St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Church

THE UNION OF BREST
AND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY IT

Athanasius Pekar, OSBM

Analecta OSBM, Section II, Volume XIV (XX) 1-4, 1992,
pages 152-170.

The Union of Brest (1596) was an answer to Christ's legacy that there will be only "One flock and and shepherd" (Jn. 10:16). This was the main reason why the Ukrainian and Belorussian bishops of the Kievan Metropolitanate decided to become united with the Apostolic See of Rome. Their tendency toward union was inspired by the need of their own particular Church, which found itself in a most deplorable condition.

There were also secondary reasons which further encouraged the Kievan hierarchy to seek the protection of Rome, namely: Protestant infiltration, Polish denationalization, and Moscow's expansionism. Due to these secondary reasons, the Unioo of Brest is usually considered as a national and political event, with little or no attention given to its religious character. Then again the Orthodox writers, basing themselves upon the documents doctored and published at the expense of czarist Russia, take an a-priori negative attitude toward the Union of Brest, and blame the Ukrainian~Belorussian hierarchy for the deplorable consequences which in fact were caused by the opponents and enemies of the union.

In order to correct at least some of these prejudices, I will try to demonstrate: 1) that the union was a matter of faith, 2) the necessity of its re-evaluation, and 3) the attempts to frustrate the union efforts.

1 . UNION - A MATTER OF FAITH

The Church of Christ is a divine institution and, consequently, it is based OD divine law. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Founder of the Church, clearly stated that there will be only "one flock and one shepherd" (Jn. 10:16). While He was on this earth our Lord himself tended His small flock and, as the "Good Shepherd", He even laid down "His life far the sheep" (Jn. 10:11).

The Son of God, to preserve the unity of His flock, first of all prayed for all those who will believe in Him "that all may be one" (Jn. 17:23) and that "their unity may be complete" (Jn. 17:23). Then, just before His departure to His Father, He passed the office of Supreme Shepherd of the Church to St. Peter, saying: "Tend my sheep," and "feed my lambs" (Jn. 2U5-17). St. Peter was to preserve the unity of the Church and "strengthen the faith" of his brethren (Lk. 22:32). Thus, entrusting the supreme authority of the Church to St. Peter, symbolized by the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 16:19), Jesus made him a solid foundation, a rock, on which He established His Church (Mt 16:18).

Therefore, the unity of the Church is a matter of faith and by the will of God it must be preserved at all costs. In his epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul reminds us: "Make every effort to preserve the unity (of Church) in the Holy Spirit. There is but one Body (Church as the Mystical Body of Christ) and one Spirit, just as there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God who is the Father of all" (Eph. 4:3-6). And the Apostle assures us that in this way,i.e., by preserving the unity of the Church, "we all are to come to the unity of faith and to the knowledge of the San of God" (Eph. 4:13). Therefore, he severely censures the dissention within the Corinthian community, reminding them that by their division they are "dividing Christ into parts" (1 Col. 1:13).

Just how important the unity of the Church was considered by the Church Fathers is evident from the fact that they inserted it into the Symbol of Faith, professing their faith "in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."1 Hence, after the second Ecumenical Council, celebrated in 381 in Constantinople, all Christians were expected to believe, to profess, and to defend the unity of the Church; a precept imposed on them by Christ himself. Therefore, St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) warns us: "Nothing provokes God's anger so much as the division of the Church," since by it “one cuts the fullness of Christ to pieces... Not even the blood of martyrdom is able to wash out this sin."2

In this light we must, therefore, consider also the Union of Brest, as being the fulfillment of the divine will of our Savior that there be but "one fold and one shepherd." 3 Since the acceptance of Christianity as their established religion one thousand years ago, the Ukrainians were called by Divine Providence to bear witness to this troth. Moreover, after the Eastern division in 1054, the Ukrainian people, professing their faith "in one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," continued to lean toward the Apostolic See of Rome where the Successor of St. Peter resided. It must also be noted that the Kievan Church never formally broke away from Rome.4

At the time when the Byzantine Patriarch anathemized the Pope of Rome as a heretic, prohibiting any contact with the Roman See, the Prince of Kiev, Izjaslav, placed all the Ukrainian lands under the protection of the Apostolic See and received a royal crown from Pope Gregory VII in 1075.5 In 1087, when the holy relics of St. Nicholas were being transferred from Myra in Lycia to Bari in Italy, a certain monk, named Theodore, the envoy of Metropolitan John II of Kiev (1080-1089) to Pope Clement III, was present and on his return he masterfully described this solemn historic event, which has been preserved for us as the Legend of Kiev.6

In 1089, Pope Urban II instituted the Feast of the Translation of the Relics of St. Nicholas to Bari, to be celebrated on May 9. Shortly after the feast was introduced in Kievan Rus', although the Patriarch of Constantinople never gave his approval of such celebration.7 This only corroborates the fact that the Church of Kiev continued to have friendly relations with Rome even after the 1054 schism.8

This gravitation of the Kievan Church toward Rome continued into the 12th century as can be seen at the Synod of Kiev, celebrated in 1147, and presided over by Bishop Onuphrius of Chernyhiv. At the Synod, Clement Smoliatych, a monk of the Zarub Monastery, was elected as the Metropolitan of Kiev. At his consecration the relics of Pope St. Clement, venerated in the Church of Tithes (Desiatynna Cerkva) of Kiev, were placed on his head as a "sign of submission and obedience of the Kievan Church to the Apostolic See of Rome."9

In the 13th century Metropolitan Peter Akerovych of Kiev (1241-1245) participated in the Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1245), during which he so-lemnly professed the Catholic faith and concelebrated the Holy Liturgy together with Pope Innocent IV.10 Here we must also mention the efforts of Prince Danylo of Halych and Volhynia (1228-1264) to unite the Ukrainian Church with the Roman See.11 On that occasion the Pope once again placed the Ukrainian lands "under the protection of St. Peter and the Apostolic See," and the Papal Legate, Abbot Opizone of Mazzano, crowned Danylo as King of Rus'-Ukraine at Drohochyn in 1253.12 Unfortunately, the Tartar invaders frustrated Danylo's efforts and he was forced to retract his coalition and union with Rome.13

