Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) 16. Hierinymys. Epistola // Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Latina. – T. 28. – Paris: Apud Garnier Fratres, Editires et J.-P. Migne Successores, 1912. – S. 351 – 363. 17. Hieronymus. Commentarius in Hiezechichelem // Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Latina. – T.25. – Paris, 1825. – S. 415 – 486. 18. Ludolf Sacsoniensis. Vita Christi. – Roma: TOA, 1935. – VI, 131 s. 19. Ps. Bonaventurae. Meditationes vitae Christi. – Venezia: Mario Guamo, 1872. – XIV, 105 s. 20. St. Bonaventurae. Itinerarium mentis in Deum. – Rome: Fr. Cistercionum, 1887. – XVIII, 124 s. 21. Teodosius. De situ Terrae Sanctae. – Rome: TOD, 1881. – XXX, 205, VIII s. 22. Tunner V. Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture. – New-York.: Keble College, 1978. – IX, 403, III p.

Viktor Muderevych The phenomen of Chrictian pilgrimage: the motivational aspects

The paper explores aspects of the formation of Christian pilgrimage in the environment of Western society middle Ages. The main components of motivational travel to the Holy Land, and ways to implement them. Keywords: pilgrimage, religion tour, adoration, Holy Land, salvation, Empty Tomb.

Виталий Мудеревич Феномен христианского паломничества: мотивационние аспекты

В статье анализируются проблемы становления христианского паломничества в западноевропейском социуме эпохи Средневековья. Рассматриваются главные мотивации и цели путешествий в Святую Землю и средства их реализации. Ключевые слова: паломничество, религиозное путешествие, поклонение, Святая Земля, спасение, Гроб Господень.

UDC 271.222 (477-25) - 726.1„16” Mykola Shkribliak (Chernivtsi)

THE RECOVERY, SPECIFICS FUNCTIONING, AND LEGALIZATION OF THE ORTHODOX HIERARCHY DURING THE 1620s - 1630s

The article reproduces the conditions in which Ukrainian Orthodox was after Berest Union in 1596 in terms of reconstruction of historical reality. It illustrates the basic methods and forms of struggle of Orthodox believers, especially church fellowship for the restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy. Particular attention is focused on the study of the internal aspects of social and religious reflections which provoked the "secular element" to the civilian resistance, as well as to the legal regulation of religious conflict generated by the Unión project. It is justified as the essence of the state approach of the Polish government to solving the problem of legalization of the Orthodox Church. And finally, the historical significance of the act construed recovery and certification of the Orthodox Church hierarchy in the 1620 s – 1630 s. Keywords: Ukrainian church, Kyiv Metropolis, hierarchy, beyond hierarchy structures, „secular element”, the peace articles.

Relevance of the topic. Comprehensive approach to studying the history of the Church in Ukraine shows that the fate of Ukrainians often played a controversial role as church and religious processes that determine the status and prospects of Ukrainian Orthodoxy – a regular and indisputable proof of this. At the present stage of social and political development of the state and national-religious progress of people trying to represent the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as three religious movements (UOC-KP, UAOC UOC-MP) which not only keep a constant struggle for spheres of influence, but also have no an eucharistic unity with each other. This leads to the congregation and deconsolidation

