UGCC

INSTITUTE OF CHURCH HISTORY
UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY

Anatolii Babynskyi
THE UKRAINIAN
GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH

A Short History

Translated from the Ukrainian
by Andriy Masliukh

Lviv
Svichado

2022

5

CONTENT

Foreword
by Andrew Sorokowski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Beginnings of Christianity

in Kyivan Rus’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Princely Period:

Between East and West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The Church in the 12th–15th centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The Union of Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Preconditions of the Union of Brest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
The Restoration of Unity

with the Church of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
The years after Brest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Division

of The Metropolitanate of Kyiv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Uniate Metropolia of Kyiv:

A Second Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The First “Reunification” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
The Metropolitanate in Galicia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
The Church and National Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
In the Vortex of Conflicting Totalitarianisms . . . . . . . . . . 107
The Destruction of

the Greek Catholic Church in the USSR . . . . . . . . . . . .111
The Church in the Underground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
The UGCC in the Free World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Emergence from the Catacombs

and the Revival of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136

6 Content

The First Free Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
The Regulation of Church Life in 1991–1997 . . . . . . . . . . 149
The UGCC in the Third Millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
In the Defense of Human Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160

Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
For further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

29

THE CHURCH IN THE 12th–15th CENTURIES

The Principality of Halych (Galicia), which in 1141 was
headed by Prince Volodymyrko (1141–1153), one of
the descendants of Yaroslav the Wise, had enough poten-
tial to become one of the leading descendants of the Kyi-
van state. This is not least due to the  convenient geo-
graphical position at the intersection of a number of trade
routes of Central and Eastern Europe. Towards the  end
of the 12th century, the union with the neighboring Rus’
Principality of Volhynia was concluded under Roman
the Great (1170–1205). Several years later, the Galician-
Volhynian rulers gained control over most of the Dnieper
right-bank territories, including Kyiv.

In religious terms, it should be noted that these west-
ern lands of the former Kyivan state were situated face to
face with the Western world of Latin Christianity. The lat-
ter was undergoing its own evolution, gaining more and
more expansionist features and increasingly consider-
ing Christians of the Eastern tradition not as partners in
search of unity, but as potential objects of conversion. This
was greatly facilitated by the political elites of the Eastern
European “Latin” nations of the  Hungarians and Poles,
which were on the border with the Ruthenians. Therefore,
in the 12th century several attempts were made to extend
the  influence of the  Latin Church to the  Galician lands,
and though they did not have great success in that period,
they did in the  following centuries. It is interesting that
the elites of Rus’, both political and ecclesiastical, did not
consider the Roman Church hostile. This is evident from
the  aforementioned participation of Metropolitan Petro
Akerovych in the  First Council of Lyon in 1245 and by
the papal coronation of Prince Danylo (Daniel) of Galicia

30 The Church in the 12th–15th centuries

Church of
St. Pantaleon,

12th c.
(Shevchenkove,
Ivano-Frankivsk
region), the only
surviving church
from the times
of the Galician-

Volhynian
Principality.

(1253–1264) as the Rex ruthenorum (Rex Russiae) which
was accompanied by a request to accept his subjects into
ecclesiastical unity with Rome.

He, therefore, received the  crown from God, from
the  Church of the  Holy Apostles, from the  throne of
St.  Peter, and from his father, Pope Innocent, and from
all his bishops. Innocent also cursed those who had blas-
phemed the  Greek Orthodox faith, and he was going to
arrange a  council about the  true faith and the  reunifica-
tion of the Church. Danylo received the crown from God
in the town of Dorohychyn when he went to war against
the Yotvingians, with his son Lev and Siemowit, the Prince
of Masovia.

From the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle (13th c.)

The  Principality of Galicia-Volhynia, later known as
the Ruthenian Kingdom (lat. Regnum Russiae, Regnum Ru-
thenorum), was one of the most powerful central-eastern
European states of the 13th century and existed from 1199
until 1349. With regard to ecclesial affairs, it remained part
of the Metropolia of Kyiv, with the exception of the years
1303 to 1347, when a separate Galician Metropolia was es-

The Church in the 12th–15th centuries 31

tablished in its territory, covering the eparchies of Halych,

Volodymyr, Lutsk, Peremyshl, Turiv-Pinsk, and Kholm

(Pol. Chełm). At the  request of the  Prince of Moscow,

the Byzantine emperor decreed that the metropolitanate

be abolished. It would be soon rescued from obscurity,

this being, however, under different political conditions.

When King Casimir III the Great of Poland (1333–1370),

who had seized Galicia in 1349, appealed to Constan-

tinople with the  demand to reestablish the  Metropolia,

threatening to forcibly convert the Ruthenians to the Latin

Church, the Patriarch could but agree. This time, the re-

stored Metropolia of Galicia existed from 1370 to 1401,

when it was again subordinated

to the Metropolitan of Kyiv who From the mid-
had his seat in Moscow. 13th century to the mid-
14th century, most of
From the  mid-13th  century the lands of the former
to the  mid-14th  century, most Kyivan state and later
of the  lands of the  former Kyi- Galicia-Volhynia, were
van state and later Galicia-Vol- incorporated into
hynia were incorporated into the Grand Duchy of
the  Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Lithuania
The  Galician lands were oc-
cupied by the  Polish crown.

