The Orthodox Church and Byelorussian people
Mironowicz Antoni
The Orthodox Church in the Former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
The Orthodox Church in the Commonwealth has many hundred-year-old history. Its beginnings date back to the period of formation of the state of Poland. The subjection of the Vislanes tribe’s territories by Great Moravia resulted in the Christianisation of Little Poland as early as the end of 9th century. So the Methodian rite had been widespread in the Polish territories long before the adoption of Christianity by Mieszko I in 966. It is assumed that as early as in the 10th century bishoprics of this rite were founded in Cracow and Vislica. The Orthodox Church became a continuation of the Metodian tradition in Poland. It took over the liturgy in the Church-Slavonic language - comprehensible at that time, rites and values of the Eastern Christianity, disseminated among the Slavs by the saints Cyril and Methodius.
During the reign of Mieszko I, the Chervinskie Castle-towns constituted part of his state. Only in 981 Prince of Kiev Volodymyr occupied Peremysl and the territories on the Bug and San rivers. Baptism of Rus in 988 generated the Christianisation of that area by the Eastern Church. It is supposed that the bishopric in Volodymyr in Volhynia came into existence at the turn of the 10th century and at the beginning of the next century it started its missionary activity. The incorporation of the Chervinskie Castle-towns by Boleslav the Brave in 1018 initiated constant presence of the Orthodox Church within the borders of the State of Poland. In the 11th century the eastern regions of Poland stayed under the jurisdiction of bishops of Volodymyr and of Turau-Pinsk. During Poland’s disintegration into duchies in the12th-13th centuries, development of the Orthodox institutions took place. This process was enhanced by the missionary activity of newly-founded bishoprics in: Smolensk (1136), Halicz (between 1147 and 1155), Bielgorod (end of 10th cent.), Novgorod (before 1050), Chernihov (end of 10th cent.), Pereiaslav (beg. of 11th cent), Polotsk (beg. of 11th cent.), Volodymyr (end of 10th cent.), Rostov-Suzdal (after 1073), Turau (1088), Yurievsk-Kaniev (after 1036), Tmutarakan (mid 11th cent)[1]. These bishoprics belonged to the Metropolia of Kiev.
Princes of Halicz-Volhynia made a particular contribution to the development of the Orthodox Church in the eastern territories of Poland. In consequence of the transfer of the seat of the metropolian of Kiev from Kiev to Vlodimir on the Klazma, Duke of Halicz George I, in 1303, received permission from the patriarchate of Constantinople (to which the Orthodox Church in the Rhutenian territories was jurisdically subjected) to establish a separeate metropolia. The metropolia of Halicz embraced the bishoprics of Volodymyr, Peremysl, Lutsk, Turau and Kholm. At the same time, as a result of efforts made by dukes of Lithuania, the Lithuanian metropolia was called into being with the seat in Novahradak. The establishment of the new Orthodox Church structure was connected with the plans of the subjugation of Rhutenian territories by Lithuania, and with leading to a break of ties with the metropolia of Kiev, being under the influence of dukes of Moscow. Due to their activities, both the metropolias - the Lithuanian one and that of Halicz - were dissolved in 1330.Their reestablishment took place under the rules of Olgerd in Lithuania in 1350. In 1371, the metropolia of Halicz was incorporated into the Lithuanian one. The dissolution of the metropolia of Halicz by the dukes of Lithuania was connected with the annexation of Rus of Halicz to the Crown in 1366. Casimir the Great’s death (1370) cancelled the plans of the establishment of the independent Orthodox Church structure within the State of Poland.
The Union of Krevo (1386) made the Orthodox Church in the Crown and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania find itself under the common jurisdiction of the Lithuanian metropolitans (nominally of Kiev-Halicz). At the beginning of the 15th century, the division of the Orthodox Church in the Ruthenian territories finally ended. The structure being monolithic until then, was divided into the Lithuanian and Vlodimir-Suzdal parts. The dividing line between the two metropolias ran along the state borders between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Duchy of Moscow. In 1415 Greory Tsamblak was elected metropolitan of Lithuania (of Kiev-Halicz) and Fotsius[2] - metropolitan of Moscow. In 1458, metropolitans of Moscow officially renounced their title to the metropolia of Kiev.