43 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) internal church confrontation. The dominance of georeligious space of Ukraine religious institution (UPC) which is not only subject to a foreign spiritual center ( Patriarchate), but is in the hands of a skilled latest tool for promoting and imposing such a "supranational Christianity", Russian national hegemony, threatens the national security of our country. In this context the acute need for scientific analysis of the role and place of modern beyond hierarch structures (religious brotherhoods, missions, associations, etc.) which in one form or another, to varying degrees, seek to influence and affect the social and religious life in our time. Extrapolation of historical experience of the religious fraternities on current internal Church transformation allows developing such a relationship model as "secular element" and spiritual authority in the Church which takes into account not only moral but also church and canonical determinants of secular influence on church and religious life in Ukraine. Even moderate dominance in the domestic life of the Church beyond hierarch impact is rather negative than positive. Therefore updating common problems of movement and its role in the church and religious life of the Orthodox under statelessness is objectively deterministic, so the subject of our study is certainly relevant. In addition, the provisions set forth in article and findings shed light on some fragments of both church and secular history of Ukraine. Goals and objectives of the study are as conceptual objective and adequate historical and philosophical interpretation of the causes, forms, and methods of struggle for the restoration of Orthodox Commonwealth church hierarchy in 1620. Based on this theoretical and methodological guidance the author seeks to clarify and objectively interpret the role and place of the "secular element" in the struggle for preservation of cells Orthodox life in the post-Berest period and analyze specific legal measures to legalize the Orthodox Church in the Commonwealth. The main article content. Although the majority of and believers of the Ukrainian Church (Kyiv Metropolis) generally accepted the idea of church union with the Roman Apostolic See, two very influential dioceses – Lviv and Peremys – remained faithful to Orthodoxy. Their heads, by order of Prince K.Ostrozhky convened Brest anti-union Cathedral which condemned the Uniate initiative and subjected to anathema uniate bishops (on the side of the church stood a combination of Metropolitan of Kyiv Mikhail (Rogoza) and five bishops of the Ukrainian Church). Radicalization of church and religious life of the late 16th – early 17th centuries (first generation post union) led to profound social and political transformation: interchurch controversy escalated and religious conflict which quickly escalated into a war on religious grounds. Be superfluous to prove that the union has put the church and religious policy in the Commonwealth level and general social problems of national scale. Sofron (Mudry) rightly stresses that "from a legal point of view of this fact had to be agreed and resolve the matter in favor of the salvation of the souls of believers." However, "the first thirty years after the Brest agreement - continuous historian and spiritual leader, – the power of the Commonwealth guided in solving this problem by delaying or basic solution gave only half-solutions, however, tolerant existing condition" [14, p. 228]. Objectively, this position of the Polish government was beneficial for a anti-union camp. The Orthodoxs are able to enhance their positions and move to counterattack in the battle for their religious rights. The famous Russian researcher A.Kartasheva, interprets the problem of self-preservation in the Orthodox post Berest period. She finds that Commonwealth did take into account their interests and drawn attention to the requests. Among the positive segments of the state policy of the Commonwealth relates primarily to "providing the opportunity and the Orthodox way of printed and verbal and general diet claim their oppression and constraints" [9, p. 664]. However, the situation was such that there was no one to represent the Orthodox at the state level. Realizing the threat of losing the apostolic continuity of spiritual authority in the Church the Orthodox make a successful maneuver in1608 which led Jeremiah Tysarovskoho the episcopal chair of Lviv. He received ordination from Anastasia, the metropolitan of Suceava (Romania). The Polish king did not object against the ordination only because the new bishop assured the monarch that he was a uniate [17, p. 470]. According to our observations in a confrontation between the Uniate and Orthodox

44 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) clergy this happened very often. However, argues Mr. Antonovich, in most cases ordination "on the side" recognize neither canonical Orthodox, nor Uniates or Roman Catholics [3, p. 126-127]. Under these conditions the Orthodox was only one way – legal measures to maintain its religious freedoms. This mission took on a religious brotherhood. They helped in every way and helped the Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans [21, p. 164]. Fraternal effect becomes more efficient with the time when their activities were supported by the local gentry. In addition, the fraternity had wide social and material resources, forcing them to take into account both the original form of beyond hierarch church structures. In addition, religious fraternities were not only legitimate in the Commonwealth allowing them to influence the social and religious life in the state. Because the brothers took over the right to conclude and to submit various petitions, appear before the courts, etc. [4, p. 12-14]. It was recognized by the State legal status of religious brotherhoods encouraged aspirations of different segments of the Orthodox environment to join the Common movement. Thus, in 1616 Colonel Peter Konashevych-Sahaidachny with "all Army Zaporozhe" joined the Kyiv Brotherhood [5, p. 404- 411]. This event had become a new impetus in the fight against Orthodox Commonwealth for their religious rights. The Cossacks were officially declared themselves patrons of church fraternities and thereby enhanced their reputation as the only legitimate beyond hierarch structures in the Commonwealth. Thus, merging the Cossacks with the fraternal movement made its adjustments not only in socio-religious but also social and political life of the Commonwealth: first, this tandem help to increase the authority of "secular elements" to satisfy the religious aspirations of the Orthodox and the Polish government made the correct church and religious policy toward loyalty, and later – to make serious concessions until the legalization of the Orthodox hierarchy in the 1630s. However, it should be noted that under such conditions the Orthodox clergy fraternal movement supported reluctantly. Obviously bitter experience of cooperation with fraternity brothers in pre- Berest period played its role. It was characterized by a protracted conflict caused by a struggle for spheres of influence. Especially sharp was the confrontation between Lviv Gideon and the bishop of Feast of the Assumption Stavropegial Brotherhood. The first evidence of strong support for Cossacks Orthodox faith historians associated with 1610 when the declaration was declared complete solidarity with the Ukrainian Cossack intellectuals (especially with the clergy) in matters of religious and national struggle [8, p.107]. Cossacks promised to protect Orthodox churches, , and bishopric. However, the starting point in the final design of Union Church and the Cossacks as a real fact of social, national, and spiritual life of the Orthodox Commonwealth was restoring canonical Orthodox hierarchy. This act took place in 1620 by Cossacks and direct support of their leader, Colonel Sahaidachny. Situation was in favor of the Orthodox. Coincided in time for these two favorable events: War of the Commonwealth of Turkey and the visit of Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem to Moscow (arrived in April 1619) [21, p. 173]. In February 1620 he left Muscovy and later in March under the protection of the Cossack army, which, according to the chronicler, Patriarch was followed to Kyiv. Petro Sahaidachny [16, p. 108]. Commonwealth Government has always regarded with suspicion in any missions from the East considering emissaries for Turkish spies, but permit visitation of parishes, religious brotherhoods, and monasteries Patriarch Theophanes still gave [9, p. 669]. However, the royal government could not track all its activities: defeat compounded the situation of Polish troops in an armed conflict with Turkey. Under the protection of the Cossacks Patriarch of Jerusalem Theophanes settled in Kiev-Pechersk Lavra where he visited parish received a deputation of Orthodox brotherhoods and monasteries, confirming and giving them his blessing and law [8, p. 109]. During his stay in Kiev Patriarch Theophanes made a series of Episcopal consecration. Thus, in early October 1620 he ordained of the Mezhyhir brotherhood Isaiah Kopynskoho to become bishop of Przemysl (1631 - 1632), and Abbot of the Kiev Monastery of St. Michael Iyov Boretsky – by Metropolitan of Kiev (1620 – 1631). A few weeks later – Meletius Smotrytsky to become Archbishop of Polotsk (1620 – 1633). The conciliar dedication took place, but it was secret. Patriarch Theophanes concelebrated Metropolitan Sofia (Bulgarian Orthodox Church) and Bishop Neophyte Strahonskyy Avramiy [17, p. 443]. Modern Russian researcher L. Kukushkin wrote that the Patriarch of

