www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Peter Mohila: Troparion and Kontakion

Dear Friends,

With respect to the above-noted akathist to St Peter Mohyla, that particular work is quite anti-Catholic and "anti-Uniate" (isn't everyone? ).

The author of that akathist has chosen to deliberately portray St Peter II of Kiev as being antagonistic toward the West and this is highly questionable.

St Peter Mohyla had very many relatives in his aristocractic background who were RC and met with them regularly. He was related by blood even to European monarchs. Whenever he was asked to participate in RC events, he always obliged, even in ecumenical ones.

That he was Orthodox and defended Orthodoxy against Western Jesuit/Catholic influences - of this there can be no doubt.

But he didn't see the Jesuit schools, methods and even RC devotions (that were wildly popular with Orthodox too) as the enemy. This is why he sent his theological students to the Paris Schools and other places to study and teach. This is why he did not oppose RC devotional practices or church art/architecture in the Kyivan Church nor even RC theological perspectives from taking hold in the Kyivan Orthodox tradition (let's remember also that Latin was the "lingua franca" of the Kyivan Mohyla Academy for years - EVEN when Latin was no longer that for a number of Western universities!).

St Peter Mohyla was the Primate of the ancient Metropolia of Kiev and also the Archimandrite of the Kyivan Caves Lavra. Although not an ethnic Ruthenian/Ukrainian, he was supported most strongly for this church position by the Kozaks themselves (Peter being a former Kozak commander himself).

He gave MOST generously of his vast fortune (he was heir to the throne of Moldavia) to rebuild St Sophia in Kyiv, the Lavra and many other churches and monasteries of the "Mother of Rus' Churches."

He did more for the Kievan Church than any ethnic Ruthenian/Ukrainian ever did or could.

But he was a cosmopolitan and a highly educated European of his time. The portrayal of St Peter in the above akathist is simply false and a revision of history.

I'll do another one soon . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,
Do you know if any service to Saint Peter Mohyla is available from the Kyiv Patriarchate?

Incognitus

Alex,

I knew you would be the only one to notice

-uc

Where can I read something about him?

The accuracy of St. Peter Moghila as an Orthodox zealot is both in accord with his Confession and the times in which he lived and sat in Kiev, for they were, indeed, vehemently anti-Latin--the Cossacks and Brotherhoods had seen to it, and he is a product of them, using Western methods to challenge the West and affirm Orthodoxy. Whereas, Lipkovsky had been a Priest whose "consecrators" were other married Priests--even Anglican orders are more valid...

For me, St. Peter represents a faithfulness to Orthodoxy while at the same time having an openness to the West and the good things (learning, teaching methods, scholarship, etc.) that can come therefrom, and using said good things for the benefit and building up of the Orthodox Church. Rather than being the father of a "Western captivity" of Orthodoxy, St. Peter preserved the faith under adverse conditions and made it stronger.

(It always amuses me that those who bemoan St. Peter's methods as being anti-patristic are often the same individuals who will use modern Western Biblical scholarship, textual criticism, and modern teaching methods--as if that's not akin to what St. Peter did!)

My two cents.

Dave

Well, the introduction of scholastic thought IMHO in Orthodoxy was eventually deleterious to a living theology; however, the approach of synthesizing methods, context, logic paradigms to purvey the "Neo-Patristic Synthesis" seems so natural today as to be regarded as the Orthodox transfiguration of scholastic theology as one more tool in enervating our faith communities toward an ontology of theology...The "pseudomorphosis" is redeemed in this sense.

Dear Kollyvas,

That St Peter Mohyla was zealous for Orthodoxy - of this there can be no doubt.

But, as I said, this did not prevent him from having wide friendships with non-Orthodox and from being open to many Latin devotional and theological influences (e.g. he was adamant in his acceptance of the Western view of Purgatory and left this in his Catechism - which was also based on Western lines).

His Catechism was revised by the Orthodox Patriarchs and a number of changes, considered too "Latin" were introduced. St Peter refused to recognize these and kept it unchanged for his Kievan Metropolia.

When St Athanasius of Brest, the martyr for Orthodoxy, entered the Polish Sejm and openly criticized the Polish government for its involvement in church affairs in the Kyivan Metropolia, the Polish king arrested him and brought him to St Peter in Kyiv.

St Peter felt that St Athanasius' outburst was undiplomatic and unbecoming an Orthodox cleric, so he asked him to remain silent and behave etc. He did NOT defend his actions, even though they were in defence of Orthodoxy. That is an aside.

As for St Basil Lipkivsky, we will agree to disagree and there are Ukrainian Orthodox who would agree with you as well.

His movement was born of the ecclesial situation in Ukraine that required decided action by the Russian Orthodox church - none was forthcoming. ST Theophane of Poltava (glorified by ROCOR) and others often commented on that situation and how the Orthodox church had, through its policy of Russification, disaffected both the peasantry and the intelligentsia in that area.

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

There is, as yet, no service from the Kyivan Patriarchate for St Peter - although I understand that one is being prepared. My contact will let me know when it is ready and I will then let you know.

Alex

Bless, Father Elias,

He is the founder of the UAOC in 1921 and any history of the UAOC would have his life.

He tried to obtain episcopal consecration for a new Orthodox jurisdiction that would break with Moscow. The Greeks and others didn't want to offend the ROC etc. He then gathered together with other like-minded clergy and they had 30 priests lay hands on him and another to "consecrate" them as bishops. These two then consecrated others as bishops.

Other formations of the UAOC obtained canonical orders later and all the controversy began as well.

He is well-esteemed by many Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholics as a hero. They would argue about the canonical orders issue and that is an ongoing thing.

He and his martyred clergy, bishops and laity were glorified by the UAOC in Ukraine.

He and Nicholas Boretsky, an ancestor of our Bishop Isidore Boretsky (+ memory eternal) were also glorified in the U.S.

Nicholas Boretsky was arrested by the Soviets and told to sign a document that stated there was no religious persecution in the USSR.

St Nicholas said, "If there was not, I would not be here."

He was later martyred.

Alex

Fr. Elias,

I believe it took place at St. Sofia Cathedral in Kyiv as well.

As Alex said, the canonical debate has and will still take place.

St. Basil Lypkivsky, whether people see him as a bishop or not, died die for his faith in Jesus, along with many others. First and foremost, he was a Christian and lived his life as one until death.

-uc

This talk of Vasyl Lypkivsky is somewhat apropos to this thread about St. Peter. If I remember right, after the 30 priests had laid their hands on Vasyl, they took the bones of Peter Mohila and laid them on him as a final "act of consecration."

Now, St. Peter was an exarch the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople; I wonder if Constantinople has ever considered canonizing him/adding him to their calendar?

Dave

Dave,

I never heard of that before, using St. Peter Mohyla's bones. Where did you read that?

-uc

Dear UC,

Actually, Dave is quite right!

And, by using the relics of St Peter, the UAOC founders were following in the footsteps of those who consecrated Klim Smolyatych using the relics of St Clement in the . .. 14th century, was it?

By using the relics of St Clement, the consecrators (I believe they were perfectly canonical), were simply asserting their jurisdictional independence of Constantinople.

By using the relics of St Peter (who was not yet glorified), the UAOC founders were likewise asserting their independence of Moscow.

Alex

UC, I will have to get back to you on that.

In any case, I don't think Saint Peter would ever have agreed that his bones made a "valid consecration."

Dave