of its enemies.” Allegedly, this gave rise to the name “Mohyla.”

Historical data, however, show that Mohyla was born into the family of Simeon, a Moldavian hospodar (prince), and the Hungarian princess Margareta. Historians trace the origins of Mohyla’s family back to the 15th century. Mohyla’s grandfather Ioan made a monk at the end of his life and his father-Simeon Mohyla- became the ruler of Wallachia and Moldavia.

At that time the rulers of these lands relied on the political support of Polish kings, while at the same time preserving their Orthodoxy, and were often made patrons of Ukrainian churches and brotherhoods on the territory of the Rzecz Pospolita. For example, the well-known Lviv Church of the Assumption of Virgin Mary was built on the donations of Wallachian hospodars (for a long time the church itself was called Wallachian). Mohyla’s cousins-Raina Vyshnevetsky, who founded Orthodox monasteries in Left-Bank Ukraine, and Anna Pototsky — were also famous benefactors of Ukrainian Orthodox churches. The latter one was even a member of the Lviv Orthodox Brotherhood.

Scholars claim that even though Mohyla “sympathized with the Polish state and culture and had blood ties with the Polish nobility, this did not prevent him from nurturing a love for the Orthodox faith” while, at the same time, remaining very tolerant in religious matters. Ivan Ohienko wrote that Mohyla “eagerly borrowed the best from the West changing it into things Ukrainian. Mohyla was the first one to open a Latin-Polish department in the Pechersk printing house.”

Unfortunately, virtually no historical documents have survived to unequivocally point to the place where Mohyla was educated. Some data suggest that he studied in the Sorbonne and the famous Jesuit College at La Flech, where he attended the lectures of famous European scholars. Whether he was educated there or elsewhere, Mohyla had a perfect command of Ukrainian, Polish, Romanian, Latin, Greek, and Church Slavonic.

He died in early 1647, at the age of 50 and only 14 years after he occupied the cathedra of the metropolitan of Kyiv. Mohyla devoted a total of 20 years to church activities after he was ordained archimandrite. Over this short period he managed to do more than his predecessors did in much longer time spans.

An interesting historical fact is in order: Mohyla was almost of the same age as Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who was born in 1595. Mohyla died 10 years earlier and did not live to see the great and tragic events spearheaded by Khmelnytsky. Even if he had witnessed the wars waged by Khmelnytsky, Mohyla would not have been his ally-he was always oriented toward the West, rather than the East.

It is highly probable that Khmelnytsky and Mohyla met and knew each other. This could happen in the manor of Stanislaw Zolkiewski (who was Mohyla’s tutor) where Khmelnytsky’s father Mykhailo worked. Later Mohyla and Khmelnytsky together fought in the Polish army in the battle of Cecora.

“A POLE IN AN ORTHODOX ROBE?”

Since he was a child, Mohyla, a son of a Moldavian hospodar, lived on Ukrainian territory, was actively involved in all the peripeteias of the church and political life of the country which had become his native land, and tried to serve its best interests as he perceived them. However, there are quite a few scholars who did not and still do not recognize him as a Ukrainian. The same situation is with his role as Ukraine’s benefactor-his clerical and secular policy has been an object of criticism for nearly four centuries now. One of his severe critics was Panteleimon Kulish, who called Mohyla “a Pole in an Orthodox robe who had turned the church hierarchy away from Moscow and toward Poland so much that his successor metropolitan Sylvestr Kosiv refused to plead allegiance to the Russian tsar!” (This well-known historical incident took place in 1654.) Arkadii Zhukovsky, a contemporary student of Mohyla’s phenomenon, maintains that “Kulish was unable to forgive Mohyla the fact that the latter was resolutely and consistently opposed to any kind of Ukraine’s gravitation, including in the domain of church activities, toward Muscovy, i.e., a movement of “Rus toward Rus.” (It is worth mentioning that Kulish fairly often changed his views.)

There were and still are other critics who believe that while Mohyla was the metropolitan, “Orthodox” no longer meant “of Rus’.” (In the 17th century this was a grave accusation, whereas now Orthodox missionaries eagerly convert people of various nationalities and even religious backgrounds.) Other historians rebuke Mohyla for allegedly being “a great adherent of the Ukrainian church but not the Ukrainian people.” They forget that it was Mohyla who revived the Kyiv Church (after the church hierarchy was restored in 1620) and raised it to a fairly high level, constantly tying in the church with the education of Ukrainians.

Scholars suggest several reasons why some Ukrainians and Russians view this brilliant figure in the negative light. First, he was of Romanian origin (remember the Stone Age maxim “alien means suspicious”). Second, he was loyal to the establishment of the Polish Commonwealth, and, last but not the least, he caused Latin to be widely used in schools, which was something strongly condemned by the Rus’ Church.

Kostomarov wrote that in Poland “the issue of faith was closely tied to the issue of nationality-the concept “Catholic” merged with the concept “Polish” and the notion “Orthodox”-with “Russian.” Mohyla’s ideal was different: he wanted “the people of Rus’, while holding tight onto their own faith and language, be equal in education and spiritual capacity to the Poles with which they happen to be in the same state.” He said: “We need to study so that our Rus’ would not be called stupid.”

The German scholar E. Winter described Mohyla as “a pro-Western man, although not a politician, who was inclined to co-exist with Poland. At the same time he vigilantly protected the rights of the Ukrainian people, especially their ecclesiastic and cultural self-government. The Orthodox Church, in his opinion, always had to be a stronghold for the Ukrainian nation.” Mohyla’s contribution to Ukrainian culture was highly appreciated even by his contemporaries, in particular the students of the Kyivan Monastery’s school.