Bukovina and Bessarabia were

annexed by the Principality of Moldavia. In 1299, Metro-

politan Maximus of Kyiv (1283–1305), a Greek by birth,

began residing in Vladimir-on-the-Kliazma. This transfer

took place not lastly because of allied relations between

Constantinople and the Golden Horde, which had pow-

er over those lands. Subsequently, Metropolitan Petro

Ratens’ky (1308–1326), who was expected to become

a Galician Metropolitan but was appointed by Constanti-

nople a Metropolitan of Kyiv, moved to Moscow.

32 The Church in the 12th–15th centuries

The  Lithuanians first tried to secure an independent
church administration for the  faithful of the  Ruthenian
Church within their holdings in the late 13th century. The Ru-
thenian–Lithuanian Metropolia was founded around 1300
but it was short-lived as Constantinople sought to preserve
the unity of the Church of Rus’. In 1354 the Principality of
Lithuania had again their own metropolitan of Lithuania
and Volhynia, Roman (1354–1362), whom Constantinople
recognized as independent from the  Moscow ruler. His
successor, Cyprian (1375–1406), who was consecrated in
1375 in the same way on the initiative of Prince Algirdas
of Lithuania (1345–1377), in 1389 managed to become
the only head of the Metropolia of Kyiv, including the Mus-
covite and Galician parts of the Church. However, this did
not last long. In 1415, at a council in Nоvоhrudоk (Bel. Na-
vahrudak), a town which had actually become the center
of the Ruthenian-Lithuanian Metropolia from the 14th cen-
tury, without the  consent of the  Patriarch of Constanti-
nople and in conflict with the  Metropolitan of Kyiv Pho-
tius (1408–1431), who resided in Moscow, the Ruthenian
episcopate of the  Principality of Lithuania elected a  new
Metropolitan – Hryhorii (Gregory) Tsamblak (1415–1419)
as their head. In so doing, the bishops appealed to the fact
that in 1147 Klym (Klymentii) Smoliatych (1147–1154) was
elected as the Metropolitan of Kyiv only by a council of lo-
cal bishops as well.

It was Metropolitan Hryhorii who participated in
the  Council of Constance organized by the  Western
Church in 1418. On February 25, his Word to Pope Martin
V (1417–1431) was pronounced in Latin at the  Council.
He also authored a separate Word of Praise to the Fathers
of the Council of Constance. In this Word, the “Archbish-
op of Kyiv” supported the convocation of a unifying ecu-

The Church in the 12th–15th centuries 33

menical council of the Roman and Greek Churches, where
the sides would search for answers to the questions divid-
ing the Churches, in the spirit of fraternity and sincerity. It
is interesting that Tsamblak’s call resembles an appeal of
a “mediator,” since he emphasizes that he appeals not only
to the Romans but also to the Greeks: “It is not only to you
(Latins. – A.B.) that I speak but also to the Greeks” – and
calls to both sides for reconciliation. In Muscovite sources
of the  16th–17th  centuries he is referred to as a  “Uniate”,
along with Metropolitan Isidore, who will be discussed fur-
ther, although there is no convincing evidence that he did
unite with Rome. In any case, contacts of the episcopate
of the Metropolia of Kyiv with the Roman See were more
episodic than systematic at that time. For the metropolia,
Constantinople remained the center of gravity.

It is a great and worthy deed for your love of wisdom that
you have to perform, for the sake of the Spirit working in
you. I urge you to do so without delay and, with the same
zeal and action of the  same Spirit, to unite the  divided
body of the  Church and to assemble it together, accord-
ing to the preimage and tradition of the Fathers, which has
for many years been divided due to infernal envy, remem-
bering that the  true head of the  Church is Christ. How
long, dear fathers, will you look at the  divided members
of Christ? As the brain connects all veins and arteries and
controls the  movements of all members of a  human as
a living being, so it must be in the Church, which is now
divided into two parts. How can one speak of a Christian
Church that does not have the  unity of Christ? Christ
united us with baptism and the  Gospel and, on His way
to voluntary suffering, prayed: “Father, make them one,
as we are.” For the  moment, people are united by noth-
ing, only Christ remains; heads and minds, however, are
different. There is one belief in the  Trinity but there are

34 The Church in the 12th–15th centuries

different interpretations. Now the  Eastern Church re-
proaches the  Western Church and vice versa, reminding
us of the  enmity between the  Jews and the  Samaritans,
who were put to shame by Alexander the Great, an Hel-
lene, who knew nothing about the prophets and apostles
and did so on the basis of simple and wise reasoning. Will
there appear any of the Jews, barbarians or Gentiles, who
will do anything like this to us?

From the Word of Praise to the Fathers of the Council
of Constance by Metropolitan Hryhorii Tsamblak (1418)

At the same time, a Latin metropolitanate was found-
ed in the territory of Galicia with the active assistance of
the secular authorities. The idea of establishing a Roman
Catholic hierarchical institution parallel to the  Eastern
Church involved not only the provision of spiritual care
for the faithful of the Latin tradition but also the subordi-
nation of the Eastern Church’s parishes to Latin bishops.
Sometimes this was done even by destroying churches
of the Byzantine tradition, as happened to the cathedral of 
St.  John the  Baptist in Peremyshl, and the  construction
of Latin cathedrals in their place. The situation was espe-
cially difficult after the second abolition of the Metropolia
of Galicia, when the local Eastern Church lost its hierar-
chy altogether and was placed under the control of vicars.
At first the latter were appointed by the Metropolitan of
Kyiv but later, in 1509, under the pressure of the Polish
king, this right was transferred to the Latin hierarchs. It
was only in 1539 that the  Galicians were able to obtain
their own bishop again.

