What did the Church Union of Brest 1596 mean for Rus/Ukraine and its neighbours?

[Zbyszek]

The topic is much controversial but I still hope for cultured and serious discussion.
At this moment I will restrain from giving my own perspective on the Union.
The most important thing is to make a clear distinction between what was a troubled history and what is today's much more hopeful reality. Can three Christian denominations be ever brought together?

[Halina]

Originally posted by Zbyszek
The topic is much controversial but I still hope for cultured and serious discussion.
At this moment I will restrain from giving my own perspective on the Union.
The most important thing is to make a clear distinction between what was a troubled history and what is today's much more hopeful reality. Can three Christian denominations be ever brought together?

The Union of Brest had good intentions, however according to some historians (Jasienica, Zamoyski),the overall result was not that grand. The Orthodox citizens of the Commonwealth of both nations (the Crwon & the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania) made about 40% of the whole population.
This, I think, is a lot.
After 1453 (the fall of the Patriarchate of Constantinopole), those Old Believers became the political target for both Muscovy and the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1958, Tsar Feodor created a seperate Patriarchate of Moscow, which usurped the right to gather all Orthodox sheep (also those ones outside Muscovy) into the same flock, controlled - of course - by the Patriarch of Moscow.

Apparently the Orthodox magnates of Rzeczpospolita (like i.e Konstanty Ostrogski - the Palatine of Kiev) felt very threatened by those political tentacles coming from all sides. The Patriarch of Moscow constantly questioned and undermined his and others' rights and authority,which was an offence for someone like Ostrogski who founded the theological academy in OstrorСg (important centre of Orthodox revival) and published the first Bible in Church Slavonic.
People like him did not feel particularly inclined to ANY Union, be it with Rome, Moscow, or Constantinopole.

Eventually, the Orthodox bishops who did not accept high taxation from Constantinople & who did not like the false authority imposed by the Patriarch of Muscovy, wrote a letter to... Rome. They wanted to be admitted to the Church of Rome.

And this was probably the beginning of the Union of Brest.
The idea, I think, was quite clever since it aimed at mutual co-existence, tolerance and peace, but the ugly paw of politics and power had a grip on it, too and unfortunately led to a conflict, on which Muscovy sponged for the centuries to come.

[yurilev0]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Halina

Originally posted by Zbyszek
In 1958, Tsar Feodor created a seperate Patriarchate of Moscow, which usurped the right to gather all Orthodox sheep (also those ones outside Muscovy) into the same flock, controlled - of course - by the Patriarch of Moscow.

to come.

Is the date 1958 truly correct or is that a typo? I don't know too many details about this treaty, but I find this informative.

You know what I find ironic? The Uniate and Orthodox rites are for all intents and purposes the same, yet there has historically been immeasurable tension between Uniates and Orthodox. Among Ukrainians of my parents generation, for a Uniate to marry an Orthodox or vice versa was almost akin to a son or daughter marrying outside one's race.

Yuri

[Halina]

Dear Yuri,

It is my mistake... It should have been 1589.
What you write about the tensions is really interesting. It looks like both religious groups make two hermetically closed societites, not very tolerant of each other. Is that because the Uniates' loyalty to the Pope somehow discredits them in the eyes of the Old Believers?
Are the divisions still very sharp in the Ukraine?

I think the Union of Brest was a failure, especially since the King of Poland at that time (Zygmunt III Vasa), who was imported from Sweden, happened to be a devout Catholic and by his blind allegiance to Rome, somehow destroyed what the Jagiellons had built up for centuries; 1.religious tolerance & 2.respect for lower gentry (not merely magnates).
Those two, afore-mentioned factors made Rzeczpospolita the most tolerant and democratic country in Europe.

Following the rule of Zygmunt III Waza , the lower gentry were generally ignored since the king liked surrounding himself by fabulously rich magnates, whose only ambition were power and money.
As for religious tolerance, it still existed. Yet, the Union of Brest was not accepted by i.e Cossacs of the Dnieper. Besides, those who did not accept the Union - the so called 'disuniates' were not formally recognized. That was a horrible mistake. How can you not recognize the faith of your own citizens?

This was also a major political mistake. The religious 'toleration', which Rzeczpospolita had previously achieved and for which she had been famous, began to disintegrate.
Jasienica (a Polish historian) is very ciritical of the Union and extremely critical of Zygmunt III Waza . The Catholic devotion combined with the centralisation of power in the hands of the magnates was the beginning of an end of the Commonwealth.