45 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) Constantinople Timothy (after Patriarch Theophanes did the same) sent his Exarch Archimandrite Arseny to the Commonwealth who allegedly had the throne of Constantinople confirm delegated rights to Bishops consecrated in Kyiv Metropolis [10, p. 655]. According to our observations the historian probably confused the names of Avraamiy and Arsentiy who was perhaps to introduce another person to act to restore the Orthodox hierarchy. Patriarch of Jerusalem left Kyiv in the end of the year. On the way to Jerusalem under the protection of the Cossacks Sagaidachnogo Theophanes consecrated three other bishops in different places: in Trakhtemyriv - Abbot Ezekiel Kurtsevych to become the Bishop of Volodymyr (1621 – 1626 years), in Biliy Tserkvi he ordained Chernitsky Abbot Isaakiy Boryskovych to become a bishop of Lutsk (1621 – 1641 years), and in Zhyvotiv in Bratslav – Miletsky Abbot Paisiy Ipolytovych (1621 – 1633 years) to become a bishop of Holm, Abraham Strahonskyy became the bishop of Turov-Pinsk while the Lviv Department was still occupied by Bishop Jeremiah Tysarovsky [ 14, p. 230;: 8 p. 109]. The Act of recovery of Orthodox hierarchy each historian evaluated in its own way: some condemned as apocryphal and one that contradicted the official practice of appointment to the highest spiritual positions in the Commonwealth [14, p. 230], others, on the other hand, justify it. In fact, the reaction of the Polish government on the activities of Patriarch Theophanes was resolute and adequate: King Sigismund III announced Patriarch impostor, religious, and political provocateur, moreover, a Turkish spy, and non-canonical bishops ordained and to arrest him and to put to a public trial. Illegitimacy and non-canonical state of new hierarchy were explained by: 1) Theophanes was aPatriarch of Jerusalem not Constantinople and the Orthodox Commonwealth was not under its jurisdiction, and under omophorion Patriarch of Constantinople, because no one but himself, has the right to interfere in the internal life of the Kyiv Metropolis 2) if the Patriarch Theophanes even had permission from the Patriarch of Constantinople it was not exactly permission from the monarch of the Commonwealth which directly contradicted then practice putting in metropolitans or bishops [ 17, p. 475]. Restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy was indeed socially resonant event. Pope Gregory XV (1621- 1623) sent the letter to the king which advised to punish those who were 'false prophets "[9, p. 669]. Gregory’s XV initiative was supported by Joseph Velyamin Rutskyy, the Metropolitan of Kyiv (Uniate), and took up the newly consecrated hierarchs anathema [12, p. 325, 329-334]. Therefore new established hierarchy was outlawed, but because all Orthodox bishops hiding mostly in monasteries of Kyiv (where under Cossacks protection they felt safe), which can not be said of their flock which they allegedly operated secretly [10, p.655]. How effective was this control at a distance, not difficult to guess. A contentious question remained as who was responsible for the idea, initiative, and plan to restore the Orthodox hierarchy in the Kiev Metropolitan. Some want to show it as evidence of changes in national consciousness inexperienced union of Orthodox Commonwealth, and others – as one of the first steps of Muscovy towards the absorption of the Kyiv Church which finally happened half a century later. Here are a few conclusive generalizations about it. The well-known modern church historian and Bishop S. Mudry wrote: "Most probably in Moscow there was a plan of the restoration of the Orthodox metropolitan of Kiev" [14, p. 229]. In fact this is confirmed by the Russian researcher A. Kartashev (although in the evaluation of many other historical facts his opinions differ from those cultivated by S. Mudry). "This plan, of course, long been secretly prepared, – writes A. Kartasheva – behold, it was the opportune moment when the Patriarch of Constantinople sent his assistant, patriarch of Antioch Theophanes, first with a special mission to Moscow ..." [9, p. 669]. Another indication that Moscow could give some advices to Theophanes Patriarch of Jerusalem activity in the Commonwealth, particularly in relation to ordination, was a letter in which he informs Moscow Patriarch Filaret (Romanov) of "successes" "and a feast for charity" [21, p.174]. Thus, we see that the restitution of the Orthodox hierarchy of the Commonwealth became main goal of Moscow is not the most, but do not forget that other Orthodox Churches might be interested in this too and especially - the Constantinople Patriarchate. This is confirmed by the appearance "at hand" in the Patriarch of Jerusalem Metropolitan Bishop of Sofia and Strahonsky (it could take place without Moscow's ordination, but not without the participation of two bishops).