From 1458 to the Union of Brest (1596), the Orthodox Church in the Ruthenian territories of the Polish-Lithuanian State had its separate structure (the metropolia of Kiev-Halicz), hierarchically subordinated to the patriarchate of Constantinople. Until the mid - 16th century, the dependence on Constantinople was limited to a formal confirmation and blessing of a new metropolitan by the patriarch. Only before the Union of Brest, the patriarchate made efforts aiming at tighter subordination of the Ruthenian church in Poland to itself. Loose dependence of the Orthodox Church on the patriarchate was not accompanied by the increase in importance of the Ruthenian hierarchy as at the same time the church was subordinated to the superior authority of the king or grand duke, who took over some juridical powers from a patriarch, particularly those concerning the appointment of metropolitans and bishops. As regulated by the canon law, the synod of bishops elected a metropolitan, who was later confirmed by the patriarch. From 1480, by the king’s order, it became customary for the synod of bishops to elect metropolitans with the participation of laymen. Kings and lay magnates not always conformed themselves to canon requirements, tradition or the needs of the Orthodox Church.
In the 16th century, the metropolitan possessed an official title of the archbishop metropolitan of Kiev, Halicz and of all Rus. He did not usually reside in Kiev but in the northern part of his diocese, in Novahradak or in Vilnyus. The metropolitan’s jurisdiction embraced ten dioceses, seven out of which lay within the borders of the Grand Duchy of Kiev, Polotsk-Vitsebsk, Smolensk-Sievier, Chernihov-Bransk, Turau-Pinsk, Lutsk-Ostrogsk and Volodymyr), and the other three in the Ruthenian territories of the Crown (of Kholm-Belz, Peremysl-Sambor and Halicz). Two or three word names of the bishoprics resulted from the preservation of historical names of the dioceses, from the indication of an ordinary’s place of residence or transfer of jurisdiction together with the title to a new place. The area of the metropolia of Kiev was within the borders of the state. After the annexation of the districts of Sievier-Chernihov and of Smolensk by Moscow at the beginning of the 16th century, the metropolia of Kiev lost the bishoprics of Kiev and Chernihov. In 1539, the bishopric of the Greek Church in Halicz was renamed the bishopric of Lviv . By the end of 16th century, there had been 8 Orthodox dioceses within the borders of the Polish Commonwealth. In the territories of the Crown, they were divided into „namiestnics”, and in the Grand Duchy - into a protopope’s districts. A protopope’s and „namestnic’s” districts shaped up under the influence of the state administrative divisions, structure of property and the development of the network of parishes. A parish was a basic unit of the Orthodox administration. The density of parish distribution resulted from the level of the economic growth of the region, the number of the faithful. It was influenced by the division of property and by the state of the religious awareness of the Rhutenians. The greatest number of parishes was found in the capitals of dioceses and a protopope’s districts (Pinsk - 13, Vilnyus - 12, Volodymyr - 11, Lviv, Brest, Kamianets and Ovruch - 8 each, Halicz and Polotsk - 7 each, Lutsk, Kolomyia, Kovel, Hrodno - 6 each, Kholm, Belsk, Kletsk - 5 each)[3]. However, the areas with one or two parishes prevailed. The development of a parish network was hindered due to the progress of the Reformation and Catholicism, and, which was connected with it, due to the process of the renunciation of the Orthodox faith by the Rhutenian nobility.
