Priesthood in the Teachings for the Clergy Alicja Z. Nowak Krakow 2017 Copyright © by Alicja Z. Nowak, 2017 Wydawnictwo «scriptum», 2017 Reviewers Ihor Isichenko (Vasyl Karazin Kharkiv National University and National University “Kyiv Mohyla Academy”) Jerzy Ostapczuk (Christian Theological Academy in Warsaw) Translators Anna Kijak, Jan Kobyłecki The project was financed by National Science Centre (Poland), registarion number 2014/15/B/HS1/01876 ISBN 978-83-65432-79-7 Wydawnictwo «scriptum» Tomasz Sekunda phone 604 532 898 e-mail: scriptum@wydawnictwoscriptum.pl www.wydawnictwoscriptum.pl Contents Introduction...........................................................................................................7 On the Sources of Teachings for Priests .........................................................13 Books as tools in the reform of the Eastern Church ....................................13 Teachings for the clergy in religious books ...................................................21 Other additions to printed religious books – selected examples................46 Bishops’ teachings for priests...........................................................................50 Catechism teachings and catechisms..............................................................63 Other works ......................................................................................................80 On Candidates to the Clerical State ..............................................................111 On the Order of Selecting Candidates to the Episcopacy..........................119 On Striving for the Episcopacy .....................................................................124 Responsibilities and Dangers of the Bishop’s Office ...................................131 Requirements for Candidates to the Episcopacy ........................................138 The Bishop Monk............................................................................................153 St. Paul’s Moral Catalogue .............................................................................159 Simony and Abusing Authority.....................................................................164 The Responsibility of the Consecrator .........................................................185 A Bishop’s Range of Authority.......................................................................191 On Inner Readiness for the Priesthood .......................................................199 The Pre-Ordination Interview and Decision Transparency......................204 On Moral Impediments on the Road to Priesthood ..................................208 Other Impediments and Conditions for Receiving the Priesthood .........212 Age Requirements for Candidates to the Clerical State.............................216 A Priest’s Social Status ....................................................................................219 Contents Substantive Preparation for the Priesthood.................................................220 Wives in the Lives of Candidates and Priests..............................................236 A Priest’s Preparation for the Liturgy...........................................................261 Definitions of the Sacrament.........................................................................262 General Conditions for Receiving the Eucharist ........................................265 A Celebrant’s Spiritual Preparation for the Liturgy....................................267 On the Dignity of Serving at the Altar.........................................................271 Conscientiously Approaching the Liturgy...................................................283 A Priest’s Sins...................................................................................................292 Fasting before the Liturgy and other Conditions .......................................315 Religious Pratices ............................................................................................326 Intention...........................................................................................................335 A Yerei’s Appearance.......................................................................................341 Other Requirements .......................................................................................348 The Sluzhebnyk................................................................................................350 Conclusions........................................................................................................359 Streszczenie ........................................................................................................365 Bibliography.......................................................................................................369 Index ....................................................................................................................417 Introduction In the history of the Polish-Lithuanian state the 16th century was a period of change in many areas: political, social and religious. The change affected all people living in the ethnically diverse and multidenominational country. The emergence of Protestantism and the break-up of the Western Church and, especially, reforms encompassing changes in the liturgy, expansion of the use of vernacular languages, updating and enrichment of preaching as well as school curricula influenced religious life of both the Catholics and the Orthodox. Both groups of believers saw a need for counteraction; they were redefining traditions and found inspiration in novelties1. Another challenge for the Orthodox Church – controlled as it was by Catholic rulers and affected by unification with Roman Catholicism – was the need to fight to preserve its identity. In the period following the Council of Trent the Catholic Church began an intense renewal campaign, although some positive chang-es in religious culture can be discerned earlier2. The situation was similar among the Orthodox, with a shift in time, however. Decided reform action was undertaken by the Ruthenian elites only when 1 This is the subject of Między Wschodem i Zachodem. Prawosławie i unia (vol. 11: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialogu z Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości), ed. M. Kuczyńska, Warszawa 2017. 