When the Metropolitan of Kiev, Maxim the Greek, permanently transferred his see to Vladimir.on-Klazma in the north,14 it provoked a strong reaction among the Ukrainians of the Galician-Volhynian lands and Prince George (1301-1315) compelled Patriarch Athanasius of Constantinople to establish a separate Metropolitan See of Halych in 1302. When the Patriarch tried to revoke his decision,15 Prince George restored ties with Rome and asked Pope Clement V for a royal crown. But, due to the political situation in Europe, the efforts of Prince George did not lead to a final union.16
With the occupation of the Ukrainian and Belorussian lands by the Lithuanian and Polish forces17 in 1414, the Ukrainian and Belorussian bishops assembled at the synod in Novhorodok and elected Gregory Tsamblak as the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus'.18 The newly elected Metropolitan immediately tried to make contacts with the Apostolic See of Rome and arrived with a large delegation to the Council of Constance in January 1418. In his address to the Council Fathers, Metropolitan Gregory of Kiev exposed his plan of the Church union and appealed to Pope Martin V to take "all necessary steps to attain the union between the Eastern and Roman Churches."19

The desired union was concluded at the Council of Florence in 1439,20 in which Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev (1436.1458) played an important role.21 The Union of Florence was favorably received in the Ukrainian lands under Lithuanian rule, but it was opposed by Moscow, where Prince Basil II imprisoned Metropolitan Isidore immediately upon his arrival. Fortunately, lsidore was able to escape to Lithuania. But there he found strong opposition to the union on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy since the union would have stopped the penetration of the Latin missionaries into the Ukrainian and Belorussian lands. They wanted to make the Orthodox faithful not only Catholics, but to make them Roman Catholics, and consequently, Poles. Discouraged by the Polish hierarchy, Metropolitan Isidore left for Rome, never to return to his Metropolitan see of Kiev.22

After Moscow proclaimed itself autocephalous (in 1448), Pope Callistus III separated the Ukrainian and Belorussian Churches, which were under the Lithuanian and Polish rule, from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Moscow in 1458 and appointed a new Metropolitan of Kiev, a Greek monk named Gregory, who remained loyal to the Union of Florence and who was consecrated by the united Patriarch Gregory Mammas of Constantinople, living at that time in Rome.23 The Pope continued to confirm the election of the Kievan metropolitans until the beginning of the 16th century, when far some reason, relations between the Church of Kiev24 and the Apostolic See of Rome were suddenly interrupted.25

Nevertheless, the tradition of the Florentine Union survived in the Church of Kiev until the end of the 16th century, when the Ukrainian and Belorussian hierarchy finally took a decisive step that lead them to the Union of Brest in their response to Christ's will "that all may be one" (Jn. 17:21). At the Synod of Brest, the bishops were convinced that they were promoting the holy cause and committed themselves to do everything in their power to attain the union with the Apostolic See of Rome.26

As we can see, the Church union was not a foreign idea to the Ukrainian mentality, nor was it imposed by force on the Ukrainian people, as the opponents of the Union of Brest would like us to believe. On the contrary, the idea of the Church unity was planted into the hearts of the Ukrainian people together with Christianity, and was nurtured and preserved in the bosom of the Ukrainian Church for many centuries in hope that the Constantinopolitan Church would be the first to take necessary steps toward the union. After the falI of Constantinople, this hope simply vanished, since the Patriarchs were oppressed under the Turkish yoke and were unable to do anything in order to return to the desired unity. Under these conditions the Ukrainian and Belorussian bishops came to the conclusion that it was their own responsibility to return to the unity of the Church, under the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome.27

2. THE RE-EVALUATION OF THE UNION OF BREST

Until recent times the history of the Union of Brest was studied and based on documentary material collected and published by the Imperial Archeological Commission in St. Petersburg, established and financed by the czarist Russian government. These documents, before their publication, were sorted and submitted to the scrutiny of the Holy Synod, and only then published in two parts: 1) Akty otnosjaschijesja k istorii Zapadnoj Rossii (Documents Relative to the History of Western Russia), St. Petersburg 1851, vol. V (1588-1632); and 2) Akty otnosjaschijesja k istorii Juzhnoj i Zapadnoj Rossii (Documents Relative to the History of Southern and Western Russia), St. Petersburg 1863, vol. I (1369-1598).28

Knowing how strict the censure of all the publications in czarist Russia was, one can be certain that these documents, before their publication, were doctored and edited in a such way as to support the Russian Orthodox view of the Union of Brest.29 Thus, it is almost impossible to find an objective history of the Brest Union even among the Ukrainian authors, including M. Hrushevskyj. So far the most objective history of the Union of Brest is that of the Polish historian, Bishop Edward Likowski, who based his work on the original documents preserved in the Polish arcruves.30

It has been only in recent times that the documents relative to the Union of Brest, preserved in the Roman archives, were published by Rev. Athanasius Welykyj, OSBM,31 shedding somewhat different light on the various questions concerning the Union of Brest. Therefore, the entire history of the Union of Brest must be revised in light of these new and authentic documents, as was already done by some authors.32

It was Father A. Welykyj who first started this "revisionary work" in a series of radio-lectures, transmitted by Vatican Radio to Ukraine in 1966, which he then diligently collected and published under the common title, Z Litopysu Xrystyjans’koï Ukraïny.33 But already some years before, in his excellent article, To the Sources of Ukrainian Catholicism,34 Father Welykyj proved beyond any doubt the following facts concerning the Union of Brest:

l) The union was not forced on the Ukrainian people, but was initiated freely and deliberately by the Ukrainian hierarchy.

2) The Holy See did not use the union as a political tool to enslave the Ukrainian people, but treated it exclusively from the religious and ecclesiastical standpoint.

3) The union was not conceived as a means of denationalization of the Ukrainian people, but rather as a defense against the Polish expansionism.

4) The delegates of the Ukrainian hierarchy, Bishop Hypatius Potij of Volodymyr and Bishop Cyril Terleckyj of Luck, were treated with honor and great respect by Pope Clement VIII and by the Roman Curia in general, and did not show any signs of being humiliated, as the opposition would like us to believe.