35
THE UNION OF FLORENCE

The situation in the Metropolia of Kyiv changed signifi-
cantly in 1438–39, after the unifying Council of Ferr-
ara-Florence. Following the death of Metropolitan of Kyiv
Photius in 1431, Bishop Jonah was nominated as the new
metropolitan; however, he did not go to Constantinople for
approval. And in 1436 a new metropolitan was appointed
to the Kyivan see in Constantinople, Isidore (1436–1458),
who arrived in Rus’ on April 2, 1437, and, five months lat-

Metropolitan Isidore of Kyiv
(d. 1463 in Rome)

er, left for Italy with a delegation to take part in the Coun-
cil of Ferrara-Florence. The  Council reconciled the  two
sides’ positions on the doctrine of the origin of the Holy
Spirit, purgatory, and the Eucharist, as well as on the pri-
macy of the  Bishop of Rome. At the  Council, the  Met-
ropolitan of Kyiv was one of the most ardent ­supporters

36 The Union of Florence

of unity between the  Eastern and Western Churches.

The  act of unification was signed by the  entire Eastern

delegation except for Metropolitan Mark of Ephesus and

Isaiah of Stavropolis, who escaped

At the Council, from Florence. Isidore also signed

the Metropolitan the unification act as Metropolitan

of Kyiv was one of of Kyiv (Isidorus, Metropolita Kio-

the most ardent viae et totius Russiae) and procu-

supporters of rator of the  Patriarch of Antioch.

the unity between Before Isidore set out on his jour-

the Eastern and ney back to his metropolitanate,

Western Churches the Pope made him a cardinal and

sent his blessing to the Church of

Rus’. Isidore was tasked with proclaiming the decision to

unite the Churches in the Metropolia of Kyiv.

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice (Ps. 96:11).
For, the  wall that divided the  Western  and the  Eastern
churches has been removed, peace and harmony have re-
turned, since the cornerstone, Christ, who made both one
(Eph. 2:20; 2:14), has joined both sides with a very strong
bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them to-
gether in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze
of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring
strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.
Let Mother Church also rejoice. For she now beholds her
sons hitherto in disagreement returned to unity and peace,
and she who hitherto wept at their separation now gives
thanks to God with inexpressible joy at their truly mar-
velous harmony. Let all the faithful throughout the world,
and those who go by the name of Christian, be glad with
Mother Catholic Church. For behold, Western and East-
ern fathers after a  very long period of disagreement and
discord, submitting themselves to the  perils of sea and
land, and having endured labors of all kinds, came togeth-

The Union of Florence 37

er in this holy ecumenical council, joyful and eager in their
desire for this most holy union and to restore intact the an-
cient love. In no way have they been frustrated in their
intent. After a long and very toilsome investigation, at last
by the clemency of the Holy Spirit they have achieved this
greatly desired and most holy union.

From the bull Laetentur Caeli
of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439)

On his way to his cathedral city, the  metropolitan is-
sued several messages in which he promoted the union of
the East and the West among the inhabitants of the Hun-
garian, Polish and Lithuanian states. He first met with op-
position in the midst of Polish Roman Catholics who, on
the one hand, refused to recognize the Eastern Church as
an equal sister and, on the  other hand, showed affection
for the bishops opposing Pope Eugene IV (1431–1447) and
participating in the Council of Basel (1431–1437). The local
Latin episcopate also did not wish to consider the Eastern
Church as an equal, treating people of “Greek faith” rather
as schismatics who were to be united to the Latin Church
without concluding unions. Politically, the  Florentine
Union seemed undesirable to them as well, since it could
weaken the privileged position of Roman Catholics within
the  state. However, the  metropolitan did celebrate, with
the  permission of King Władysław III (1434–1444), a  lit-
urgy in the Byzantine rite in the Latin cathedral of Cracow.

The  Ruthenians welcomed Metropolitan Isidore. At
first, he spent a good deal of time in Galicia, then went to
Wilno (Lith. Vilnius) and later to Kyiv, where he stayed for
several months. Prince Olelko of Kyiv (1440–1454) issued
a charter confirming Isidore’s rights, and on February 5,
1441, the Florentine Union Act was read in the cathedral
of St. Sophia in Kyiv.

38 The Union of Florence

On March 19 of that same year, Metropolitan Isidore

arrived in Moscow, knowing in advance that the union was

treated negatively there. However, he celebrated a liturgy

in the  Moscow Kremlin cathedral, and commemorated

the Bishop of Rome. This caused great discontent, and he

was imprisoned in the  Chudov

The local Latin monastery in the eastern part of
episcopate also did the  Kremlin. The  metropolitan
not wish to consider was then tried by a jury includ-
the Eastern Church ing, among others, several eccle-
as an equal, treating siastics such as Bishop Abraham
people of “Greek faith” of Suzdal, who had accompanied
rather as schismatics Isidore to Italy for the council, as
who were to be united well as Bishop Jonah of Ryazan,
to the Latin Church who aspired to hold the office of
without concluding the Metropolitan of Kyiv instead
unions of Isidore. Isidore eventually
managed to escape from Mus-

covy and arrived in Italy a  year

later. He then returned to Constantinople, became Patri-

arch, though for a short time, participated in the defense

of the city against the Turks in 1453 and nearly lost his life.

Later he went to Rome, where he died.

A logical consequence of the  Principality of Musco-

vy’s rejection of the  Florentine Union between the  Lat-

in and Greek Churches was the  election of their own

Metropolitan  – Bishop Jonah of Ryazan (1448–1461).