46 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) Meanwhile, the Cossacks tried to expand the sphere of influence in the Church: not content with the outside "cover" of the Orthodox clergy they wanted to participate in its internal life. Already in summer of 1621 in Siha Dibrova the clergy Council was held with the Cossacks which decided to order Sahaidachny with other members of Cossack nobility and require the approval of King new nobles. Military and political circumstances evolved so that the King was ready to meet the aspirations of the Cossacks and Orthodox clergy in exchange for support of the Cossacks in the war against the Turks. Inconsistency of officers, lack of coordination of interests, and requirements of different branches of the Cossacks (Sahaidachny, Borodavka) were not allowed to bring the case to its logical conclusion: both Seim decisions – in 1621 and 1622 were rejected [16, p. 111]. With the death of Sahaidachny (in April 1622) the on Cossacks influence on Seim (Parliament) struggle for religious rights of Orthodox Commonwealth finally weakened. In addition, the late 1620s Cossacks situation is becoming increasingly controversial. During 1629s – 1630s several social and political processes took place: increasing religious tension and distrust after unsuccessful attempts to understanding between faiths during the late 1620s, the conflict between the Registered Cossacks and the government by reducing the registry and detention fee and finally, the confrontation between the so- called registered and non- registered Cossacks [17, p. 445-447]. Moreover, among the Cossacks the opinion spread that the support of illegitimate hierarchy was not only ungrateful, but also illegal on the right. Overall, in our opinion, the political influence of the Cossacks, and especially in church-religious affairs, should not be exaggerated. It is known that the Cossacks were not even about the political guarantees of the rights and freedoms which were endowed with the Polish army: they, for example, could not participate in the election of the king or to have seats in the Diet, etc.. Therefore, the support of the Cossacks had no longer to be count on. The first to realize that was Metropolitan of Kyiv Iyov Boretsky. Having the internal contradictions of Cossack environment and hence the appearance of distrust in the spiritual rulers of the Cossack officers he decided to seek support in the Orthodox gentry. "Orthodox gentry was catholized the early 17th century, – writes V. Antonovych, – by the late 17th century not a lot of rich noble families did keep the faith of their ancestors. They became a minority, and in few countries (eg: in Chorna Rus, in Podilschyna) disappeared almost completely" [3, p. 90]. The essence and basic trends of the religious policy of the Commonwealth substantially changed with the death of the Uniate mastermind King Sigismund III (April 30, 1632). In fact, immediately after the death of the monarch, or rather, on his election to the royal throne of the Commonwealth of his lawful heir to the son of Wladyslaw IV, the process of legitimization of the Orthodox hierarchy started. We can assume that this event significantly contributed to solving religious problems not only for Orthodox and Uniate (Sigismund III did not support either of those: he condemned Uniate in nationally oriented Catholicism, while Orthodox in attachemnt to the Muscovy). N. Polonska-Vasilenko, writes: "The Pope supported the union. Sihizmund III under the influence of Polish senators had not kept the orders of the pope "[17, p. 442]. During the “absence of king” period spiritual guidance of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was divided: the dispute led to tactical differences that arose because of different attitudes to the Commonwealth. However, all united by a common desire to return the Kiev Metropolitan its former rights and possessions (the ones it had in 1596). In connection with the preparation of convocation of the Diet, which had started its work on June 22, 1632, starting from the last decade of May till the end of the first decade of June, local meetings were held [18, p. 67]. The situation looked quite optimistic. Among the representatives of the nobility of the Ukrainian-Belarusian Orthodox lands had a decisive advantage. Of the six ambassadors from Lutsk only one was zealous Catholic. As expected Orthodox convocation Diet session started for them under a good sign: the head of Lithuanian Protestants - Calvinists Christopher Radzivilla – elected Marshal of the embassy of the Chamber. During the first session of the Diet (June 22) a discussion about religious issues started. Orthodox ambassadors discussing the possible date of completion of the parliament issued a statement that would not adopt any decision until the return of former privileges to Kyiv Orthodox Metropolis. Having the assurance that their case will be considered immediately after the speeches of Senators the Orthodox envoys resorted to constructive work