At this point I would like to introduce the article of Oscar Halecki, lsidore's Tradition,35 in which he analyzed the Memorandum of the papal diplomat, Rev. Anthony Possevino, S.J., which was sent to Cardinal Cinzio Aldobrandini, Secretary of State, in November 1595.36 In his Memorandum Possevino, among other things, described his meeting with the two Ukrainian Delegates, Bishop Potij and Bishop Terleckyj, in Padua, as they were on their way to Rome. Since the both Bishops knew Possevino personally, since the time of his diplomatic mission to Poland,37 they confidentially informed him about their discussion with [Constantinoplian] Patriarch Jeremias II in 1588.38

As the Ukrainian bishops complained to the Patriarch that nothing was done to remove the confusion and abuses in the Orthodox Church, the Patriarch defended himself that he was not free to do anything in order to improve the situation on account of Turkish tyranny. Then one of the bishops, most likely Terleckyj himself, remarked that in that case it would be better to join the Catholic Church, and seek the assistance of the Pope of Rome. Far from blaming the bishop for advancing such a possibility, the Patriarch remarked that the "idea was most salutary and that those to whom it was not forbidden to carry it out should be considered very fortunate." He also mentioned that it was impossible to take such a step (to join the Catholic Church) by those under the Turkish yoke in view of many dangers.

The Patriarch's words could only be interpreted as an encouragement to the Ukrainian bishops to go ahead and to try to provide a means for the salvation of their Church. This advice of Patriarch Jeremias then set in motion the idea of a regional (particular) union of the Kievan Church with the Apostolic See of Rome.39

We know about Patriarch Jeremias' sympathy toward union and his contacts with the Apostolic See of Rome from many other sources. On account of his Roman connections he was eventually deposed from his office by the Turkish authorities and deported to the Island of Rhodes. Only after promising to pay a certain amount of money he was released and permitted to visit the eparchies of Kiev and Moscow in order to collect the necessary funds. On his return Jeremias was restored to his patriarchal see of Constantinople by the sultan on July 4, 1589.40

This explains to some extent why the decision of the Ukrainian bishops to join the Catholic Church was kept secret for several years. They were afraid that their initiative "could harm the Patriarch back in Constantinople if it became known that such pro-Roman initiative was undertaken immediately after his sojourn in the Commonwealth. There would have been a strong suspicion among the Turks, and not unjustified, that he was responsible for it and he could have been exposed to dangers similar to those which he had already suffered in the past." 41

Based on Possevino's Memorandum of 1595, we can safely say that the Ukrainian hierarchy was encouraged to take the necessary steps toward union with Rome by the suggestion, though secret, of Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople himself.42 It only proves that the hierarchy of the Kievan Church began their work far the union with Rome with the blessing of Constantinople. This fact must be kept always in our mind when treating the Union of Brest.

There are many other facts in the history of the Union of Brest that must be thoroughly reviewed and re-evaluated in light of recently published documents from the Vatican Archives. I have highlighted here only a few instances to stress the need of a radical revision of previously published books on this subject.

3. THE ATTEMPTS TO FRUSTRATE THE UNION

The Union of Brest was conceived out of the necessity for radical reforms of the Ukrainian Church, which in the 16th century found itself in a most deplorable condition. Only at the end of the said century, after a long list of unworthy hierarchs,43 did the Ukrainian Church finally receive some God-fearing Shepherds who decided to do something in order to save their Church from complete disintegration. They were well aware that they could not do it by themselves. They needed some help.

When they turned to their superior, Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople for assistance, he sympathized with them. However, he was unable to help them because his own Church, under Turkish occupation, was not in any better situation. So the bishops, encouraged by the Patriarch himself, turned far the assistance to the Apostolic See of Rome. Just then the Catholic Church, due to the far-reaching reforms of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), succeeded to contain the Protestant onslaught and was swiftly regaining its moral and spiritual strength even in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.44

In view of such a swift recuperation of the Catholic Church in the post-Tridentine period, the support of the Apostolic See of Rome became at least promising, if not even necessary, to protect the Ukrainian Church from the undesirable subjection to the newly established Patriarchate of Moscow and All Rus', claiming its jurisdiction even over the eparchies of the Kievan Metropolitan Province.45 We must admit that the fear of Moscow played a very important role in the decision of the Ukrainian bishops. And, I fully share Father WeIykyj's opinion that "the Union of Brest was provoked by the creation of the Patriarchate of Moscow, and was to serve as a means of defense against the Moscovite aggression." 46

On June 24, 1590, after discussing this matter at their annual meeting, held in Brest, the Ukrainian bishops 47 carne out for the first time with a solemn declaration in favor of union with Rome.48 They only demanded that their liturgical rites and ceremonies be maintained by the Apostolic See and that the King of Poland confirm all the privileges granted to their Church in view of the Florentine Union.49

After a thorough consultation,50 King Sigismund III (1587-1632) announced the decision of the Ukrainian bishops to recognize the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff in his letter of March 18, 1592.51 The king promised to take the bishops and their eparchies under his personal protection and "to everyone who would join the union" he guaranteed the same rights and privileges that were enjoyed by the Roman Catholic clergy.52

Now the time was ready to discuss and propose specific conditions of the intended union, which were to be made in agreement with the articles approved by the Council of Florence, Since the bishops considered the union a matter of faith and intended to strengthen their own authority, so badly undermined by the Protestants,53 they judged that it was their duty and obligation to prepare the so-called Articles of Union. In their work they were assisted by the famous Greek theologian, Peter Arcudius,54 who later helped the Ukrainian delegates in Rome during their negotiations with the Apostolic See.

In their preoccupation to do the right thing, the Ukrainian bishops sought the advice of some influential laymen, inc1uding Prince Constantine Ostroz'kyj. As a matter of fact, it was Prince Ostroz'kyj, who already in the summer of 1593 urged his friend, Bishop H. Potij of Volodymyr,55 to expedite the preparations for union. He even offered his own services to begin talks with the Pope, since that summer he intended to spend some time in Italy for health reasons.56 In his letter to Bishop Potij, Ostroz'kyj enclosed also a list of his own conditions for the intended union.57

The bishops, nevertheless, had' to be cautious. They were not ready to contact the Holy See until they had some assurance from the king that their rights and privileges would be well protected.58 Only then did they approach the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw to initiate formal negotiations with the Holy See.59 At the same time the bishops warned the Nuncio that Prince Ostroz'kyj might try to interfere with their efforts to achieve the union with Rome.60 Finally, on December 2, 1594, they made public their intention to join the Catholic Church,61 and presented their Articles of Union to the Royal Chancery for further examination.62