The Council of Brest, in 1596, divided the Eastern Church into Orthodox and Uniats. By the decree of King Sigismund III Vasa (1587 - 1632) the Uniats were given all the rights and privileges which had formerly belonged to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox faith, to which the vast majority of the clergy and laity remained loyal, was no longer recognised by the government. Between 1596 - 1632 Orthodox Christians sought to regain the rights and properties which had belonged to their Church. They, together with the aid of Protestant Christians, forced the parliament to assemble in 1607 and 1609 to confirm the rights of their church within the Commonwealth. After this, a bitter feud over monasteries, churches and property began. Despite extensive efforts, it was not until 1620 that the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church was reactivated, and Yov (Boretsky), the ighumen of the Monastery of St. Michael, became Metropolitan of Kiev. This fact, however, was not recognised by the government[4]. The king supported the expansion of the Uniate Church and this was even strengthened following the killing of the Uniat Archbishop of Vitsebsk, Josaphat Kuntsevich. Officially, the Orthodox Church and its hierarchy were not recognised until 1632, during the election of King Vladyslav IV (1633 - 1648). Peter Mohyla, the archimandrite of the Cave Lavra of Kiev, became Metropolitan of Kiev. The last apportionment of the Orthodox and Uniat jurisdictions occurred in 1635. The Orthodox Church received bishoprics in: Kiev, Lviv, Lutsk, Peremysl, Mstsislav and Chernihov. The Uniats received bishoprics in: Kiev, Polotsk, Peremysl, Kholm, Volodymyr, Pinsk and Smolensk (until 1656). Orthodox Christianity dominated in central and south-eastern Rhutenian territories belonging to the Polish Crown while Uniats dominated in the south-western Rhutenian territories, and the Principality of Lithuania. During the reign of King Vladyslav IV, new concepts of Uniatism were proposed, among them, the creating of a Russian patriarchate under the jurisdiction of the papacy[5].
The reign of King John Casimir (1648-1668) led to important changes for both the Orthodox and the Uniats. At the time of the Uprising of Bohdan Khmelenytsky, the Agreement of Zboriv (1649) was negotiated between the Cossacks and the Polish Commonwealth, according to which the Union of Brest was to be nullified in the Polish Crown and in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and was to give the Orthodox Metropolitan a seat in the senate. Thanks to the diplomacy of the Apostolic Nuncio, Ioannes de Torres (1645-1652), and the Catholic bishops, the Agreement of Zboriv was ratified, but without the article nullifying the Union of Brest. The Agreement of Zboriv was renewed in successive agreements with the Cossacks, but the agreement upon matters regarding religion was never put into effect.
An important change for both the Orthodox and the Uniats occurred following the Agreement of Pereiaslav (1654), with the Cossacks, as a result of which Left-Bank Ukraine came under the jurisdiction of Russia. The annexation of the Cossack lands under the jurisdiction of the Tsars of Russia meant war with the Polish Commonwealth. Between 1654-1658 , Moscow’s military forces occupied the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and a substantial portion of the Russian territories belonging to the Polish Crown. The Patriarchate of Moscow attempted to include the Metropolia of Kiev under its jurisdiction as well as the other bishoprics located in the territories which had been won by Moscow’s military forces.
In the course of the war, the Polish-Moscovite negotiations, held at Nemiezy (1656), elected Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich (1645-1676) to be King of Poland, and reaffirmed the rights and privileges of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as calling for a common synod of both churches to ratify a treaty of inter-faith relations[6]. Poland faced defeat in its war with Sweden, and projects for the partitioning of Poland were being drawn up and thus it was prepared to accept Russia’s conditions.
Following Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s death (1657), the new Cossack commander Ivan Vyhovsky decided to renew allegiance to the Polish Commonwealth and to break with the Agreement of Pereiaslav. The result of this decision was the conclusion of the Agreement of Hadziach, which established the Great Principality of Rhutenia as a third entity alongside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crown-lands, within the Commonwealth. The agreement nullified the Union of Brest within the territory of the Principality of Rhutenia, and all property which was held by the Uniats was returned to the Orthodox Church. Orthodox bishops were given seats in the senate.