47 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) which is largely influenced archimandrite of Kiev-Pechersk Peter who sympathized Sigismund III more and promised to "support the Union in all ways" [10, p. 657]. During the week of the Diet (22 – 28 June) a number of applications, including application and Cossack embassy which contained 14 items and only one – with the requirement of church-religious nature was heard and discussed [11, p.48]. In this way the Cossack Army forced the "satisfaction of Greek religion." The Cossacks hope at the mercy of the future king knowing that Vladyslav, unlike his father, showed tolerance and interfaith relations tolerated in the state. However Cossack ambassadors stressed that in case of failure of their claims Cossack Army would seek other more radical means of solving this urgent problem. On July 4, 1632 the discussion of orthodox religious issues put on the agenda. While Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholic Primate handed bishops common requirements for the settlement of confessional questions. They first sought the return of ancient rights and privileges used by the Orthodox Church in Brest. Primate taking their "Items calm" said the response will after meeting with the bishops present at the Congress of Catholic Laity. It motivated their actions to the requirements contained in the proposed text, apply to all: the Catholics and Orthodox, and even Protestants, but the most influence on the position of the commission Catholics, because primate and prolonged time of solution [19, p. 21]. Meeting on the subject was held on July 6, 1632. Not waiting for an answer present at the meeting in the primate turned to Wladyslaw IV with a proposal to make an arbiter in resolving the religious question [13, p. 317]. After listening to suggestions the Commission began formulating the draft agreement between Uniates and Orthodox. Prince Vladislav was mostly interested in the reconciliation. Preliminary draft agreement has emerged on July 10. The future king declared the transfer of St. Myhailo Monastery in Kiev to Lviv Orthodox bishopric of Kyiv-Pechersk and several parishes of the church in Mogilev-Podolsky [1, p. 21]. The commission gave permission for completion of the Church of the Holy Spirit in a free and abolished processes started about this structure. However to implement the commission's decision in life was not simple: the field was quite noticeable Uniate influence on one hand, and on the other - in much of the Ukrainian and Belarusian nobility socio-political consciousness evolved in the direction of the Catholic identity of citizenship of the Commonwealth, and therefore cared to restore the infrastructure of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church became less interesting. However the Orthodox was not going to stop there. Evidence of this is the course of local Diet that took place between elective and Convocation Diet (from July 27 to September 20, 1632). At the congress in Volyn Lutsk nobles did not agree to the terms of the Orthodox-Uniate agreements adopted on Convocational Diet and its representatives personally obligated to go on the elective diet,to prevent the election of the king if the Orthodox requirements were not fulfilled [4, p. 52, 8, p. 89]. Similar obligations assumed nobles of Rus province too. There were also voices in defense of Uniate clergy and believers. The rights of the union were especially protected by gentry of Slonimsk County [2, p. 39]. Polochany also preserved their positions, although stressed on return of the appropriate rights to Orthodox. With exceptional diplomacy in the period before the meetings elective parliament treated the Orthodox Catholics of the Latin rite. Elective Diet started on September 27 in Warsaw. Given the fact that his meeting was to be ended with an election of the king, nobility from around the Commonwealth came to capital. There were many representatives from the Orthodox gentry. Confessor of Orthodox rite first came on the October 9 when the embassy faction began selecting deputies to the commission which was provided to develop mutual understanding between the gentry and the Catholic clergy in the church property holdings ("sompositio inter status"). Orthodox envoys immediately abandoned the procedure saying that would not engage in any business until the rights of the Orthodox Church were returned. They supported the Protestants who also felt the oppression of their religious rights in the Commonwealth. In order not to complicate the situation it was suggested "meet Greek religion" to entrust a special commission consisting of four rural ambassadors and two senators - both Orthodox and Catholic and Uniate (as during convocation, as discussed above). Chairman of the Commission, by agreement, was the challenger for the crown prince Wladyslaw IV Vase [20, p. 287].