King Sigismund III immediately appointed a special commission to study the proposed articles.63 After a favorable revision of the articles,64 on Pentecost of 1595, Metropolitan Michael Rahoza 65 convened the synod of bishops in Brest, which unanimously accepted the final draft of the Articles 66 and petitioned Pope Clement VIII to receive the Ukrainian Church into communion with the Apostolic See of Rome. At the same time the bishops informed the Pope that they were sending two of their bishops, Hypatius Potij of Volodymyr and Cyril Terleckyj of Luck, to Rome as their delegates to bring to a happy conclusion the entire affair of the holy union.67

The journey of the two bishops to Rome, their negotiations with the Apostolic See, and their final profession of the Catholic faith on December 23, 1595, are described in detail by Father A. Welykyj, OSBM, who corroborated his description with the authentic documents from the Vatican Archives.68 It is not my intention to describe here the Synod of Brest, celebrated between October 16th to 20th, 1596,69 during which the union of the Ukrainian Church with Rome was solemnly proclaimed.70 At this time I would like to discuss only certain points, connected with the opposition to the Union of Brest, namely; a) The role of Prince Ostroz'kyj in dividing the Ukrainian people, b) Cossack opposition to the Church union, and c) Moscow's hostile attitude toward the Union of Brest.

a) The Role of Prince Ostroz'kyj

There is no doubt that Prince Ostroz'kyj was the first to discuss the possibility of the union of the Ukrainian Church with the Apostolic See of Rome in 1583, when he met the Papal Legate, A. Possevino. The prince at that time considered "both Churches equally good." 71 But in the course of time he fell under the influence of the Protestant preachers, whom he kept in his palace in Ostroh, and started to change his mind. After a long discussion with the prince ten years later, the famous Greek theologian, Peter Arcudius, stated that the previous inclination of Ostroz'kyj towards union completely vanished due to the influence of the "numerous Calvinists at his palace, who incited him to hatred against Rome." 72

I am certain that Arcudius shared his opinion concerning Prince Ostroz'kyj with his friend, Hypatius Potij, in whom he confided. Soon after Bishop Potij discovered the painful truth by himself. Sending his list of conditions for union with Rome to Bishop Potij, Ostroz'kyj insisted that the doctrine on the "Sacraments and other human inventions" in the Ukrainian Church should be corrected.73 Bishop Potij, as a convert from Protestantism himself, immediately discovered that the prince, under the Protestant influence, was already doubting the divine institution of the Sacraments and considered them only as "human inventions." From that time on he seriously questioned Ostroz'kyj's sincerity concerning the union.

There was yet another suggestion in Ostroz'kyj's letter that deeply disturbed Bishop Potij. The prince wanted him to go to Moscow and inform the Grand Prince and Patriarch about the "persecution" and deplorable conditions of the Ukrainian Church in Poland, and invite them to join the union.74 Prince Ostroz'kyj knew very well that the Church of Moscow, after receiving her own patriarchate, would never join the Catholic Church. The information about the deplorable conditions and persecution of the Ukrainian Church would be an open invitation to armed intervention of Moscow, resulting in subjection of the Kievan Metropolitan to the Patriarch of Moscow; something the bishops wanted to prevent by their union with Rome. No wonder they lost confidence in Prince Ostroz'kyj and did not involve him in their negotiations with the Apostolic See. Bishop Potij, nevertheless, continued to inform his old friend about the progress of negotiations.

When Bishop Potij informed Prince Ostroz'kyj about the final decision of the bishops to embrace the union,75 the prince did not remain idle. Already on June 24, 1595, he published his own Manifesto, addressed to the Ukrainian clergy, nobility, and common people, in which he accused the bishops of having betrayed the Church of Christ and having abandoned their true faith, and invited all of them to join him in the fight against "these enemies of our salvation." 76

Ironically enough, several years before his three sons and two daughters joined the Roman Catholic Church, Prince Ostroz'kyj declared that both Churches, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, were "equally good." But now, when the Ukrainian bishops, preserving their own Rite and traditions, intended to be united with the Church of Rome according to the mandate of Christ, suddenly the same Ostroz'kyj condemned them as "traitors," "enemies of the people," and "scoundrels".
It is very significant to note that in his Manifesto Ostroz'kyj ascribed to himself a divine calling ("by the grace of God") to head the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This he did in conformity with the Protestant teaching that not the bishop but the secular prince is the head of the particular Church according to the famous principle, "Cuius regio, eius et religio."

In order to succeed in his campaign against the union Prince Ostroz'kyj did not hesitate to conclude an anti-Catholic coalition with the Protestants during their Congress in Torun, August 21-26, 1595. He even invited them to an armed revolt against King Sigismund III, who, according to Prince Ostroz'kyj, violated his oath by which he guaranteed the freedom of religion.77

Thus, we are fully justified to conclude that Prince Ostroz'kyj, who at first was leaning toward union, under the Protestant influence developed in his heart hatred toward Rome, and was ready to use any means to defeat the efforts of the Ukrainian hierarchy trying to conclude the union with the Apostolic See of Rome. In 1604, when it became evident that Ostroz'kyj was not able to frustrate the union,78 Pope Clement VIII tried to make peace with the old prince and invited him to join the Catholic Church.79 The prince in his answer to the Pope admitted the necessity and promised to work together with the Patriarch of Constantinople toward the Church unity, but said nothing about his own conversion.80 He died in 1608, as a member of the Orthodox Church.

b) Opposition of the Cossacks

After the death of Prince C. Ostroz'kyj the campaign against the Union of Brest was continued by the cossacks. It was under the protection of cossacks that the Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchy was restored by Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem in 1620.81 After his arrivai in Kiev, Theophanes threatened that he would impose on the cossacks "ali the ecclesiastical penalties," if they would dare to fight against their brothers in faith, the Moscovites. He invited them instead to fight against the union with all their forces.82 This signalled a beginning of a violent campaign of the cossacks against the Union of Brest, under the leadership of Hetman Peter Sahajdachnyj (1613-1622).

During the campaign of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnyckyj (1648-1657) against Poland, the cossacks were incited to war by the slogan, "In defense of Orthodoxy," persecuting their own brothers, the Ukrainian Catholics. This hostile attitude of cossacks toward the Catholic Church eventually drove them toward Moscow and the Perejaslav Treaty (1654). This was the opposite of what the Ukrainian hierarchs hoped to achieve by the union. They wanted to protect the Ukrainian Church and their people from a complete subjugation to Moscow. But Khmelnyckyj, considering the union as an ally of Poland, freely offered the Ukrainian people to the Moscovite yoke.83 He soon repented his mistake and was ready to negotiate a political union with Poland, but it was too late.