This happened in 1448 without the  consent of the  Pa-

triarch of Constantinople, thus strengthening the  isola-

tion of the Moscow state and its Church from the rest of

the Christian world. In 1458, in response to these events,

Pope Pius II (1458–1464), with the consent of the Patri-

arch of Constantinople, renewed the Metropolia of Kyiv

The Union of Florence 39

(the reform was actually started by Pius II’s predecessor
Callixtus III [1455–1458]), outlining it within the King-
dom of Poland and the  Grand Duchy of Lithuania and
titling its Metropolitan as the Archbishop of Kyiv, Lithu-
ania and all of Little Rus’, though later the Pope titled him
simply the  Archbishop of Kyiv and All Rus’. The  Patri-
arch also approved the  Pope’s appointment of Hryhorii
(Gregory) Bolharynovych (1458–1473) as the Archbish-
op Metropolitan of Kyiv. The next Patriarch of Constan-
tinople, Dionysius I (1466–1471), was not a supporter of
the Union of Florence; however, he accepted Gregory as
the Metropolitan of Kyiv and encouraged the Muscovites
to recognize the latter as such. Moscow opposed this, and
Metropolitan Jonah’s successor, Teodosii (1461–1464),
stopped mentioning “Kyiv” in his title at all. Thus, it was
in the  post-Florentine period that the  vast Metropolia
of Rus’ was finally completely divided between Kyiv and
Moscow.

The Union of Florence did not stand the test of time:
although the status of this assembly did not allow the an-
nulment of any decision by a council, recognized as ecu-
menical by both Greeks and Latins, it was officially an-
nulled by the Greeks at the synod of 1472. Though having
clarified the  theological issues dividing the  Churches,
the  Council of Florence became hostage to insignificant
ecclesiastical factors and suspicions as well as to politics.
The  fact was that, despite the  genuine desire to achieve
unity present among the  representatives of the  Greek
delegation (such unity was sincerely desired by Patriarch
Joseph II of Constantinople (1416–1439) in particular),
there were also those who consented to the council only
for political reasons, hoping to receive military assistance
from the West for the defense against the Turks already

40 The Union of Florence

standing at the  walls of Constantinople. The  assistance
that the  Western powers managed to provide was not
enough to hold back the Turkish onslaught, so for most
Greeks, unity with the Western Church turned out to be
unnecessary. They did not delve into the theological nu-
ances of the union too deeply.

In the  Metropolitanate of Kyiv, however, aspirations
for the union did not fade away so quickly: they subsid-
ed at times, just to rise with renewed force later. It was
in 1476 that the  successor of Hryhorii (Gregory) Bol-
harynovych, Metropolitan Mysail Pstruch (1473–1480),
sent a conciliar memorial letter to “the Ecumenical Pope”
Sixtus IV (1471–1484) in which he expressed his rever-
ence for the  “Ecumenical Master” and “the  supreme fa-
ther of the Orthodox patriarchs,” the Bishop of Rome, and
wrote about the need for union between the Eastern and
Western Churches. It is not known, however, whether this
letter was ever read by the addressee... It is also interest-
ing that the name of Metropolitan Isidore was mentioned
in the Kyiv Cave monastery’s synodical lists up to the late
15th century.

In 1500, another Metropolitan of Rus’, Yosyf (Joseph) I
Bolharynovych (1497–1501), following Metropolitan My-
sail, sent a letter to Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) and
confessed his allegiance to the Council of Florence. Ear-
lier, as Bishop of Smolensk, he had appealed to Patriarch
Nephon II of Constantinople (1486–1488, 1497–1498,
1502) to explain the attitude of the Patriarchate of Con-
stantinople to the  Union of Florence. The  original letter
of reply has not been preserved, but a copy published in
1617 testifies that Nephon II encouraged Yosyf to follow
both his own traditions and his union with Rome.

The Union of Florence 41

I believe and confess that you are the shepherd of all be-
lievers and the  head of the  Universal Church and of all
holy fathers and patriarchs. Before you, we humbly bow
our heads with all humility of good will, not by coercion
or necessity but by the zeal of faith and heartfelt love; we
wish a holy blessing from Your Holiness, for you have been
given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to
bind and to loose. Therefore, from now on, we pray to Your
Holiness: have mercy on us, living far away in the northern
countries of Rus’, with the rite and charter of the Eastern
Church, which contains the seven holy Ecumenical Coun-
cils, and with them also the eighth one, that of Florence...

From the letter of Metropolitan Yosyf I
to Pope Alexander VI (1500)

However, it was probably the  last manifestation of
commitment to the Council of Florence by Metrop­ ol­itan
of Kyiv. In the  following decades, the  Church of Kyiv
entered a  time of disorientation and uncertainty. This
had an impact both in the  institutional dimension of
the Church’s life and in such important areas as the mor-
al and educational levels of the clergy. It was these ques-
tions that would determine the discourse of the church
renewal, which was gaining momentum in Western Eu-
rope at that time. Though lying within the geographical
boundaries covered by this renewal, the  Metropolia of
Kyiv was not ready for it. The  Protestant Reformation
and the Reformatio Catholica, also known as the Coun-
ter-Reformation, caught the metropolitanate by surprise.
Nevertheless, a solution was found; it was not new and
consisted in establishing contacts with the  Roman Ap-
ostolic See.