Following the conclusion of the Agreement of Hadziach, there began a battle for its ratification in the Polish Sejm. The proposal to liquidate the Union of Brest in Ruthenia was accepted by some of the Latin bishops and Polish noblemen who owned land which was now controlled by the Cossacks. The papacy, the Papal Nuncio Peter Vidoni (1652-1660), and the Uniats were opposed to the ratification of the Agreement of Hadziach, and were successful in having the articles nullifying the Union of Brest removed from the ratified version of the Agreement of Hadziach (1659). Simultaneously, Orthodox Christians were confronted by a new project of Uniatism, involving the recognition of papal authority without having to recognise Catholic theology[7]. The project soon proved to be unacceptable to both sides. In September 1659, George Khmelnytsky became the new Hetman of the Cossacks. He broke with the Agreement of Hadziach and reaffirmed his allegiance to Russia, under the new Agreement of Pereiaslav[8] .
Alliance with Russia did not last long. Under the terms of the Agreement of Tsudnovsk (1660), George Khmelnytsky pledged allegiance to the King of Poland. The Agreement of Tsudnovsk did not deal with the issues of religion. The partition of the Ukraine was determined by the Polish-Moscovite War. The Left-Bank, under Hetman Ivan Brzukhovetsky, came under the jurisdiction of Moscow. The Right-Bank, under the new Hetman, Paul Tetera, was allied with the Commonwealth. The political partitions led to the partitioning of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions. In contradiction to canon law, the Patriarch of Moscow appointed Bishop Methodius Filimonovich administrator of the Metropolia of Kiev. In the territory belonging to the Commonwealth, in the mid-sixties, two individuals were simultaneously elected Metropolitan of Kiev (Anthony Vynnycky and Joseph Nelubovich Tukalsky). The Uniats also had problems enthroning a metropolitan. The Papacy had significant reservations regarding Gabriel Kolendo, and thus refrained from appointing him metropolitan until 1665. Furthermore, The Catholic clergy accused the Uniats of maintaining Orthodox beliefs and cultivating Orthodox traditions.
In 1650, three quarters of the churches of the eastern rite were still Orthodox. Orthodoxy was dominant in the north-eastern regions of the metropolia, in the bishoprics of: Lviv, Lutsk, Peremysl, Pinsk, Chernihov, Smolensk and Mstsislav. The Uniats were dominant in the Lithuanian parts of the metropolia, in the bishoprics of: Kholm and Volodymyr-Brest. The last years of the reign of King John Casimir witnessed the increasing influence of Uniatism in those regions where Orthodoxy had been dominant[9]. This was caused by the internal division of the Orthodox Church, increased respect for Uniatism in conjunction with the canonisation of Josaphat Kuntsevich, as well as an increased influence of the Papacy at the Polish Court. An example of this was the appointment of Orthodox bishops who had secretly converted to Catholicism. Other reasons for the increasing influence of Uniatism were the conversion of the majority of the Orthodox nobility, and the Cossacks’ loss of influence due to the internal division.
King John Casimir’s abdication resulted in the strengthening of the counter-reformation and Uniatism. This was followed by the enforcement of anti-Orthodox legislation. The Sejm enforced the Constitution of 1676, in which Orthodox Christians were forbidden contact with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From 1699 official city positions could be occupied only by Catholics and Uniats[10]. As a result, by the end of the seventeenth century, the bishops of Peremysl, Lviv and Lutsk (1702) converted to Uniatism, taking with them the majority of the parishes of their bishoprics. Only one bishopric was left in the Commonwealth: the Byelorussian bishopric of Mohylev. An important change, having far-reaching effects on the future of Orthodox Christianity in Poland, was the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s relinquishing its jurisdiction over the Metropolia of Kiev in favour of the new Patriarchate of Moscow. On the basis of the Treaty of the 3rd May 1686, which was signed in Moscow between Poland and Russia, the Metropolia of Kiev, being located within the territory belonging to the Tsar, received the right of jurisdiction over all Orthodox parishes located in Polish territory[11]. As a result of this fact, the ensuing fate of the Orthodox Church and of the Uniats, proved to be dependent on external factors, and in particular, the growing power of the Russian Empire.