One must take note that Khmelnyckyj, at the time of his readiness to negotiate with Poland, showed his willingness to approach the Apostolic See of Rome and to ask the Supreme Pontiff to elevate the Metropolitan See of Kiev to a patriarchate, just to secure the independence of the Ukrainian Church from Moscow.84 It would be worthwhile to pursue this question in the Vatican archives, where the documents concerning this project of Khmelnyckyj are located.

Khmelnyckyj's successor, Hetman Ivan Vyhovskyj (1657-1659), shared the same ideas and prepared the treaty with Poland in Hadiach (1658). During the Hadiach negotiations the "question of religious peace with Rome, based on the appointment of a Patriarch for the Ukrainian capital city Kiev" arose. There were also rumors of sending a cossack delegation to Rome, but the abdication of Vyhovskyj ended all these projects of reconciliation with Rome.85

We must also remember that the cossacks were also instrumental in the complete subjugation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to the Patriarch of Moscow in 1686, approved by Hetman Ivan Samojlovych (1672-1687). Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople, only after receiving some bribes from Moscow, ratified this submission. Thus, in the end, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev became canonically subject to Moscow.86

c) Moscow's Opposition to the Union

As previously mentioned, one of the motives that prompted the Ukrainian and Belorussian bishops to seek union with Rome was the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589, under whose jurisdiction the Moscovite rulers intended to consolidate all the eparchies of the former Kievan Rus'. The Union of Brest was to contain the expansionist policy of the Third Rome and to guarantee the ecclesiastical autonomy to the Metropolitan Province of Kiev.87

History has proved beyond any doubt that in this regard the Ukrainian and Belorussian hierarchs were correct. Following their expansionist policy, the rulers of Moscow considered themselves "Defenders of Orthodoxy," 88 and used all their power and influence to destroy the Union of Brest. At the beginning they were instigating the Ukrainian cossacks against the union and later, invading the Ukrainian and Belorussian lands within the Polish kingdom, they directly applied violence and terror against those who dared to
join the union.

As an example, let us recall the violent reaction of Czar Peter I when Bishop Demetrius Zhabokrytskyj of Luck ventured to join the union in 1702. In 1709, under the pretext of helping King August II, Czar Peter I invaded Poland, terrorizing the Ukrainian and Belorussian populations in union with Rome. After laying his hands on Bishop Zhabokrytskyj, Peter personally tortured and abused him and then deported him to Moscow, where the bishop died as a victim of Peter's hatred of the union in 1715.89 Peter's detestation and hostility toward the union is generally known on account of the so-called Tragedy of Polock (1705), when the czar personally, with his own hands, slaughtered several Basilian monks in their church.90

The same policy of the Moscovite czars against the union continued, especially during the rule of Catherine Il (1763-1796), who successfully manipulated the uprising of the Ukrainian "Haydamaks" against the Catholic population, characterized by the Uman Massacre of 1768.91

After the threefold division of Poland (1772, 1793 and 1795), when the majority of the Ukrainian and Belorussian lands were handed over to Russia, Catherine II began a violent liquidation of their Catholic parishes, forcing the faithful to join the Orthodox Church.92 To have some idea of the dimension of this violent persecution of union by Catherine II, it is sufficient to mention that at that time 145 Basilian monasteries and 9,316 Catholic parishes were liquidated, and more than 8 million faithful were forced into Orthodoxy.93

The Calvary of Union continued under Czar Nicholas I (1825-1855), who finished the work of violent liquidation of the union among the Ukrainian and Belorussian population under Russian occupation "in retaliation", so to speak, for the Polish revolt of 1831.94 By 1840, the Holy Synod of Moscow proudly informed the world that the "Catholic union in the lands under Russian possession no longer existed and neither it could exist in Orthodox Russia." 95 The Ukrainian Catholic eparchy of Kholm, under Russian rule since 1815, somehow survived the rage of Czar Nicholas I against the union. This temporary survival however was short lived. After a bloody and violent persecution it was also liquidated by Czar Alexander II in 1875.96

The two eparchies in Western Ukraine, Peremyshl, which joined the Union of Brest in 1691,97 and L'viv, which accepted union in 1700,98 were incorporated into Austria at the first partition of Poland in 1772. They both remained Catholic. In 1807, the old Metropolitan See of Halych was restored, but the metropolitan title was attached to the see of L’viv, which was elevated to archeparchy.99 In 1885, after the forced liquidation of the Kholm eparchy, the Apostolic See erected another eparchy in Western Ukraine, that of Stanyslaviv.100

In 1944, Western Ukraine was occupied by the Soviet forces. The Soviet authorities continued the anti-union policy of Russian czars and violently suppressed the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Western Ukraine after the staged Synod of L'viv in 1946.101 Today the modern Moscow hierarchs, just as their predecessors in czarist Russia, officially proclaim that "in Soviet Union the Ukrainian Uniate Church does not and cannot exist!" The fear of the Church union in Russian circles is still great even to this day. This only demonstrates that the union with Rome must be and in fact is of great importance to the promotion of the Ukrainian cause. And the recent developments in Western Ukraine eloquently support this proposition*.

* Editor's Note: The Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine regained its freedom after the fall of Comunism and the subsequent independence of Ukraine, in 1990-1991.

about the Basilians | Annales—Basilian history |

ANNALES OSBM
historical articles

Back to Analecta OSBM

Analecta Vol. XIV, 1992

Abbreviations used:

DTC = Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique.

HALECKI, From Florence= Oskar HALECKI, From Florence to Brest, 1439-1596, Rome, Sacrum Poloniae Millenium, 1958.

WELYKYJ, DPR = Athanasius WELYKYJ, OSBM, Documenta Pontificun Romanorum historiam Ucrainae illustrantia, Romae, PP. Basiliani, 1953, 2 vols.

WELYKYJ, DUB = Athanasius WELYKYJ, OSBM, Documenta Unionis Brestensis eiusque auctorum, Romae, PP. Basiliani, 1970.

WELYKYJ, LNA = Athanasius WELYKYJ, OSBM, Litterae Nuntiorum Apostolicorum historiam Ucrainae illustrantes, Romae, PP. Basiliani, 1959, vol. I & II.

WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu = Athanasius WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu xrystyjans’koï Ukraïny, Rym, OO. Vasylijan, 9 tomiv, 1968-1977.