48 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) Drafted and approved by Wladyslav Commission has taken constructive intentions of the Orthodox position. Articles final project for settling religious issues involved: а) Orthodox and Uniate equality; б) leaving the Commonwealth Orthodox bishop of Lviv, return them to the Orthodox metropolis of Kiev from the church of St. Sofia and the monastery at Grodno; в) the financing of Przemysl and Lutsk Orthodox bishops as well as functioning Mstyslav Orthodox bishopric on the territory of the Uniate diocese in Polotsk; г) an opportunity to open and maintain an orthodox schools and hospitals; д) the transfer of the Orthodox Commonwealth for the use of some churches in Orsha, Mogilev, and Dzisni until the special commission established. All churches in proportion to the number of supporters of the union and orthodoxy; е) to guarantee Orthodox burghers right of access to legal, craft and Urban Affairs and institutions; ж) the abolition of the decrees, sequestration, and arrests announced so far are not in favor of the Orthodox in litigation with Uniates; з) freedom to switch from union to Orthodoxy and vice versa [20, p. 288].] Such serious concessions in favor of the Orthodox provoked opposition from the Catholic bishops of both rites and Nuncio. They insisted that the agreement can not be accepted because of the contrary to canon law. In fact, it was not profitable for any of the parties to go into the conflict. In this regard Y. Fedorov who most pragmatically expressed that this interpretation could not be satisfied either Orthodox or Uniates as "like the first turnover of all dioceses, churches, and monasteries despite the fact that most of the Ukrainian and Belarusians have long been moved to a union and that the Church considered native. Uniates won’t be satisfied because their plans could be ruined by attaching to the Church the rest of the population "[21, p. 184]. King did not listen to protests and Uniate Catholics: now he needed to win the crown and without the Orthodox Commonwealth it was almost impossible. Only the Holy See remained on the side of the Uniate. Wladyslaw IV passed the "Articles about reconciliation people of Rus" the Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644 years) called "disgusting human and divine laws" [17, p. 447]. The resistance of the Catholics did not last long: the threat of Cossacks on one hand and the impact of rumors of active promotion of the king's troops deep into the Commonwealth on the other were forced to seek an understanding with the Orthodox. The Government of the Commonwealth sought to guide the Cossack Army to war with Moscow, but these plans were hindered by pro-Moscow Metropolitan of Kyiv Isaiah Kopynskyy which agitated Cossack to provide military service to the king Myhail, not the prince [20, p. 283-284,: 8 p. 113-114]. On November 14 solemn proclamation of King Wladyslaw IV took place. Electrode was sworn on pakta konwenta. Agreeing to perform "reconciliation points Rus people," the newly elected monarch promised to immediately "meet the" demands of the people of Greek religion under "articles" signed by him and the delegates of both houses of parliament during the elective. On February 6, 1633 the coronation of Wladislav and the opening of the Diet session convened on the matter took place. The meeting of coronation Diet began on February 7 election of marshalok. Immediately thereafter the issue of "satisfaction of Greek religion" was discussed. The first step towards its solution was the appointment of Abbot Epiphany Monastery Metropolitan of Kiev Petro Mohyla (March 12, 1633) with the powers that had Uniate Metropolitan Velyamin Rutskyy. Tomb elected without the participation of clergy and ordained not in Kiev and Lviv in the current Metropolitan of Kiev and Galician Isaiah Kosinsky. However the election of Petro Mohyla began a new milestone in the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Metropolis). So in the 1630s with the assistance of King Wladislav IV, the place of Isaiah Kopynsky, "compromised by his expressive Russophilism came Petro Mohyla (...), whose work has left deep mark in the history of the Orthodox Church "[14, p. 250]. As already noted, the Holy See did not take the position of the Polish government in church and religious sphere. Therefore, Wladislav IV had to justify before the Roman curia. For this he sent a special embassy to Rome which had to convince Pope Urban VIII in the feasibility of such course. Ambassadors met with the Roman High Priest on November 20, 1633, and managed to prove the correctness of actions of King and his government [23, p.142]. The pope approved the steps of the young monarch towards a settlement of inter-church conflict. However, the Church and religious reconciliation was the