Culturally, the  period of the  14th–15th  centuries was
somewhat of a crisis. Following the gradual loss of p­ olitical

42 The Union of Florence

independence by the  Principality of Rus’, the  Church of
Kyiv was increasingly influenced by the  Western Chris-
tian tradition. However, the  affiliation of the  Rus’ lands
to a  country with a  predominant Latin culture contrib-
uted to the fact that representatives of intellectual circles
sometimes built their careers in the  West; for example,
Pavlo Rusyn (of Krosno) (1470–1517) or Yurii Drohobych
(Kotermak) (1450–1494), who in 1481–1482 was rector
of the University of Bologna. As a result, this belonging to
the broader European context enriched Ukrainian culture
with a  significant portion of Latin-language literature.
At the same time, a traditional chronicle was developed:
Metropolitan Mysail supposedly authored a  chronicle
covering 1245–1425, and the  older version of the  West
Ruthenian (Lithuanian) Chronicle was completed. Also,
the 1489 Menaion Readings were composed – a collection
of hagiographic and educational texts, some parts featur-
ing characteristic qualities of the  Belarusian and Ukrai-
nian languages.

43

PRECONDITIONS OF THE UNION OF BREST

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Patriarchs
of Constantinople became dependent on the  Islamic
ruler and had to pay a  tax to the  Sultan for approval of

their ascending the patriarchal throne. Such a procedure

triggered considerable abuse by the Orthodox themselves.

Beginning from the second half of the 15th century, chang-

es on the  patriarchal throne occurred quite often, this

occurrence reaching its climax in the 17th century when

the patriarchs changed 54 times. Some, such as Cyril Lu-

caris, managed to ascend the  throne six times between

1620 and 1638. Demoralization and corruption prevailed

in the Orthodox environment.

The  situation in the  Metropolia of Kyiv was not any

better, the  crisis trends of the  14th–15th  centuries being

intensified: secular authorities often provided bishoprics

regardless of whether the candidate had a sufficient moral

and theological level. Preference

was given to those who could bet- In the 16th century
ter lobby for their appointment. secular authorities
Episcopal Sees were very often giv- often provided
en to laymen who sometimes did bishoprics regardless
not get ordained. After all, before of whether
the Tridentine reform of the West- the candidate had
ern Church, an excessively secu- a sufficient moral and
lar way of life could frequently be theological level
seen among the  higher Roman

Catholic clergy as well. However,

after the  emergence of Protestantism and the  beginning

of reforms in the Latin Church, the renewal very quick-

ly caused a  striking contrast between Roman Catholics

and the  Orthodox in the  territory of the  Metropolia of

44 Preconditions of the Union of Brest

Kyiv. Due to the chasm between the two denominations,

which deepened in all spheres of church life, the Eastern

Church in the  Polish-Lithuanian state was facing com-

plete marginalization.

In the  16th  century the  Metropolia of Kyiv became

de facto independent of the  Patriarch of Constantino-

ple, who hardly cared for the  condition of the  daughter

Church and, after all, was not able to do so. The  inde-

pendence of the Metropolia was also due to the fact that,

after the Council of Florence, it was actually by the Pope

that a  new Metropolitan of Kyiv was appointed instead

of Isidore, so the connection with Constantinople (which

now also had a lot of acute problems) became weaker. Sub-

sequently, local bishops began to elect their own metro-

politans independently. Greek hierarchs made appearanc-

es in Muscovy and the  Ukrainian

The Lviv Brotherhood lands, mostly to collect donations.
gained privilege to The  local people, especially
oversee religious
life (including that active burghers, were aware of
of the clergy) in the problem and looked for ways to
the country – a right, solve it: in the Metropolia of Kyiv
which, according to a  lay fraternity movement began
church rules, belongs to develop. First, the  fraternities
decided to raise the  educational
only to bishops level through the  establishment

of schools and the  publishing of

books. To a  large extent, the  fra-

ternities were inspired by the  ancient Rus’ tradition of

parochial “fraternity;” in this period, however, the  fra-

ternity movement was influenced by numerous West-

ern European Roman Catholic lay movements, as well

as the ideas of the Protestant Reformation. Fraternities,

in particular the Dormition Brotherhood in Lviv, almost

Preconditions of the Union of Brest 45

immediately received support from Greek hierarchs.
Thus in 1586, Patriarch Joachim V of Antioch (1581–
1592) arrived in the Ruthenian lands of the Polish-Lith-
uanian Commonwealth, and during his visit, reaffirmed
the charter of the Lviv Brotherhood and granted it spe-
cial privileges. As for the Orthodox tradition, they were
unprecedented in that they allowed the  brotherhood
to oversee religious life (including that of the clergy) in
the country — a right, which, according to church rules,
belongs only to bishops.

To this end, we, Joachim, by the grace of God Patriarch of
Great Antioch, sent by the Synod of the Patriarchs, com-
mand with God’s power to carry out these orders firmly
from now and forever. So, we grant this church brother-
hood the  right to exhort everyone who is contrary to
the law of Christ, and to remove all manner of dishonour
from the  Church. Should a  member of the  brotherhood
be excommunicated by his parish priest from his church,
neither the protopresbyter nor the bishop can bless such
a  man until he has settled the  matter with the  brother-
hood. If it is known that someone in this city, in a church
or in another fraternity, does not live by law, whether it
be a layman, a monk, a protopresbyter, a priest, a deacon,
or one of the  lower orders, they should be reprimanded
either by word or letter. If it is found that certain persons
are opposed to the law of truth, they should be reported to
the bishops. If a bishop goes against the law of truth and
governs the Church not according to the canons of the holy
Apostles and holy Fathers, instigating the  righteous into
falsehood and strengthening the hands of the wicked, such
a bishop should be opposed by everyone as an enemy of
truth.