In 1667, in the aftermath of the Cossack Wars , the left-bank Ukraine came under the control of Muscovy. That was now the beginning of an end for both Rzeczpospolita & the Ukraine. Since Muscovy demanded the unconditional allegiance of the Orthodox Church to the state, the fate of the Ukraine was sealed. Thus Ukraine fell from the frying pan into the fire.
Chmielnicki could be and should be blamed, but I would not sing peans to Zygmunt III Vasa and/or all the devout Jesuits who craved power at the cost of the Old Believers, either.
The Commonwealth by the very virtue of its name should have treated with equal respect not just the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania, but the ancient Rus as well, including the Ukraine.

[Edited by Halina on 31st March 2003 at 22:14]

[yurilev0]

Dear Halina,

I don't think that the divisions are as sharp as they were but they still exist. I come from a Uniate family, but let me tell you I am far from thinking of the Orthodox as "the others."

I haven't been to Ukraine in over four years, but from my experience the Brest treaty created two different Ukraines in many ways. The two peoples have very different general character. Speaking VERY generally, westerners or Uniates, tend to be very staunch and stubborn in there convictions. The down side is that they're very very conservative. Eastern or Orthodox Ukrainians have been conquered more. They tend to be more pliable and open.The west is more nationalistic while the east is more open to influences. It's a different experience traveling in the east or the west.

Yuri

[mishaaverko]

Yuri

Nonsense. The west came under the occupation of the Poles and Hapsburgs, whereas the east remained part of the Kievan Rus legacy which included the Orthodox denomination and the Riuriks having been succeeded by the Romanovs.

[Zbyszek]

Originally posted by yurilev0
....

I haven't been to Ukraine in over four years, but from my experience the Brest treaty created two different Ukraines in many ways. The two peoples have very different general character. Speaking VERY generally, westerners or Uniates, tend to be very staunch and stubborn in there convictions. The down side is that they're very very conservative. Eastern or Orthodox Ukrainians have been conquered more. They tend to be more pliable and open.The west is more nationalistic while the east is more open to influences. It's a different experience traveling in the east or the west.

Yuri

Hello Yuri,
Your observations are interesting and I have to reason not to trust you. My own experience is very limited in this case. I think the differences reflect the different cultures which developed in the west and in the east of Ukraine. The eastern part was united in the religious aspect and experienced more personal submission at the same time. The western part was more diversified in the religious sense and there was more personal freedom and people got used to it.
I think that the clash of so different cultures was inevitable and the Brest Union was only one of its less distinct displays.
Both people were much exploited and thus it is not easy to say which ones fared better.
Misha fails to understand that for the poor people there was no basic difference whether they lived in the east of in the west. Attributing the national feelings to them is almost a manipulation.
The wealthy ones were more conscious about their allegiance. I have no doubt that the Polish culture was more attractive to them, gave them more possibilities. The drama of the Rusyn/Ukrainian identity consisted in the fact that west oriented Poland appeared as too attractive and they voluntarily forgot their roots and Rus/Ukraine was deprived of spiritual leaders. I think the same factor was crucial within the Orthodox clergy when they considered the future of the church in Ukraine. The Holy See made a deal which could be productive if all Rusyns were educated and conscious citizens. Poor, not educated people change their minds much more slowly and are more devoted to basic values. There is nothing wrong in it of course.
I would like to stress that the diplomatic actions of Rome can not be compared with the brutal methods employed by Muscovy at that time. The Union of Brest creators could predict that Muscovy would use the church reforms as an easy excuse for intervention and would accuse the Uniates of treachery.
Kyiv should have sought religious autonomy and a reasonable degree of clergy separation from Moscow but that in this process a powerful Ruthenian educated upper class was needed. Deplorably, it did not happen and the religious policies of Rzeczpospolita also did not display enough flexibility and diplomatic talents.
I would like to stress that the Uniates suffered much from the Muscovy/Russia and this denomination was eventually so close to extinction. It is time to rethink this attitude which is obsolete. The posts of The Last Word, although educated, show all the prejudice of the Moscow Orthodoxy against the Uniates.
Yuri, your attitude is reasonable and just. Keep it in your heart.
Misha, keep the proper track and watch the thread title. You like to repeat the term "occupation". Have in mind what Ivan the Terrible did to Novgorod people in the end of XVIth century. You would not call it an occupation, would you? Recall what the Muscovy envoy to Warsaw in 1651, Pushkin, said about the religious freedom.