49 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) only kind of "calm before the big storm" - an uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky which intertwined primarily personal reasons of hetman - revenge for the destruction of his possessions, as well as political and religious sentiments Cossack, who hesitated which coalition in the fight with the Commonwealth would be most beneficial for them – with Turkey or Muscovy. Analysis of historical fact, methods and forms of struggle of Orthodox Christians, religious brotherhoods, the nobility, and the Cossacks for the restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy and the legalization of its activity in the 1620s – 1630s the following generalizations and conclusions can be made. 1. Religious Policy of the Commonwealth led to significant socio-political and denominational changes which resulted in imminent danger of destruction of Orthodoxy on the lands that today form the Ukrainian state. Ignoring the religious rights of the Orthodox (especially during the reign of Sigismund III) awakened in the minds of Orthodox Commonwealth need to enhance the process of restoration of the Orthodox hierarchy and the struggle for official recognition. This struggle had many forms: from the church and religious controversy even to armed uprisings. 2. The most pronounced polemical and ideological struggle waged fraternity. They form their internal ordering of church life which caused that kind of rice Ukrainian Orthodox church life. Bratsk people rule represented one of the models of lay participation in church life which had a dual meaning in the life of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Metropolis). A somewhat different model was associated with religious and political aspects of the Cossacks. Cossacks tried not to the absolute impact on the internal life of the Kyiv Metropolis, but strongly advocated for its restoration and preservation under the foreign religious and socio-political influence. However, the role of Cossacks in legalization of Orthodox hierarchy in 1632 – 1633 was not as effective as during its restoration in 1620. 3. Restoration of the Orthodox Church hierarchy has caused a sharp reaction from the Polish government and the Catholic communities of the Commonwealth. However, under pressure of political circumstances they could not impede the revival of Orthodoxy. In favor of the Orthodox Commonwealth situation has changed with the death of King Sigismund III. His successor Wladislav IV requiring support for elective Diet signed the historic document which entered the historiography as the "Articles reconciliation of people of Rus". 4. Legalization of the Orthodox hierarchy has created all the possibilities for the return of their own socio-religious fold Ukrainian Orthodox Church when most of the episcopate of the Kyiv Church proclaimed union with the Roman Apostolic See. Clergy again became a notable element in the spiritual, cultural, and national life of the Ukrainian people. And with the election of Petro Mohyla as Metropolitan of Kiev and Halych in Ukrainian Church (Kyiv Metropolis) began restoring the true single system administration and searched for an effective mechanism of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in which the influence of "secular element" in the Church was reduced to a minimum.

Reference 1. Акты исторические, относящиеся к истории России. – Изд. А.И.Тургеневым: В 2-х т. – СПб., 1841– 1842. – Т.1. – 397 с.; Т.2. – 412 с. 2. Антонович В. Нарис стосунків Польської держави до Православія і Православної Церкви. – К., 1886. – 48 с. 3. Антонович В. Нарис становища православної церкви на Україні від половини XVII до кінця XVIII ст. // Розвідки про церковні відносини на Україні–Руси XVI – XVIII ст. – Львів, 1990. – Т. VIII. – Препринт. – Львів, 1991. – С. 83 – 146. 4. Власовський І. Нарис історії Української православної Церкви: В 4-х т. – Нью-Йорк, 1955. – Т.1. – 294 с. 5. Грушевський М. Історія України: В 12-ти т. – Нью-Йорк, 1955. – Т. VII. – 648 с. 6. Ґудзяк Б. Криза і реформа: Київська митрополія, Царгородський патріархат і ґенеза Берестейської унії / Пер. з англ. – Львів, 2000. – 426 с. 7. Дмитриев М. Между Римом и Царьградом: Генезис Брестской Церковной Унии 1595 –1596 гг. – М.: Изд-во. Московского университета, 2003. – 320 с. 8. Історія православної Церкви в Україні: Збірка наукових праць. – К.: Четверта хвиля, 1997. – 290 с. 9. Карташев А.В. История Русской Церкви. – М., 2005. – 912 с. 10. Кукушкин Л.С. История Православия: В 3 ч. / Л.С. Кукушкин; художн.- оформитель Е.В. Вдовиченко. – Харков: Фолио, 2010. – 893 с. 11. Кущинський А. Коротка Історія Української Православної Церкви. – Чікаґо: Видання Братства Св. Володимира УПЦ в Чікаґо, 1971. – 102 с.