From the Charter granted by Patriarch Joachim
of Antioch to the Lviv Brotherhood (1586)

46 Preconditions of the Union of Brest

In 1589, the  Metropolia of Kyiv was visited by Pa-
triarch Jeremiah (Tranos) II (1587–1595) who, after
a  six-month-long virtual imprisonment in Moscow and
under pressure from secular authorities, had elevated
the Metropolia of Moscow to the rank of patriarchate. On
his way back, staying in the Polish-Lithuanian Common-
wealth, Patriarch Jeremiah dismissed Metropolitan Ony-
syfor (Onesiphorus) Divochka of Kyiv (1579–1589) on
the grounds that the latter had been married twice before
becoming a priest. In his place, the patriarch appointed
a  new metropolitan, Mykhail (Michael) Rahoza (1589–
1599), and appointed one of the  bishops as his exarch,
with the right to control the activities of the bishops and
the metropolitan himself, thus forming an unclear hierar-
chical structure in the Metropolia. The patriarch institut-
ed a series of reforms designed to increase the moral level
of the Ruthenian clergy, established a duty for the hier-
archy to assemble for regular councils and supported
the privileged status of the lay brotherhood in relation to
the hierarchy.

At the  same time, the  Latin Church, renewed after
the Council of Trent (1545–1563), was able to come out of
the conflict with Protestantism with new energy, a pow-
erful development of education, new forms of Christian
piety, a revival of missionary activity, and more. This re-
newal of the Latin Church also caused a revival of the idea
of union. In 1575, an educational institution for students
from the Churches of the Byzantine tradition was estab-
lished in Rome  — the  Greek College of St.  Athanasius.
The  following year, similar colleges were established for
Maronites and Armenians.

At that time, there was also a new revival of relations
between Rome and Constantinople. There even was an

Preconditions of the Union of Brest 47

Piotr Skarga, SJ (1536–1612)

idea  — supported by Prince Kostiantyn Vasyl Ostrozky,
voivode of Kyiv (1559–1608) — to facilitate the transfer of
the patriarchate from under the Turks to a safer place, for
example, to the Ruthenian lands of the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth. Patriarch Jeremias (Tranos) II of Con-
stantinople was not opposed to a  discussion of unifica-
tion. As early as 1581, Rome attempted to negotiate unity
with the Church of Moscow and sent Antonio Possevino
there as a legate. This mission failed.

At the same time, in the second half of the 16th century,
large-scale activities were started in Poland by the Society
of Jesus (Jesuits), a new dynamic Latin order which became
the  locomotive of the  Catholic reform and Counter-Ref-
ormation. Among the  most famous Polish Jesuits of that
time was Piotr Skarga (1536–1612). His polemical activity
focused mainly on the desire to bring the Ruthenians into
unity with Rome. Skarga’s work entitled On the  Unity of
the Church of God under One Shepherd and on the Apos-
tasy of the Greeks from that Unity was not a dialogue with

48 Preconditions of the Union of Brest

the Eastern Church in the spirit of the Council of Ferrara-
Florence, where all points of discussion had been settled
through debate. Rather, it was a treatise fully corresponding
to a new Latin paradigm of intellectual struggle and sharp
polemics crystallized in confrontation with the followers of
Luther and Calvin. Skarga harshly criticized the condition
of the Eastern Church, pointing to the need of subordina-
tion to Rome as the only possible way of renewal and heal-
ing. He also fiercely criticized the  Byzantine tradition as
a whole, its organizational and intellectual backwardness,
etc. The criticism was so far from any dialogue that repre-
sentatives of the Ruthenian elite decided to buy out the first
edition of the book and burn it.

However, not all Jesuits believed that the dialogue on
unity should be conducted in this way. Some of the  fa-
thers, for example, Fr. Marcin Laterna (1552–1598), a na-
tive of Drohobych, believed that in a dialogue with the Ru-
thenians one should follow the principles formulated by
the Council of Ferrara-Florence, which consisted in rec-
ognizing the proper dignity of the Ruthenian Church. It
was about this path that humanist author and philosopher
Stanislav Orikhovsky (Pol. Stanisław Orzechowski, also
known as Stanislaus Orichovius Ruthenus), who, although
belonging to the Latin Church and writing in Latin, was
a Ruthenian by origin, wrote in the 1540s. It was this path,
too, that would later become the model for the Ruthenian
hierarchy.

Moreover, you, the  Ruthenian people, have been greatly
deceived by the  Greeks who, giving you their holy faith,
have not given their Greek language but ordered you to
be satisfied with this Slavic one, so that you never come to
a true understanding and learning. For there are only two
languages, Greek and Latin, which spread the  holy faith

Preconditions of the Union of Brest 49

and are accepted throughout the world; beyond these lan-

guages, no one can be perfect in any study, especially in

a spiritual study of the holy faith.

From Piotr Skarga’s book
On the Unity of the Church of God under One Shepherd
and on the Apostasy of the Greeks from that Unity (1577)

It was in the 1580s–1590s that, due to the permanent
crisis in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as well as in
view of the internal and external challenges the Metropo-
lia of Kyiv faced — the desire to restore the legal author-
ity of bishops in eparchies, which had been undermined
by the  fraternities, the  Reformation, the  renewed post-
Tridentine Catholicism, the oppression of the Ruthenian
Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the per-
suasive theological polemics by the Jesuits and the mar-
ginal status of the  Ruthenian hierarchy and the  Church
itself in a  Catholic state  — the  Ruthenian nobility and
episcopate hit upon a way to renew the ecclesiastical life
of the Church of Kyiv. First, Prince Kostiantyn Ostrozky
and later the entire episcopate of the Metropolia agreed
that the best way out of the crisis would be to restore unity
with the Church of Rome.

