Peter Mogila

This article is on the Nikonian saint and westernizer Bishop Peter Mogila (Lord have mercy on him). It will also discuss the situation in Western Russia prior to Patriarch Nikon's schism. I am using the research and studies of Fr. Georges Florovsky (Not an Old Believer). The next article will be a contrast to this one, and will be about the Holy Hierarch Ambrose.

Western Russia in the 16th century was characterized by Polish domination, with Poland-Lithuania controlling both western, mostly Latin Catholic citizens, and east Slavs who were Orthodox or Uniates. The Orthodox there were under the omphorion of the Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, despite living under Poland.

Occasionally, Lithuanian Metropolitans were put in place by Constantinople, but typically had a liking for the Uniate churches One such Metropolitan was a strong supporter of the robbers' council of Florence. He ended up returning to Lithuania and entering into a semi-union with Rome, from which he eventually split away from. This type of fluid situation occurred often in Poland, where many felt the Unia was necessary for civil unity. Georges Florovsky states that "Union with Rome was inseparable from the wider problem of civil unity within the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom. In the context of the sixteenth century it was a sociological and cultural problem more than a theological one."

The Polish rulers also often worried that the Orthodox citizens of Poland would rebel and join with Muscovy, an emerging power in Eastern Europe. The Orthodox Bishops were more keen to gain power within Poland, and often grew closer to Rome (being rejected by the faithful of the Church, in the end). Many felt that if Orthodox were to stand strong under Poland, there would need to be a solid statement of faith all could see proudly. But were they to westernize? Or to remain solidly Eastern? This created a split between those who thought "Slavono-Hellenic culture" was Superior to "Latin barbarism", and vice-versa.

Additionally, at this time St. John Fedorov printed the Ostrog Bible in Church Slavonic to be used against Protestant and Latin heretics. It is thought of as a very high quality translation, and St. John was glorified by the Old Orthodox Church in 2009.

Slowly, the Unia movement grew, mostly among a few power-hungry bishops. These bishops claimed that the Latin and Eastern religions were identical, without a single difference except in extraneous matters of rites (Do you see what the Unia lead to?).

If these bishops became Uniates, they could receive Polish government protection, and influence. They began calling Slavonic barbaric, and Slavic culture unsophisticated and backwards. Schools were founded teaching Slavono-Hellenic culture and learning, as were also Latin schools which emphasized Western culture.

Enter Peter Mogila. He was educated by Poles, in a Latin school, and grew up a ward of a Polish noble, visiting the Netherlands at some point. He became the archimandrite of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves.

He, within, launched a Polish-Latin school to rival the Slavono-Hellenic one in Kiev. He was hated by the other clergy and laity for this, outraged at what seemed like a Uniate opening a heretical school within an Orthodox monastery.

Mogila's goal was to westernize Orthodoxy, and gain power as he did it. This was only his first step.

By educating the youth in Latin schools, he convinced them of a Latin culture, rather than a Slavic one. Everyone knew Mogila was partial to Rome and the Unia. He never once strongly denounced the Latin heresies. He only remained in Orthodoxy for practical purposes.

Mogila was elected Metropolitan of Kiev under suspicious circumstances. These are too complicated to quickly explain, so I'll let Fr. Georges do the talking:

With the death of King Sigismund III, the Orthodox, in April, 1632, seized the occasion of the election of a new king to wrest from the Polish electoral Diet certain "points of pacification for the Greek religion" [Punkty uspokoeniia religii grecheskoi], among them legalization of the Orthodox Church. As expected, the consent of King-elect Wladyslaw IV rapidly followed. Despite a subsequent whittling down of the "points of 1632," in practice, the victory remained. 

Though its phrasing was patently ambiguous, of particular importance was the right of the Orthodox to fill their vacated sees, including that of Kiev. In fact the sees had all been occupied since 1620 through the consecrations performed without announcement or publicity by Patriarch Theophanes. The consecrations were done at night in an unlighted sanctuary, as if by stealth, so as not to cause any disturbance. These consecrations, of course, had never received official recognition, but the Polish State seems to have come to terms with the fait accompli, if only because it could hardly avoid dealing with the new bishops. Now in 1632, with the new legal concession, it would be reasonable to expect that what was de facto would be made de jure. But nothing of this sort occurred. The Orthodox themselves, strangely enough, made no attempt to take advantage of the new law by applying for royal confirmation of their active hierarchy. It was decided instead that all the old bishops should retire and their bishoprics be turned over to new elects.

 This was not done because the episcopal occupants were in any way considered to be "illegal," that is, in office without the confirmation of the Crown, nor because the Church judged them to be of questionable merit. Indeed, they could be credited with having restored both order and canonical  prestige to the Church in a time of real and present danger. It was simply that, although the old bishops may have played a preponderant role in the protracted struggle with the state in order to obtain recognition, the victory itself was the work of younger figures, partisans of a new and opposing ecclesiastical-political orientation, who had little interest in strengthening the hierarchical authority of their antagonists by a formal legalization. Consequently, what on the basis of the "points of 1632" had been touted as a "restitution" of the Orthodox hierarchy, was in reality an annulment of the existing hierarchy, established years earlier by Patriarch Theophanes. 

New bishops were now hastily and uncanonically chosen by the Orthodox delegates to the Diet rather than by local diocesan conventions and immediately confirmed by the King. It was in this way that Peter Mogila, aristocrat and Polonophile, was elected metropolitan of Kiev.

Mogila arrived in Kiev, a city with a recently removed Metropolitan who was an opponent of Peter's Latin schools in the Kiev Caves Monastery. His consecration did not take place where he was unpopular, in Kiev, instead taking place in Lvov. Additionally, Constantinople, already viewed by many in the Russian Orthodox Church as having deviated from ancient piety, consecrated him as "Exarch of the Throne of the Holy Apostolic See of Constantinople." He worked with the authorities in Kiev to forcibly remove the former Metropolitan from ecclesiastical office. Mogila began expanding his Latin school system and attempting reform of the Orthodox rite. He was a resolute Latinizer in office, but never directly attempted Unia with Rome. 

You can see where the reformist and heretical tendencies began in Russia: with Ukraine, occupied by the Poles, slowly adopting Western ways, new-style icons, and more. This lead not only to the Nikonian schism, but to Peter the "Great", who hated Russian culture and religion more than Mogila, and oppressed Old Orthodoxy.

Above: Nikonian symbols

And Mogila is now a saint in the New Believer church. He is thought of as a spark for the western captivity of Russia.