Number DOI: http://doi.org/10.33209/2519-4348-2707-9627-2025-13-171

Volynskyi Blahovisnyk. № 13. 2025. P. 101-118.

Summary

The 14th century for the Kyiv Metropolis was filled with incredible dynamics of changes of both a church-administrative nature and geopolitical factors influencing church life. The Kyiv Metropolis remained Kyivan in name, and the main players on the political map of that time sought to seize the legacy of power of the metropolitan status through the placement of the metropolitan’s episcopal center. The Suzdal princes succeeded for the first time, and the Moscow princes succeeded best and most consistently. On the contrary, the rulers of the Kingdom of Rus and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia regularly suffered setbacks, despite the fact that from time to time the Patriarchate of Constantinople approved their proteges. This created constant tension between the rulers of neighboring state formations. For reasons and considerations that have not yet been clearly defined by researchers, the Ecumenical Patriarch categorically refused to state the real state of affairs, granting Moscow a separate metropolitan, and leaving the title of Kiev to the legitimate successors. The uncertainty of the situation was not resolved over time, but on the contrary, only worsened. Thus, at the beginning of the 14th century, the situation reached its climax, even going against the church rules of the Code of Canon Law. Grand Duke Vytautas, having suffered defeat twice in Constantinople, without receiving a metropolitan separate from the Moscow prince for his own possessions, resorted to radical actions. The holding of two preparatory councils and the sending of a delegation to the Ecumenical Patriarch indicated that the prince himself and the local bishops were resolutely determined only to separate from Moscow’s church and administrative influence. A break with the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not the goal, as can be seen from the very actions of the council in Novogrudok on November 15, 1415. Most likely, there was a calculation that the Ecumenical Patriarch would show pastoral wisdom and diplomatic foresight. According to the participants of the council, the greatest obstacle came not from the patriarchate, but from the imperial court, which was “fertilized” with large monetary contributions from Moscow. The situation was also complicated by family relations between the son of the Byzantine emperor Manuel, Ivan, and the daughter of the Grand Duke of Moscow, Vasily Dmitrovich, Anna.

The uniqueness of the situation was that, on the one hand, the generally accepted canonical procedures for the separation of a separate church-administrative district and the appointment of a new metropolitan were clearly violated, and on the other hand, the institution of sobornosti, which is the cornerstone principle of the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church, clearly returned to the practice of the Kyiv Metropolis.

The extraordinary figure of the newly appointed Metropolitan of Kyiv-Lithuania, Grigory Tsamblak, deserves special attention. Being a Bulgarian by origin and a nephew of the previous Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’, Cyprian, and having rich experience of serving in various local churches, he was able to become the personification of the desire of the Ukrainian tradition for its own identity, without betraying loyalty to Orthodoxy in order to please the political situation.

Key words: Lithuanian Metropolis, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia, Prince Vytautas, Metropolitan Grigory Tsamblak, Conciliarity, Patriarch of Constantinople, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

References:

1. Bulgakov M. (1995). History of the Russian Church. Moskva [In Russian].

2. Vlasovskyi I. (1998). A sketch of the history of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: In 4 volumes. Kyiv [In Ukrainian].

3. Harvard Library of Ancient Ukrainian Literature (2013). Hustynskyi Litopys. Harvard.

4. Golubinskii E. (1900). History of the Russian Church. Moskva [In Russian].

5. Gramota konstantynopolskoho patriarkha Iosyfa II k mitropolitu Fotiiu o Hryhorii Tsamblaku. (1880). Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

6. Gramota polskoho korolia Kazymyra k patriarkhu Filofeiu (1880). Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

7. Hrushevskyi M. (1905). History of Ukraine-Rus. Lviv [In Ukrainian].

8. Knyha Pravyl Sviatykh Apostoliv, Vselenskykh i Pomisnykh Soboriv, i Sviatykh Ottsiv. (2008).  Kyiv [In Ukrainian].

9. Litopys ruskyi. (1989).  Kyiv [In Ukrainian].

10. Lototskyi O. (1938). Autocephaly: a brief history of autocephalous churches. Varshava [In Ukrainian].

11. Lototskyi O. (1931). Ukrainian sources of church law. Varshava [In Ukrainian].

12. Matseliuk I. (2015). Sources of church law during the Ukrainian Middle Ages. Kyiv [In Ukrainian].

13. Dymytrii (Rudiuk). (2022). Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus’ Grigory Tsamblak (1414–1419). Kyiv [In Ukrainian].

14. Okruzhnaia gramota Litovskoho velikaho kniazia Aleksandra-Vitovta. (1846). Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

15. Okruzhnoe poslanie mitropolita Fotiia. (1880).  Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

16. Poslanie litovskikh episkopov mitropolitu Fotiu. (1880). Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

17. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei. (1897). Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

18. Pamiatniki drevne-russkogo kanonicheskogo prava. (1880).  Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

19. Sobornaia gramota Litovskikh episkopov. (1846). Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

20. Miklosich F., Müller J. (1860). Acta patriarchatus Constantinopoliensis. Vindobonae.

21. Danilovich I. (1827). Latopisiec Litwy i Kronika Ruska. Wilno [In Polish].

22. Miklosich F., Müller J. (1860). Litterae Casimiri regis Lachiae ad patriarcham de metropolita Galitzae. Vindobonae.