50

THE RESTORATION OF UNITY

WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME

Starting in 1590, several councils were held in the Church
of Kyiv to consider various problems of inner church
life, and the idea of union with Rome was crystallized.

In June 1590, bishops Hedeon (Gideon) Balaban of
Lviv (1576–1607), Kyrylo (Cyril) Terletsky of Lutsk (1586–
1607), Leontii (Leontius) Pelchynsky of Pinsk (1585–
1595), and Dionysii (Dionisius) Zbyruisky of Kholm
(1585–1603) signed a  declaration of readiness for unity
with Rome. In 1593, they were joined by a  new bishop,
Ipatii (Hypatius) Potii (1593–1613, Metropolitan of Kyiv
from 1599), an educated eparch who became the main in-
spirer of the Union of Brest. On March 27, 1594, in Sokal,
the  Ruthenian bishops again signed in favor of reunion.
Only one bishop did not sign the agreement.

First of all, we, bishops, have seen in our elders, their excel-
lencies the patriarchs, some grievous faults and negligence
in their attitude toward the Churches of God and toward
the sacred law, as well as their enslavement, since, instead
of four patriarchs, there are eight now (they have never
before been so numerous, only four), and what kind of life
they live in their capitals, and how they intrigue against one
another, and how they have neglected the cathedral cities
of the Church of God; when they come to us, they do not
make any disputes with adherents of different creeds, nor
give explanations for the scripture of God; even if someone
asks, they do not want to give any, caring only for their
own benefit rather than salvation, and, having grabbed as
many treasures as possible, they buy one another there, in
the land of the Gentiles, and this is the only thing they fill
their lives with (not to mention their other faults). It is for
this reason that we, unwilling to continue in such inde-

The Restoration of Unity with the Church of Rome 51

cency and under pastoral care of that kind, unanimously
agreed – provided that his royal mercy, our Christian lord
and sovereign anointed by God, deign to extend the praise
of God under one shepherd and to join us to these liber-
ties, together with our bishops and churches, monaster-
ies and all the clergy, to join and keep in the same way as
it has been done with their Roman ecclesiastic excellen-
cies, – that we want, with God’s help, to proceed to uniting
the faith and to acknowledge as our shepherd the only one,
to whom this has been entrusted by our Saviour Himself,
our most holy Pope; we only ask His Mercy, our sovereign,
to deign to assure us along with our bishops, by a privilege
of his royal mercy, and to approve the articles below, and
to fix them forever.

From the Memorandum of the Ruthenian Bishops,
composed in Novohrudok (1594)

In their memorandum, the bishops drew attention to
the  Greek Patriarchs’ inability to protect the  Metropo-
lia before the  onset of the  Reformation and to the  lack
of education for polemicizing with the  Reformers, criti-
cized the extortion practiced by the Greeks, who fleeced
the Metropolia and put forward a number of demands for
unification. First, these were the  preservation of the  en-
tire traditional way and structure of the Eastern Church,
the  right of the  metropolitan to ordain bishops (with
the  blessing of the  Pope), and achieving equality with
the Latin hierarchy, in particular the right to have reserved
seats in the Diet (Sejm). As for the metropolitan himself,
he should be blessed by the Pope upon his election, and it
should be free of charge. It was on the basis of these condi-
tions that the Articles of Brest were subsequently formed
and adopted by the bishops in 1595. In the summer of that
year, when a  unanimous decision was crystallized, bish-
ops Potii and Terletsky were sent to Rome to confirm their

52 The Restoration of Unity with the Church of Rome

desire for union with the Pope. In the same year, bishops
Hedeon Balaban of Lviv and Mykhailo Kopystensky of
Peremyshl (1591–1610) broke from the  rest and aban-
doned the idea of the union. So did Kostiantyn Ostrozky,
who had his own views on the process of preparation for
unification and was not satisfied with how the  bishops
conducted it. He also favored several Protestant ideas
about the  future development of the  Church that were
unacceptable to bishops.

Nevertheless, on October 6–­ 10, 1596, five bishops led
by the Metropolitan of Kyiv Mykhailo (Michael) Rohoza
(1589–1599) adopted a  union agreement that had been
approved by Pope Clement VIII (1592–1605) on Decem-
ber 23, 1595. This union council was held at Ipatii Potii’s
cathedral in Brest. The  very place of the  council had to
be guarded by royal units, as Prince Ostrozky threatened
those participating in it with a  reprisal by his troops,
which were ready to act at any moment.

At the same time, in a local Protestant’s house situated
in another part of the town, an opposite, anti-union coun-
cil was held. It was attended by Ruthenian magnates, bur-
ghers, clergy, representatives of fraternities, Protestants
(Reformers and Anti-Trinitarians), the  archimandrite of
the Kyiv Cave monastery (who, like bishops Balaban and
Kopystensky, had changed his stance on the union), Prince
Ostrozky, and a  Greek representative of the  Patriarch
of Constantinople named Nicephorus, who was neither
a priest nor a bishop but had a document issued by Patri-
arch Jeremias in 1592 (who had already died by the time of
the Council of Brest) confirming him as a protosyncellus8

8 A higher priest or bishop acting as an assistant to the  eparchial
bishop in the  administration of the  eparchy. The  prefix proto-
means “first”.

