Number DOI: http://doi.org/10.33209/2519-4348-2707-9627-2020-8-75

VB. – № 8, 2020. – P. 103-115.

Summary

When the independence of the Ukrainian state was proclaimed in 1991, the issue of the canonical independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its administrative church center in Kyiv was obvious to arise. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church began to oppose this idea, arguing for a monopoly on “canonical territory” and a spiritual ternary union that transcends any state borders. Thus, by manipulating terms and distorting the true ecclesiological doctrine of the Orthodox Church about its structure and supreme ecclesiastical authority, the holy hierarchs of the ROC created and still encourage divisions in Ukrainian society on cultural, linguistic and ecclesiastical grounds. This situation clearly shows the vital importance of a proper understanding of the doctrine of the dimension of a single Orthodox Church and, at the same time, the local nature of its spiritual mission within clearly defined autocephalous jurisdictions. The position of ROC leaders could be justified in the Roman Catholic environment, where the doctrine of the earthly structure of the Church really dominates the position of a single administrative spiritual center headed by the Pope over other church-administrative units of the entire Roman Catholic Church. Since the Moscow Patriarchate positions its affiliation with Orthodoxy, there is a natural cognitive dissonance in the statements calling for adherence to the canonical rules and procedures of Orthodox ecclesiology in resolving the Ukrainian church issue and, at the same time, denying the possibility of the existence of local Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Moreover, the accusation against the Ukrainian state of “interfering” in the life of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine seems controversial in the context of receiving Tomos about the independence of an autonomous church and simultaneously the active alliance of the ROC with the state bodies of the Russian Federation looks weird in implementing the Russian imperial political project within the sovereign countries of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. To demonstrate the practical expression of legal ecclesiastical theory in the field of this issue, as well as to confirm the historical longevity of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the examples of the discovery of the Galician metropolitanate in the XIV century have been used in the article. The relevance of these historical precedents has been highlighted by the fact that it was in the fourteenth century that the borders of the principalities changed dynamically and, accordingly, secular leaders, motivated by the state position to prevent destructive influences of external forces, persistently sought to have their own church autonomous system, which was reflected in authentic sources of both ecclesiastical and civil origin. We propose to divide this study into two sections. In the first part we consider the theological and canonical understanding of this issue in the context of the preconditions for the creation of a separate Galician metropolitanate in the early fourteenth century.

Key words: Galician metropolitanate, church-administrative system, secular power, Galician-Volyn Rus, Ecumenical patriarch.

References:

1. Arkhyv Yuho-zapadnoi Rossyy: [V 37 t.] (1904). Kyev: Akts. Ob. pech. y yzd. dela N. T. Korchak-Novytskoho, Ch. 1 : T. 10 : [Akty, otnosiashchyesia k ystoryy Halytskorusskoi pravoslavnoi tserkvy (1423–1714 hh.)].

2. Afanasev N., protopresvyter. (2010). Tserkov Dukha Sviatoho. K.: QUO VADIS,

3. Bibliia. Knyhy Sviashchennoho Pysannia Staroho i Novoho Zavitu. (2004). K.: Vydannia Kyivskoi Patriarkhii Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy Kyivskoho Patriarkhatu.

4. Bulhakov Makaryi, mytr. (1995). Ystoryia Russkoi Tserkvy: V 9 t. M.: Yzd. Spaso-Preobrazhenskoho Valaamskoho monastyria. T. 3.

5. Vlasovskyi I., prof. (1998). Narys istorii Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy: V 4 t. K.: Vyd. UPTs Kyivskoho Patriarkhatu. T. 1.

6. Halytsko-Volynskyi litopys: Doslidzhennia. Tekst. Komentar. (2002). NAN Ukrainy. Instytut istorii Ukrainy. K.: Nauk. Dumka.

7. Holubynskyi E., prof. (1900). Ystoryia Russkoi Tserkvy. M.: Unyversytetskaia typohrafyia. T. 2.

8. Hramota ymperatora Ioanna Kantakuzyna kъ mytropolytu Feohnostu, ob otmene sostoiavshahosia pry patriarkhe Ioanne postanovleniia, koym chast russkykh eparkhii otdelialas dlia halytskoi mytropoliy (1347 h. v sentiabre, № 4.) (1880). RYB. SPb.: Typohrafiia Ymperatorskoi Akademiy Nauk. T. 6. Ch. I.: Pamiatnyky drevnerusskaho kanonychnaho prava (XI–XV v.).

9. Hramota konstantynopolskaho patriarkha Luky Khrysoverha k velykomu kniaziu vladymirskomu Andreiu Boholiubskomu (okolo 1160 h., № 3). (1880). RYB. SPb.: Typohrafiia Ymperatorskoi Akademiy Nauk. T. 6. Ch. I.: Pamiatnyky drevnerusskaho kanonychnaho prava (XI–XV v.).