Footnotes

1 J. STEVENSON, Creeds, Councils and Controversies, Documents A.D. 337-461, London, S.P.C.K., 1972, p. 335.

2 P. SCHAFF, A Select Library of the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publ., 1969, val. XIII, 106.

3 M. WOJNAR, OSBM, «De divina obligatione unionis», art. in Analecta OSBM, IV (1963) 190-221.

4 H. LUZHNYC'KYJ, Ukraïns'ka Cerkva mizh Sxodom i Zaxodom, Philedelphia: SUK,«Provydinnja», 1954, 90-93.

5 Cf. Papal Bull in WELYKYJ, DPR, voI. I, 5-6; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, Tom. I, 209-233.

6 G. CIOFFARI, La leggenda di Kiev. Bari, Centro Studi S. Nicola, 1980, English text
p.135-141.

7 J. KATRIJ, OSBM, A Byzantine Rite Liturgical Year. transl. by D. Wysochansky, OSBM,
Detroit-New York: Basilian Fathers, 1983, p. 270.

8 The Orthodox authors simply deny these facts, e.g, I. VLASTOVS'KYJ, Narys istoriï Ukraïns'koï Pravoslavnoï Cerkvy, New York-Bound Brook, Ukr. Prav. v ZDA, 1955,
tom. I, 94-95.

9 A. WELYKYJ, «Kyïvs’ka mytropolija v 100 lit po szyzmi Kerularija», in Analecta OSBM, III (1960) 348-374; IV (1963) 461-483.

10 C. TOMASHIVS’KYJ, «Predtecha Izydora, Petro Akerovych, naznanyj mytropolyt Rus’kyj 1241-1245», Analecta OSBM, II (1927) 221-313; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 122-125; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, II, 143-147.

11 LUZHNYC’KYJ, 124-130; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, II, 153-167.

12 LUZHNYC’KYJ, 128-131; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, II, I68-172.

13 Pope Alexander IV urged King Danylo to return to the Catholic communion — cf. WELYKYJ, DPR, I, 49-51; prof. H. Luzhnyckyj contends that Danylo was not censured by the Pope and died as a Catholic in 1264 – LUZHNYC’KYJ, 132.

14 Later Metropolitan Peter of Ratna (1308-1326) transferred his See to Moscow.

15 The Metropolitan See or Halych was eventually liquidated in 1347, and its title passed to the Metropolitan or Kiev – LUZHNYC’KYJ, 141-142; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, II, 208-212.

16 By his letter of February 3, 1317, Pope John XXII invited all Ukrainian princes to return to the union with Rome - cf. WELYKYJ, DPR. I, 55-56; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 135-138.

17 After the marriage of Lithuanian Prince Jagello to Polish Queen Jadwiga in 1385, Lithuanians and Poles formed one Commonwealth.

18 HALECKI, From Florence, p. 27-28; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 173.

19 Cf. Tsamblak's address at the Council in H. FINKE, Acta Concilii Constanciensis, Muenster 1923, vol. II, 63; its Ukrainian translation in WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 61; LUZHNYC’KYJ,174-176.

20 Cf. Papal Bull of reunion in WELYKYJ, DPR, l, 113-119; G. HOFMANN, Concilium Florentinum, Roma, Pont. Inst. Orientale, 1952; HALECKI, From Florence, 33-45.

21 J. GILL, Personalities of the Council of Florence, New York 1964, p. 65-78; also J. Gill, "Isidore's Encyclical Letter from Buda," in Analecta OSBM. IV (1963) 1-8; HALECKI, From Florence, 46-54; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 68-82.

22 Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev was also appointed by the Pope "Legatus a Latere" to Lithuania, Livonia and All Russia - cf. Papal Bull in WELYKYJ, DPR, I, 119-121; HALECKI, From Florence, 54-56; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 179-191; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 83-92.

23 HALECKI, From Florence, 83-87, calls it "a decisive action" of Pope Callistus III, who died shortly after, and the appointment of Metropolitan Gregory to the Kievan See came from his successor, Pope Pius II, on September 3, 1458 - cf. WELYKYJ, DPR. I, 145-147.

24 Besides the Kievan archeparchy, with its see in Novgorodok (later in Vilnius), the Metropolitan Province of Kiev included the following Ukrainian-Belorussian eparchies: l. Luck -Ostrog, 2. Volodymyr of Volhynia, 3. Turiv - Pinsk, 4. Polock - Vitebsk (archeparchy), 5. Smolensk, 6. Chernyhiv, 7. Halych . L'viv, 8. Peremyshl and 9. Kholm. The eparchies of Chernyhiv (in 1609) and Smolensk (in 1614) were soon occupied by Muscovy and illegally subjected to the Metropolitan of Moscow – LUZHNYC’KYJ, 225.

25 Cf. Pope's letter to Metropolitan Joseph of Kiev on April 26, 1501, in WELYKYJ, DPR, I, 175-178; HALECKI, From Florence, 99-122. The question of breaking off relations with Kiev at the beginning of the 16th century is not yet sufficiently studied – WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 154-168; M. Staxiv, Xrystova Cerkva v Ukraïni, 988-1596, Stamford, Kolehija sv. Vasylija Velykoho, 1985, 260-261.

26 Cf. Declaration of the Bishops, dated December 2, 1594, in WELYKYJ, OSBM, DUB, p. 32-35); HALECKI, From Florence, 273-278.

27 WELYKYJ, DUB, 33.

28 They are described by STAXIV, 500-501.

29 Ukrainian writer and historian, Mykola Kostomariv, in his doctoral dissertation stated that there is no documentary evidence that the Union of Brest was introduced by the Jesuit intrigues and that the Orthodox faithful were systematically persecuted by the Polish authorities. The University Senate not only rejected his dissertation but, at the advise of the "spiritual authorities," ordered that the dissertation be burnt - STAXIV, 502, zam. 34.

30. E. LIKOWSKI, Unia Brzeska, Warszawa 1907; I made use of its Ukrainian translation by; B. KUZHMA- O. ZAHORS’KYJ, Berestajs’ka Unia 1596 r. Lviv 1916.

31 WELYKYJ, DUB; Papal Nuncio's letters see WELYKYJ, LNA, vol. I,II.

32 In his great "zeal" to revise the history of the Brest Union, Professor M. Staxiv went too far. For example, he says that Prince Ostroz'kyj, before his death, joined the union – vid.. STAXIV, 446-447.