After the conversion of the mentioned bishops, only one bishopric was left for the Orthodox Church in the Polish Commonwealth - the Byelorussian one with the seat in Mohylev. Parishes within the former diocese of Polotsk were submitted to its authority whereas the others underwent the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Kiev, residing abroad. He was helped by his coadjutor bishop of Pereiaslav. That state of things lasted up to the first partition of Poland. Catherine II dissolved the bishopric of Byelorussia and it was only in 1785 that she appointed in its place the deputy metropolitan of the metropolia of Kiev as the Greek Church bishop of Pereiaslav-Boryspolsk. The archimandrite of Slutsk Victor Sadkovsky embraced that post. After his arrest in 1789, Sejm the Great in session decided to call into being an Orthodox structure independent of Moscow. Held in Pinsk in 1791, synod of ecclesiastical and lay representatives of the Orthodox communities created supreme authority of the Church in the Commonwealth - the Highest Consistory of the Greek-Oriental Rite in the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As passed on the basis of the Pinsk resolutions, the Sejm constitution of 21st May 1792 restored hierarchical supremacy of the patriarchate of Constantinople over the Orthodox Church in Poland. Superior authority of the Church was to be wielded by the state synod consisting of the metropolitan and three bishops. The metropolitan and the bishops of the Greek Church were to be elected by the synod and confirmed by the government. The metropolitan was to be assisted by a subsidiary organ - general consistory, and the bishops - by diocese congregations[12]. The Polish-Russian war and the second partition of Poland made it impossible to introduce this project. After the third partition, the Orthodox community found itself under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox church.
[1] For a detailed discussion of the rise of dioceses in the Rhutenian territories, conf.: A. Poppe, Państwo i Kościół na Rusi w XI wieku, Warsaw 1968; J. Fijałek, Średniowieczne biskupstwa Kościoła Wschodniego na Rusi i Litwie, „Kwartalnik Historyczny”, vol. X, 1896, pp. 487-521; S. Senyk, A History of the Church in Ukraine, Rome 1993, pp. 82-181.
[2] Mitropolit Makarii, Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi, vol. IV, St. Petersburg 1886, pp. 41-97; J. Fijałek, Biskupstwa greckie na ziemiach ruskich od połowy XIV wieku na podstawie źródeł greckich, „Kwartalnik Historyczny”, vol. XI, 1897, p. 1763; M.S. Hrushevsky, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi, vol. V, Kiev 1905, pp.100-179; K. Chodynicki, Kościół prawosławny a Rzeczpospolita Polska 1370-1632, Warsaw 1934, pp. 3-72; T. Trajdos, Metropolici kijowscy Cyprian i Grzegorz Camblak a problem cerkwi prawosławnej w państwie polsko-litewskim u schyłku XIV i w pierwszej ćwierci XV w., „Balcanica Posnaniensia”, vol. II, 1985, pp.211-233; idem, Kościół katolicki na ziemiach ruskich Korony i Litwy za panowania Władysława II Jagiełły (1386-1434), Wrocław 1983.
[3] A. Łapiński, Zygmunt Stary a Kościół prawosławny, Warsaw 1937; L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła wschodniego w Polsce XVI-XVIII w., [in:] Kościół w Polsce, ed. J. Kłoczowski, part. II, Cracow 1969, pp. 779-837; K. Chodynicki, Kościół prawosławny..., pp. 107-192; M. Papierzyńska-Turek, Kościół prawosławny na ziemiach ruskich Litwy i Korony, „Przemyskie Zapiski Historyczne”, Y. VI-VII, 1990, pp.139-162.