“LATINIZATION?”

Scholars often condemn Mohyla for “Polonization and Latinization” of the Ukrainian church and system of education, as well as for neglecting the Ukrainian and Church Slavonic languages. Some maintain that he wrote exclusively in Polish and Greek, which, as is well-known, is not true. For example, in his sermons Mohyla cites nearly all the texts of the Holy Scriptures in the Ukrainian translation. Another case in point is the Educational Gospel which he published in the Rus’ language of the day in order to help “everyone learn the way of salvation more easily.”

In Kostomarov’s opinion, “none of Mohyla’s predecessors paid so much attention to the education of the clergy. In Mohyla’s times, when priests graduated, they were not ignoramuses but respectable men, the more so because the circulation of the necessary books enabled them to compete with the Uniate clergy and appreciate the gems of the Greek works.”

In any case, Mohyla did not propose to abandon the Church Slavonic language (as he is falsely accused of doing), although he wanted the sermons of the Ukrainian Church to be as much understandable for ordinary people as possible. To this end, in religious texts he often included notes written in the vernacular of the day. In Kostomarov’s words, “despite the domination of Latin, which was, unfortunately, to the detriment of Greek, the Kyiv Collegium did work to develop the Rus’ language and literature. Students composed sermons in the Rus’ language and, once ordained priests, they were able to deliver sermons to the people.”

(It is worth remembering that the Kyiv scribes, who were invited to Moscow to educate the illiterate Russian clergy somewhat later in the 17th century, were contemptuously nicknamed “Catholics.” After a while they were replaced by Greek teachers.)

WHY DO BELIEVERS WANT ALL OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE THE SAME FAITH AS THEY DO?

In the first half of the 17th century the Rzecz Pospolita suffered not only from the wars it waged with other countries, but also from severe religious conflicts. One of the main causes behind the enmity among the Catholic, Orthodox, and Uniate churches was the fact that Ukrainian Orthodox believers, including the Cossacks, and Ukrainian Greek-Catholics were totally excluded from the processes aimed at resolving their religious conflicts. Everything was decided in the Catholic top circles. There was virtually no one who would understand that in order to resolve serious religious problems they needed to hear the vox populi. Nevertheless, all were aware of the explosive situation in Poland- Pope Urban VII, Polish king Wladislaw IV, and the top clergymen in the Constantinople Patriarchate. Everyone wanted a solution, but each one for himself and using his own methods. It needs to be mentioned at this juncture that the problems of the Uniate-Ukrainian Greek-Catholic-Church have not been resolved by the Vatican until this day.

(Those times gave rise to a large number of religious projects marked by the “freethinking” approach whose level has still to be reached even by the contemporary ecumenism. Just think about the project of “dual subjection” of the Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches to the Pope and, concurrently, to the Constantinople Patriarch!)

Mohyla was in the center of the events and measures aimed at resolving church conflicts on the territory of Poland. He had a widely pro-Western orientation, and his activities were marked by bold church reforms in the Kyiv Metropoly. Prior to that Mohyla developed his own concept of how to resolve the current situation which relied on the appeal for the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches in the Rzecz Pospolita to draw closer to each other. By his nature Mohyla was inclined to settling conflicts in a peaceful manner and, what is most important, did not consider all other churches “deprived of God’s grace.” He was always in good relationships with many top clergymen in the Greek-Catholic (Uniate) and Catholic churches.

It needs to be emphasized that being on good terms with the Catholics did not waver Mohyla in his loyalty to the Orthodox Church, the church of his ancestors. He wrote: “The Eastern Church always asks God to unite churches, but not with the kind of union as the current one when people are driven into union by the use of cudgels and violence and through prisons and unfair trials. This kind of union only causes division.” He was also certain that “the recognition of the Pope’s primacy does not mean full subjection to the Pope.”

Mohyla’s idea of the church union was very different from what the Catholic Church understood under a “union.” He drafted his own concept in which he argued that the union is not absorption and merging but only “the co-existence of equal and independent churches.” Mohyla searched for harmonization also at the level of dogmas (in his Catechism and the big, 1,760-page-long Breviary). Generally speaking, he was well-aware of one very important thing which is often forgotten even today: all Christians have one faith and each nation has its own forms to express this faith.

By vigorously defending the Eastern rite (“the Orthodox way of professing the faith”) which was dominant in Ukrainian lands, Mohyla defended the peculiarities of the Ukrainian religion which, in his opinion, no one from the outside had the right to interfere with. At the same time, Mohyla was willing for a compromise in dogmas and even in the issue of the Pope’s primacy. In any case, he did not hesitate to adopt for his Kyiv Collegium the educational system used in Jesuit colleges and to choose Latin as the language of instruction (to enhance the educational level of schools and remove the obstacles which stood in the way of Ukraine’s close ties with the West).

Some historians have reasons to believe that metropolitan Mohyla dreamed of the cathedra of the Ukrainian Patriarch which would unite the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic believers and that he was the only person whom Polish king Polish king Wladislaw IV saw fit for this position.

For the last time Mohyla mentioned his loyalty to the Orthodox Church in his will: “It is in the holy faith in which I was born and raised and by the grace of God carry the title of metropolitan that I would like to breathe my last and stand before the grandeur of my Lord.”