32 These radio-lectures of Father Athanasius Welykyj, OSBM covered the entire history of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, based on the documents from the Vatican archives. They were published by the Basilian Fathers in 9 volumes, Rome 1968-1977.

34 Athanasius G. WELYKYJ, OSBM, "Alle fonti del cattolicesimo ucraino," in Analecta OSBM, IV (1963) 44-18.

35 O. HALECKI, "Isidore's Tradition" - ibid., 21-43.

36 Cf. Possevino's Memorandum, "Relazione della Rossia" - Ibid., 37-43.

37 Possevino's diplomatic mission to Poland and Muscovy, 1581-1581, is described by J. LEDIT, in DTC, vol. XII-2, col1. 2648-2649.

38 L. PETIT, "Jeremie II, Tranos" - ibid" vol. VIII-l, coll. 886-894.

39 See Possevino's Memorandum in Analecta OSBM, IV (1963) 39.

40 HALECKI, From Florence, 213: "Under Ottoman rule the Patriarchs of Constantinople, entirely dependent on the Sultans, were supposed to avoid any contact with the Papacy, the main enemy of the Ottoman Empire, and to remain in absolute opposition to the Union of
Florence or its possible revival."

41 HALECKI, Isidore's Tradition, 35-36.

42 This would not be an isolated case, since Patriarch Niphon II (1497-1498) encouraged Metropolian Joseph of Kiev to support the Union of Florence - cf. German translation of Niphon's letter in J. PELESZ, Geschichte der Union der ruthenischen Kirche mit Rom, Wien 1878, vol. l, p. 475-476; in Ukrainian translation cf. STAXIV, 258-261.

43 According to prof. H. Luzhnyckyj, during that time there was only one worthy hierarch, Bishop Macarius Evlashevskyj of Pinsk. Luzhnyckyj gives a very dim picture or those "unworthy" hierarchs, p. 219-226. The deplorable condition of the Ukrainian Church is vividly described by Prince Ostroz'kyj in his letter to Bishop Potij, dated June 21,1593 - in WELYKYJ, DUB, 17-19.

44 In 1565, the Jesuits were brought in to arrest Protestant expansion in Poland. Subsequently, in 1577, the Provincial Synod of the Polish hierarchy initiated a successful reform within the Roman Catholic Church of Poland, inspired by the decrees of the Council of Trent. After the political union of Lublin between Poland and Lithuania (1569), almost all the Ukrainian lands, except the Province of Brest, were incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland. HALECKI, From Florence, 163-165.

45 The Patriarchate of Moscow was established by Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople in 1589 - WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 254-258; E. VINTER, Vizantija ta Rym u borot’bi za Ukraïnu, 955-1939. Praha 1944, p. 51-53; O. OHLOBLYN, Moskovs’ka teorija III Rym v XVI-XVII st., Munchen 1951.

46 WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 258. Already in 1590, the Ukrainian bishops came to the conclusion that "the Ruthenians (Ukrainians), tired of perpetual interference of the Moscovites, should place themselves under the protection of Rome" - HALECKI, From Florence, 239.

47 The signatures of two bishops, Arcbishop A. Terleckyj of Polock and Bishop M. Kopystenskyj of Peremyshl, were missing since they were absent from the Synod - HALECKI, From Florence, 236-240.

48 Cf. the Declaration in WELYKYJ, DUB. 7-8.

49 Referring especially to the Charter or King Wladislaw III, granted to the Ukrainian Church, in 1443, due to the intervention or Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev - M. HARASIEWICZ, Annales Ecclesiae Ruthenae, Leopoli 1892, p. 78-80.

50 HALECKI, From Florence. 240-244, explains why it took the king so long to reply.

51 In his letter, the king mentioned the names only of those four bishops who originally signed the Synodal Declaration of 1590.

52 Cf. The king's letter of March 18, 1592, in WELYKYJ, DUB, 9-10; another letter of May 18, 1592, addressed to the four above mentioned bishops -Ibid., 10-11.

53 Polish as well as Ukrainian magnates, abusing their privilege o[ patronage, often interfered in the ecclesiastical affairs, over-ruling even the decisions of the local bishops. Also the church Brotherhoods tried to assert their authority in the administration of the local parishes, considering the pastor only as their employee. Some of these Brothcrhoods, such as those in L'viv and Vilnius, enjoyed the privilege of stauropegion, an exemption from the jurisdiction of their bishop by the Patriarch WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 209-213.

54 About Peter Arcudius see E. LEGRANDE, Bibliographie hélénique du XVIle siècle, Paris 1895, vol, III, p. 209-232; L. PETIT, "Arcudius Pierre," in DTC, vol. I, col1. 1771-1663; P. PIDRUTCHNYJ, OSBM, "Pietro Arcudio - Promotore dell'Unione,", in Analecta OSBM, VIII (1973) 254-277.

55 Bishop H. Potij's biography in I. NAZARKO, OSBM, Kyïvs’ki i Halyc’ki Mytropolyty,1590-1960, Toronto 1962, p. 7-15.

56 See Ostroz'kyj's letter in WELYKYJ, DUB, 17-23.

57 Ibid., 23-24; HARASIEWICZ, 169-170.

58 It seems that the direct contacts of the Ukrainian bishops with the king also disturbed Prince Ostroz'kyj, as can be concluded from Bishop Potij's letter of March 17, 1595 - cf. WELYKYJ, DUB, 51-52.

59 The Apostolic Nuncio of Warsaw for the first time officially informed the Apostolic See about the intention of the Ukrainian bishops to become united with Rome on October 15, 1594- cf. WELYKYJ, LNA, H, 26.

60 WELYKYJ, DUB, 30-31.

61 Ibid., 32-35.

62 Ibid., 35-36; cf. Articles in their initial form in HARASIEWICZ, 178-181.

63 The Royal Commission to study the Articles was composed of the following members: Roman Catholic Archbishop Demetrius Solikowski of L'viv, Roman Catholic Bishop Bemard Maciejowski of Luck, and Grand Chancellor of Lithuania, Leo Sapieha. The Ukrainian bishops were represented by Bishop Cyril Terleckyj of Luck - cf. WEl.YKYJ, DUR, 48.

64 Cf. The Nuncio's letter of February 23, 1595 - Ibid.. 50-51; The Articles were confirmed by the king on July 30, 1595 - Ibid., 97-101.

