Church union: the quandaries over acceptance of the Union of Brest (1595–96)

ABSTRACT

The Union of Brest of 1595–96 brought many of the hierarchs, clergy, and faithful of the Orthodox Kyiv Metropolitanate into the Catholic Church. Yet from the first, large segments of the church in the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth rejected the Union. This paper poses the question of why there was resistance to the Union by presenting counterfactual premises of what the chances for the Union would have been 30 years earlier and 30 years later. It suggests that care must be taken in understanding terminology on religious issues within the context of the period and in taking into account varying usages by clergy and laity. It maintains that increasing attention to Catholicism and Orthodoxy as confessions transformed the environment in which attempts to carry out the Union occurred. Before the Khmel′nyts′kyi Uprising of 1648, many of the participants of the discussions on the Union sought to maintain the unity of all Ruthenians through compromise. After the violent uprising, the formation of the Cossack Hetmanate, and the decline of tolerance in the Commonwealth, attempts at union took place in an atmosphere of heightened confessional allegiance and the more forceful intervention of political authorities in religious affairs.

RÉSUMÉ

L’Union de Brest de 1595–96 a conduit de nombreux hiérarques, clergés et fidèles du Métropolite Orthodoxe de Kyïv dans le giron de l’Église catholique. Cependant, dès le début, de larges segments de l’église dans les terres ukrainiennes et biélorusses de la République des Deux Nations ont rejeté l’Union. L’article pose la question de la résistance à l’Union en présentant des prémisses contrefactuelles sur les chances qu’aurait eu cette union 30 ans plus tôt et 30 ans plus tard. Il suggère que l’on doit faire preuve de prudence dans la compréhension de la terminologie sur les questions religieuses à cette époque et tenir compte des pratiques variables parmi le clergé et les laïcs. Il soutient que l’attention croissante portée au catholicisme et à l’orthodoxie en tant que confessions a transformé l’environnement dans lequel les tentatives de réaliser l’Union ont eu lieu. Avant le soulèvement de Hmel'nic'kij de 1648, de nombreux participants aux discussions sur l’Union cherchaient à maintenir l’unité de tous les Ruthènes par la voie du compromis. Après le soulèvement violent, la formation du Hetmanat cosaque et le déclin de la tolérance dans la République des Deux Nations, les tentatives d’union ont eu lieu dans une atmosphère de loyauté confessionnelle accrue et d’intervention plus énergique des autorités politiques dans les affaires religieuses.

KEYWORDS:

• Kyiv Metropolitanate
• Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
• Ukraine
• Orthodoxy
• Cossacks

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. On the Union, see Gudziak, Crisis and Reform.

2. Sysyn, “Orthodoxy and Revolt”; Plokhy, Cossacks and Religion, 207–35. For bibliographic essays on subsequent literature, see Kapral, “Between Poland and Lithuania”; and Kapral, “Introduction: The ‘Transitional Period’.”

3. The best discussion of the polemical literature is Ševčenko, “Religious Polemical Literature.”

4. DeVille and Galadza, “Lviv Sobor” of 1946.

5. Sysyn, Between Poland and the Ukraine.

6. Ibid., 61.

7. Chynczewska-Hennel, “National Consciousness.”

8. Althoen, “That Noble Quest,” 98–151; Althoen, “Natione Polonus.”

9. Sysyn, Between Poland and the Ukraine, 61.

10. Frick, Meletij Smotryc′kyj, 143–46. See also Macha, Ecclesiastical Unification.

11. Ševčenko, “Many Worlds”; Pritsak and Sysyn, “Kiev Mohyla Academy.”

12. Sysyn, “Lviv and the Longue”; and Medlin, “Cultural Crisis in Orthodox.”

13. On toleration, see Tazbir, State without Stakes.

14. Velykyi, “Anonimnyi proekt Petra Mohyly”; Velykyi, Sviatyi Iosafat Kuntsevych; Velykyi, Z litopysu khrystyians′koï Ukraïny; Medlin, “Cultural Crisis in Orthodox.”

15. Lipiński, “Jan Szczęsny Herburt,” 93.

16. Hrushevsky, History of Ukraine-Rus′, 305–06.

17. Sysyn, “Seventeenth-Century Views.”

18. Sysyn, “Curse on Both,” xiv–xv; Weinryb, “Hebrew Chronicles”; and Raba, Between Remembrance and Denial, 37–166.

19. Zhukovs′kyi, Petro Mohyla і pytannia; Velykyi, “Anonimnyi proekt Petra Mohyly.”

20. Sysyn, “Political Worlds,” 197.

21. Sysyn, “Curse on Both,” xxv.

22. Sysyn, Between Poland and the Ukraine, 123.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Frank E. Sysyn

Frank E. Sysyn is a professor in the Department of History, Classics, and Religious Studies and the director of the Peter Jacyk Centre for Ukrainian Historical Studies of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta. He is editor-in-chief of the Hrushevsky Translation Project and head of the executive committee of the Holodomor Research and Educational Consortium.