[4] See the following publications: Metropolitan Makarii (Bulgakov), Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi, vol. X, Petersburg 1879; M. S. Hrushevsky, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusi, vol. VIII, Kiev-Lviv 1922; E. F. Shmurlo, Rimskaia kuriia na prawoslavnom vostoke v 1609-1654 gg., Prague 1924; K. Chodynicki, Kościół prawosławny...; L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła wschodniego w Polsce...,; A. Jobert, De Luther á Mohila la Pologne dans la crise de la Chrétienté 1517-1648, Paris 1974.
[5] See further concerning the Russian patriarchate: M. Andrusiak, Sprawa patriarchatu kijowskiego za Władysława IV, in: Prace historyczne w 30-lecie działalności profesorskiej Stanisława Zakrzewskiego, Lviv 1934; J. Krajcar, The Ruthenian Patriarchate, „Orientalia Christiana Periodica”, vol. 30, Roma 1984; F. Sysyn, Between Poland and the Ukraine. The Dilemma of Adam Kysil 1600-1653, Cambridge Mass. 1985; J. Dzięgielewski, O tolerancje dla zdominowanych. Polityka wyznaniowa Rzeczypospolitej w latach panowania Władysława IV, Warsaw 1986.
[6] V. Eingorn, Snosheniia malorossiiskogo duhovenstwa s moskovskim pravitelstvom v tsartvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha, Moscow 1899, pp. 933-1000; L.V. Zaborovsky, N.S. Zakharina, Religioznyi wopros w polsko-rossiiskikh peregovorakh w derevni Nemezha w 1656 g., „Slavianie i ikh sosedi”, no.3, Moscow 1991.
[7] W. Tomkiewicz, Ugoda hadziacka, „Sprawy narodowościowe”, no.1-2, Warsaw 1937; S. Kościałkowski, Ugoda hadziacka, „Alma Mater Vilnensis. Prace społecznoœci akademickiej Uniwersytetu Stefana Batorego na obczyźnie. Prace zebrane”, London 1958; J. Kaczmarczyk, Hadziacz 1658 - kolejna ugoda czy nowa unia?, in: „Warszawskie Zeszyty Ukrainoznawcze”, vol. II, ed. S. Kozak, Warszawa 1994.
[8] L. Kubala, Przysięga w Perejasławiu i stati Bohdana Chmielnickiego, „Kwartalnik Historyczny”, Y. XVIII, no. 2, Warsaw 1904, pp. 231-241; L. Rudnytsky, Pereiaslav - History and Myth, introduction to: John Basarab, Pereiaslav 1654. A Historiographical Study, Edmonton 1982, pp. XI-XXIII.
[9] A. Mironowicz, Prawosławie i unia za panowania Jana Kazimierza, Białystok 1996, pp. 215-231.
[10] See J. Kłoczowski, L. Műllerowa, J. Skarbek, Zarys dziejów Kościoła katolickiego w Polsce, Cracow 1986, pp. 104-109, W. Műller, Trudne stulecie, in: Chrześcijaństwo w Polsce. Zarys przemian 966-1975, ed. J. Kłoczowski, Lublin 1992, pp. 263-265.
[11] A. Deruga, Piotr Wielki a unia kościelna 1700-1711, Wilno 1936, pp. 5-8.
[12] E. Sakowicz, Kościół prawosławny w Polsce w epoce Sejmu Wielkiego 1788-1792, Warsaw 1935; M. Iljashevich, Rasejskaja palityka na zemljakh bylaha Belaruska Litouskaho Haspadarstwa za panavannja Catsiaryny II i Pauly I, Vilnya 1933; A. Deruga, Walka z rusyfikacją Kościoła prawosławnego w Polsce w epoce Sejmu Wielkiego (1788-1792), „Ateneum Wileńskie”, vol. XI, 1936, pp. 2-32; J. Woliński, Polska i Kościół prawosławny. Zarys historyczny, Lwów 1936, pp. 127-128.