50 Релігія та Соціум. – 2011. – №2(6) 12. Лужницький Г. Українська Церква між Сходом і Заходом. – Філадельфія, 1954. – 428 с. 13. Макарий (Булгаков), митрополит. История Русской Церкви: В 12 т. – Т.9. – Кн. IV.: История Западнорусской или Литовской митрополии. – СПб., 1879. – 540 с. 14. Мудрий С., ЧСВВ. Нарис історії Церкви в Україні. – Івано-Франківськ: Видавництво Івано- Франківського теологічного катехитичного інституту, б.р. – 526 с. 15. Плохий С. Папство и Украина: политика Римской курии на украинских землях в XVII – XVIII вв. – К., 1989. – 222 с. 16. Покровский И. Русские епархии XVI – XVII вв. – Казань, 1897. – 402 с. 17. Полонська–Василенко Н. Історія України: В 2-х т. – К.: Либідь, 1989. – Т.1. – 588 с. 18. Садов’як Д., протоієрей. Боротьба за легалізацію православної церкви в 1632 – 1633 роках // ТКДА. – 2005. – №2. – С.134 – 162. 19. Субтельний О. Україна: Історія / Пер. Шевчука Ю. – К.: Либідь, 1991. – 318 с. 20. Україна: хронологія розвитку: В 4-х т. – К.: КРІОН, 2009. – Т. ІV. На порозі Нового часу: від Люблінської унії до кінця XVIIІ ст. – 864 с.: іл. 21. Федорів Ю. Історія Церкви в Україні. – Репринтне видання. – Львів: Свічадо, 2001. – 362 с. 22. Шкрібляк М. Роль Львівської та Перемиської єпархій в унійних процесах кінця XVI – початку XVIII століть. – Кандидатська дисертація на здобуття наукового ступеня кандидата історичних наук. – Острог, 2007. – 193 с. 23. Bendza M. Prawoslawna diecezja Przemyska w latach 1596 – 1681. – Warszawa: Chrzescijanska academia teologiczna, 1982. – 267s.

Микола Шкрібляк Відновлення, специфіка функціонування та легалізація православної ієрархії у 20-ті – 30-ті рр. XVII ст.

У статті відтворено умови, в яких опинилося українське православ’я після Берестейського унійного собору 1596 р. Проілюстровано основні методи і форми боротьби православних вірян, особливо ж церковних братств за відновлення своєї ієрархії. Значну увагу приділено дослідженню внутрішніх аспектів суспільно-релігійних рефлексій, що змушували «світський елемент» до громадянського спротиву та правового врегулювання релігійного конфлікту, породженого ідеєю унії. Унія виправдана як сутнісний державний підхід польського уряду до вирішення проблеми легалізації православної церкви. І, нарешті, витлумачено історичне значення акту відновлення та легалізації діяльності православної церковної ієрархії у 20-ті – 30-ті рр. XVII ст. Ключові слова: Українська церква, Київська митрополія, православна ієрархія, церковні братства, «світський елемент», статті замирення.

Николай Шкрибляк Восстановление, специфика функционирования и легализация православной иерархии в 20-е – 30-е гг XVII в.

В статье воспроизведены условия, в которых оказалось украинское православие после Брестского унийного собора в 1596 г. Проиллюстрировано основные методы и формы борьбы православных верующих, особенно церковных братств за восстановление своей иерархии. Значительное внимание уделено исследованию внутренних аспектов общественно-религиозных рефлексий, которые наставляли «светский элемент» к гражданскому сопротивлению и правовому урегулированию религиозного конфликта, порожденного идеей унии. Уния оправдана как сущностный государственный подход польского правительства к решению проблемы легализации православной церкви. И, наконец, растолковано историческое значение акта восстановления и легализации деятельности православной церковной иєрархии в 20-е – 30-е гг XVII в. Ключевые слова: Украинская церковь, Киевская митрополия, православная иерархия, церковные братства, «светский элемент», статьи примирения.

51