65 See biography of Metropolitan Michael Rahoza of Kiev (1588-1599) in NAZARKO, 1-5; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, III, 133-137.

66 The final draft of the Articles in Polish and Latin languages in WELYKYJ, DUR, 61-75; 107-110; in Ukrainian translation with an interpretation - WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, IV, 42-46.

67 The joint letter of the Ukrainian bishops to the Pope, signed by all eight bishops in WELYKYJ, DUR,79-81.

68 Cf. Analecta OSBM, IV (1963) 59-78; also WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, IV, 72-91.

69 WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, IV, 98-132; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 267-271; HALECKI, From Florence, 366-391.

70 The Papal constitution, Magnus Dominus, dated Decembcr 23, 1595, in WELYKYJ, DPR, I, 236-243; WELYKYJ, DUR, 341-344; in Ukrainian translation- WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, IV, 118-121.

71 HALECKI, From Florence, 219-220.

72 LEGRANDE, 111, 215; HALECKI, From Florence, 247.

73 Cf. Ostroz'kyj's Articles in - WELYKYJ, DUB. 24, n. 6: "circa sacramenta et circa alias inventiones humanas." ]n his letter of March 25, 1595, Bishop Potij rebuked Prince Ostroz'kyj for his relations with the Protestants - WELYKYJ, DUB, 54-55.

74 WELYKYJ, DUB. 18.
75 Potij's letter of June 16, 1595 -Ibid.. 75-78.

76 Ostroz'kyj's Manifesto - Ibid., 82-87. HALECKI, From Florence, 416, describes Prince Ostroz'kyj as "'the main danger to the Union."

77 HALECKI, From Florence. 297-299; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 274-275.

78 At the Diet or 1603, Prince Ostroz'kyj still insisted on the removal or the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy, but without any success. At the same Diet, his own son, Janusz, the Castellane of Cracow, strongly defended the union and was later commended by Pope Clement VIII -cf. WELYKYJ, DPR. I, 302.

79 The Pope's letter of April 3, 1604 - Ibid., 309-310.

80 Cf. Prince Ostroz'kyj's reply on June 14, 1604 in METROPOLITA A. SEPTYCKYJ, Monumenta Ucrainae Historica, Romae, Universitas S. Clementis 1964, vol. I, 237-239.

81 Patriarch Theophanes of Jerusalem came to Moscow in 1619, and ordained a new Patriarch of Moscow, Philaret (1619-1633). Then he was invited by the cossack delegation to Kiev, where he illegally restored the Ukrainian Orthodox hierarchy- WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, IV, 250-254; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 322.

82 PELESZ, II, 146; Myroslav S. MARUSYN, "Blick auf die Unionsbestrebungen in der Ukrainischen Kirche der I. Haelfte des 17. Jhrts," art. in Analecta OSBM, IV (1963) 95-111. Historian M. Hrushevs'kyj referred to the "cossack zealots," who intended to resolve the ecclesiastical problems not by way or tbeological dialogue and synodal decision, but by the sword and intimidation, "Cossack Theologians" - M. HRUSHEVS’KYJ, Istorija Rusy-Ukraïny, Kyïv 1922, tom. VIII, 79.

83 LUZHNYC’KYJ, 375-380; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, V, 137-153.

84 G. HARASTEJ, "Gli ultimi piani di Bohdan Chmelnyckyj," art. in Analecta OSBM, III (1958) 232-236.

85 Ibid., 236; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, V, 199-203.

86 LUZHNYC'KYJ, 424-429.

87 Cf. n. 46 above; S. MUDRYJ, Istorija Cerkvy v Rusi-Ukraïni, Rym, (manuscript) 1980, 103-105.

88 Op. cit., 103; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VII, 141-145.

89 M.S. MARUSYN, "Bischof D. Zabokryckyj und die Wiedervereinigung der Eparchie von Luck," in Analecta OSBM, IV (1963) 112-123; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VI, 46-55.

90 WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VI, 62-68.

91 During the Uman campaign about 300 Ukrainian Catholic priests and over 40,000 faithful were massacred – LUZHNYC’KYJ, 419; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VI, 232-258.

92 WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VII, 121-125; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 449-457.

93 LUZHNYC’KYJ, 452.

94 LUZHNYC’KYJ, 463-464; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VII, 252-272; W. LENCYK, The Eastern Catholic Church and Czar Nicholas I, Rome-New York, Studi Universitari Ucraini, 1966.

95 As quoted by LENCYK, 129. Prof. Lencyk quotes the same Moscow sources as saying that "the liquidation of the Uniate Church was extremely important not only in relation to the (Moscow) Church, but much more in relation to the (Russian) State, since it secured the Western (Le. Ukrainian and Belorussian) lands for Russia permanently."

96 L. GLINKA, Diocesi Ucraino-Cattolica di Cholm (Its liquidation), Roma, PP. Basiliani, 1975; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VIII, 184-194; LUZHNYC’KYJ, 469-482.

97 M.S. MARUSYN, "Vereinigung der Peremysler Eparchie," art. in Alla/ecla OSBM. II (1956) 419-451; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, V, 272-277.

98 I. SHARANEVYCH, Iosyf Shumljanskij ep. L’vovskij, 1667-1708, L’vov, 1896; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, VI, 29-40.

99 LUZHNYC’KYJ, 489-509; I. NAZARKO, OSBM, «Halyc’ka Mytropolia», in Analecta OSBM, II (1958) 173-189; M. STASIW, Metropolia Halicensis- Historia et iuridica forma, Romae, PP. Basiliani, 1960.

100 The Bull of erection of the Stanyslaviv eparchy, dated March 25, 1885, in WELYKYJ, DPR, II, 460-467.

101 First Victim of Communism, White Book of Religious Persecution in Ukraine, Rome, Analecta OSBM, 1953; O. ZINKEVYCH-T. LONCHYNA, Martyrolohija Ukraïns’kyx Cerkov, tom. II: Ukraïns’ka Katolyc’ka Cerkva, Toronto-Baltimore, «Smoloskyp», 1985; A. WELYKYJ, Bolshevyc’kyj serkovnyj sobor u L’vovi 1946 r., New York, Slovo «Dobroho Pasytrja». 1952; WELYKYJ, Z Litopysu, IX, 264-274.

THE UNION OF BREST AND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY IT

Athanasius Pekar, OSBM

Footnotes

THE UNION OF BREST
AND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY IT