10. Hrushevskyi M. S. (1905). Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy. T. 3. Lviv.

11. Dashkevych Ya. Ukraina na perekhresti svitiv: relihiieznavchi y sotsiokulturni studii. (2016). Lviv: Vyd-vo UKU.

12. Zyzyulas Yoann, mytropolyt Perhamskyi. (2006). Bytye kak obshchenye. Ocherky o lychnosty y Tserkvy. M.: Sviato-Fylaretovskyi pravoslavno-khrystyanskyi ynstytut.

13. Entsyklopediia istorii Ukrainy: T. 2: H – D. Redkol.: V. A. Smolii (holova) ta in. (2004). NAN Ukrainy. Instytut istorii Ukrainy. K.: V-vo «Naukova dumka».

14. Isaievych Ya. Mytropoliia ta yepyskopii. (2001). Istoriia ukrainskoi kultury: U 5 t. K.

15. Kmet V. Yurysdyktsiinyi status ta orhanizatsiina struktura Halytskoi (Lvivskoi) yeparkhii (XII – seredyna XVI stolittia). (2001). Kovcheh. Naukovyi zbirnyk iz tserkovnoi istorii. Lviv: Instytut Istorii Tserkvy LBA. Ch. 3.

16. Knyha Pravyl Sviatykh Apostoliv, Vselenskykh i Pomisnykh Soboriv, i Sviatykh Ottsiv. (2008). K.: Vyd. Presa Ukrainy.

17. Kryvosheyn V., arkhyep. (1972). Kafolychnost y struktury Tserkvy. (Nekotorye mysly v sviazy s vstupytelnym dokladom prof. S. S. Verkhovskoho). Vestnyk Russkoho Zapadno-Evropeiskoho Patryarsheho Ekzarkhata. M. № 80.

18. Krypiakevych I. (1999). Halytsko-Volynske kniazivstvo. 2-e vydannia, iz zminamy i dopovnenniamy. Instytut ukrainoznavstva im. I.Krypiakevycha NAN Ukrainy. Vidp. red. Ya. Isaievych. Lviv.

19. Krychevskyi B. (2003). Mytropolychia vlast v srednevekovoi Rusy (IV vek). SPb.: Yskusstvo.

20. Litopys ruskyi (1989). Za ipat. spyskom per. L. Makhnovets; [vidp. red. O. V. Myshanych]. Kyiv: Dnipro. XIV.

21. Lototskyi O., prof. (1931). Ukrainski dzherela tserkovnoho prava. Varshava.

22. Pavlov. A., prof. (1894). O nachale Halytskoi y Lytovskoi mytropolyi y o pervykh tamoshnykh mytropolytakh po vyzantyiskym dokumentalnym ystochnykam XIV veka. M.: Unyv. typ.

23. Paslavskyi I. (2007). Halytska mytropoliia: Istorychnyi narys. Lviv: Spolom.

24. RYB. SPb.: Typohrafiia Ymperatorskoi Akademiy Naukъ, 1880. T. 6. Ch. I.: Pamiatnyky drevne-russkaho kanonychnaho prava (XI–XV v.).

25. Skochylias I. Ya. (2011). Halytska mytropoliia XIV – pershoi polovyny XV stolit: osoblyvosti eklezialnoho, pravovoho ta suspilnoho statusu. Kniazha doba: istoriia i kultura. Vyp. 4.

26. Tykhomirov N. D. (1895). Halytskaia mytropoliia: tserkovno-ystorycheskoe yzsledovanie. SPb.: Pechatnia E. Evdokymova.

27. Fedoriv. Yu., sviashch. (1990). Istoriia Tserkvy v Ukraini. Toronto.

28. Khomiakov A. S. (1907). Sochynenye bohoslovskye. M.: Typo-lytohr. T-va Y. N. Kushnerev.

29. Chubatyi M. (1965). Istoriia khrystyianstva na Rusy-Ukraini. Rym; Niu York.

30. Shevchenko I. (2001). Ukraina mizh Skhodom i Zakhodom. Lviv.

31. Shchapov Ya. N. (1989). Hosudarstvo y Tserkov v Drevnei Rusy, X–XIII vv. M.: Nauka.

32. Acta patriarchatus Constantinopoliensis. Ed. F. Miklosich et J. Müller. Vindobonae, 1860. T. 1. 607.

33. Geizer H., Ungedruckte und ungenügend veröffentlichte Texte der Notitiae episcopatum. München, Akademie der Wissenschaften, Hist., l, Abhandlungen, XXI, 1900, Bd. III, ABTH.

34. Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων των τε Αγίων και Πανευφήμων Αποστόλων και των Ιερών Οικουμενικών και Τοπικών Συνόδων, και των κατά μέρος Αγίων Πατέρων, εκδοθέν συν πλείσταις άλλαις την εκκλησιαστικήν κατάστασιν διεπούσαις διατάξεσι, μετά των Αρχαίων Εξηγητών και διαφόρων αναγνωσμάτων: Τόμος Πέμπτος / υπό Γ. A. Ράλλη και Μ. Ποτλή. Aθήνησιν, 1855.