The Restoration of Unity with the Church of Rome 53

Pope Clement VIII (1536–1605)

and an exarch. Another exarch of the  Patriarch, Bishop
Terletsky of Lutsk, supported the union and participated
in the pro-union council. The anti-union council was at-
tended by Cyril Lucaris, a representative of the Patriarch
of Alexandria, who later became the Patriarch of Constan-
tinople six times, as well as by bishops Hedeon Balaban of
Lviv and Mykhailo Kopystensky of Peremyshl. The  anti-
union council announced its decision to defrock the bish-
ops and the  metropolitan. However, the  status of Nice-
phorus, the Greek, was such that even the participants of
the anti-union council were doubtful whether he had any
right to judge the bishops.

That the  divine worship and all prayers and services of
Orthros, Vespers, and the  night services remain intact
(without any change at all) for us according to the  an-
cient custom of the Eastern Church, namely: the Holy Lit-
urgies of which there are three, that of St.  Basil, that of
St.  Chrysostom, and that of Epiphanius, which is served
during the  Great Lent with Presanctified Gifts, and all

54 The Restoration of Unity with the Church of Rome

other ­ceremonies and services of our Church, as we have
had them until now, for in Rome these same services are
kept within the obedience of the Supreme Pontiff, and that
these services should be in our own language.

From the document entitled The Articles of Which We Require
Prior Guarantees from the Roman Lords before We Enter
into Union with the Church of Rome (1595)

The pro-union council ended with a proclamation of
the Union and a ban on ministry for bishops Balaban and
Kopystensky. On December 15, King Sigismund III of Po-
land (1587–1632) declared the  decisions of the  Council
of Brest valid and the decisions of the anti-union council
invalid.

However, at the  time the  Union of Brest was signed
by the  Ruthenian bishops, the  Western Church’s eccle-
siology9 was already considerably different from what
the hierarchs of the Metropolia of Kyiv supposed. While
the Ruthenian episcopate believed that their Metropolia
was uniting with its sister Church of Rome with the pres-
ervation of all their rights and privileges, as it had been at
the Council of Florence, in Rome it was seen as a return
of schismatic bishops to the  bosom of the  true Church.
Thus, the equality of the Church of Kyiv and the Church
of Rome was rejected there, and Latin theologian Juan
Fernández de Heredia denied any possibility of setting
preconditions (Articles of the  Union of Brest) for unity
by those who wished to “return to the  saving bosom of
the Church of Christ.”

Accordingly, in his bull10 Magnus Dominus, Pope Cle­
ment VIII mentions neither the  Metropolia of Kyiv (see

9 A part of theology concerned with the genesis, nature, distinctive
marks, goals, and objectives of the Church.

10 An official statement on a particular subject issued by the Pope.

The Restoration of Unity with the Church of Rome 55

Map  1) nor the  conciliar decision of the  Met­ro­polia re-

garding the Union with Rome.

The confrontation between the two camps in the Church

of Kyiv, which saw the  process of overcoming the  crisis

in the Metropolia differently, aggravated by the desire of

politicians to use the  Church

(both Orthodox and Catho- On the one hand,
lic) in their own interests, as the Union of Brest
well as rigorism and a  rigidity caused a revival of
of views typical of a  consider- the Kyivan Church’s
able part of the clergy and mis- life; on the other hand,
understanding by the  laity, all however, it brought
produced a  lot of problems in about a polarization and
the  ecclesial and religious life confrontation in society
of Ukraine-Rus’ in the  follow-

ing centuries. On the one hand,

the Union of Brest caused a revival of the Kyivan Church’s

life; on the other hand, it brought about a polarization and

confrontation in society.

The process of union in the Kyivan Metropolia also be-

came a strong catalyst for the search for unity with the Ro-

man See in the Eparchy of Mukachevo (the first written

mention of this eparchy dates back to the  late 15th  cen-

tury), which was, at the  time, located in the  territory of

the Kingdom of Hungary. The idea of the union was ac-

tively promoted by Count György III Drugeth and Bishop

Atanasii (Athanasius) Krupetsky of Peremyshl (1610–

1652) who, arriving in Transcarpathia at the count’s invi-

tation, enthusiastically preached the union among the lo-

cal clergy and monks. Subsequently, Metropolitan Yosyf

Veliamyn Rutsky (1614–1637) and the  new Bishop of

Mukachevo, Petronii Kaminsky (1623–1627), appointed

in 1623, joined the promotion of the union too. Petronii

56 The Restoration of Unity with the Church of Rome

and his associate, Ivan Hryhorovych, were well acquaint-
ed with the pro-union movement and had friendly rela-
tions with Metropolitan Yosyf Rutsky of Kyiv and Josaphat
Kuntsevych. At the same time, Metropolitan Yosyf Rutsky
sent Vasylii Tarasovych, a Basilian monk from Galicia, to
Transcarpathia to assist Petronii and Hryhorovych with
preparations, explaining the idea of union among the peo-
ple. After Petronii, in 1627, Ivan Hryhorovych (1627–1633)
was ordained the new Bishop of Mukachevo by the Mol-
davian Orthodox Metropolitan of Iasi. On his way back
from Moldavia, Bishop Hryhorovych met with the Uniate
Metropolitan of Kyiv, Yosyf Rutsky, and again discussed
with him the issue of unity with the Roman See. Finally,
the Union of the clergy of the Eparchy of Mukachevo with
the Catholic Church was signed in Uzhhorod on April 24,
1646.