2 A. Nowicka-Jeżowa, Pokolenia trydenckie między tradycją a wyzwaniami przyszłości, [in:] Formowanie kultury katolickiej w dobie potrydenckiej. Powszechność i narodowość katolicyzmu polskiego (vol. 6: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialoguz Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości), ed. J. Dąbkowska-Kujko, Warszawa 2016, pp. 21–102. representatives of Protestantism and then Catholicism, supported by the Tridentine reform programme, had already begun carrying out wide-ranging educational and publishing activities focused on strengthening the Church and attracting new followers. This does not mean, that several decades earlier the intellectual elites of the Eastern Church had not seen a need for reforms. The first renewal programme was formulated in 1509 in the aftermath of the Synod of Vilnius. The Metropolitan of Kiev, Yosyf Soltan, who presided over the meeting, drafter a set of disciplinary and pastoral rules seeking to counteract the problem of simony, facilitate the selection of the right candidates for the priesthood, improve the management of Church property and, in particular, regulate the relations between the Church and its secular patrons3. Yet this plan to strengthen Orthodoxy in the Kievan Metropolitanate was not implemented. It does show, howev-er, that the crisis in Ruthenian culture was a result of stagnation and not degradation. This is also evidenced by grassroots initiatives in 16th-century Ruthenian society, which were manifested, for example in the efforts of the Orthodox to deepen their religiousness through a revival of preaching4. 3 The text of the rules, cf. Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 4: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 1, Санкт-Петербургъ 1878, pp. 12-13 [hereafter RIB 4]. More on the Council, cf. О. Лотоцький, Українськi джерела церковного права, Варшава 1931, pp. 112–114; I. Скочиляс, Галицька (Львівська) єпархія ХІІ–ХVIII ст.: Організаційна структура та правовий статус,Львів 2010, pp. 378-381; A. Mironowicz, Sobory wileńskie 1509 i 1514 roku, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej” 5, 2014, pp. 71–76; here also more recent literature on the subject, cf. p. 75, fn. 14. 4 The scholar’s assertion is based on an analysis of 16th-century hand-written homiliary gospels from the Kievan Metropolitanate, cf. М.В. Дмитриев, МеждуРимом и Царьградом. Генезис брестской церковной унии 1595–1596 гг., Москва2003, pp. 64-88. For more on these changes, cf. also Г. Чуба, Українські рукописніучительні Євангелія, Львів 2011, pp. 5–33; M. Kuczyńska, Homiletyka cerkiewnaPierwszej Rzeczypospolitej na pograniczu kultur (do połowy XVII wieku), [in:] MiędzyWschodem i Zachodem. Prawosławie i unia (vol. 11: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialoguz Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości), ed. M. Kuczyńska, Warszawa 2017, pp.198–201. The changes which occurred at that time in the content of teaching did not become A particularly refreshing time in the religious and spiritual life of the Orthodox and Uniate Churches came in the late 16th and early 17th century5. The competition between the two denominations provided a natural stimulus boosting the religious revival in those days, after the Union of Brest6. The topic – of fundamental significance to the period in question, and combining history and culture – has been studied by scholars representing various research disciplines and methods, who examined both general and specific issues. It is worth mentioning the names of Polish specialists like i.a. Aleksander Naumow, Teresa Chynczewska-Hennel, Antoni Mironowicz, Tomasz Kempa, Marek Mel-nyk, Marzanna Kuczyńska, Andrzej Gil, Jan Stradomski, Przemysław Nowakowski, Marian Bendza, Włodzimierz Pilipowicz, Denys Pili-powicz, Andrzej Borkowski and Konrad Kuczara; Ukrainian scholars including Natalia Yakovenko, Ihor Skochylas, Ihor Isichenko, Larysa Dovha, Halyna Chuba; as well as scholars from other countries: Am-broise Jobert, Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, Ihor Shevchenko, Sofia Senyk, Boris Floria, Elena Bielakova Mikhail Dmitriev and Margarita Korzo et. al. An attempt to sum up the 16th-century revival movement was made by Borys A.Gudziak in his classic monograph, translated into several languages, Crisis and Reform: The Kievan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest (Harvard 1992, first edition). In it he presents the course of the reforms, first undertook in secular circles (by magnates, Orthodox confraternities) and then by Orthodox hierarchs (late 16th century). The reforms encompassed the organization of schools and seminaries, revival of reflected in printed sermons until the following century, a process that was not without disputes with the followers of the “holy” tradition, M.Kuczyńska, Ruska homiletyka XVII wieku w Rzeczypospolitej. Ewolucja gatunku – specyfika funkcjonalna, Szczecin 2004, p. 13. For more on the subject, cf. Chapter One, section Other works. 5 B.A. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma. Metropolia kijowska, patriarchat Konstantynopola igeneza unii brzeskiej, Lublin 2008; A. Gil, I. Skoczylas, Wiek XVI – kryzys, kultural no-religijna odnowa i inicjatywy unijne, [in:] Kościoły Wschodnie w państwie Polsko -Litewskim w procesie przemian i adaptacji: metropolia kijowska w latach 1458–1795, Lublin–Lw 2014, pp. 108–114. 6 Н. Яковенко, Нарис історії середньовічної та ранньомодерної України, видання трете, перероблене та розширене, Київ 2006, p. 286. synodal life, as well as writing, translating and editorial activities. The apogee of these actions, launched at the turn of the 17th century, came in the 1630s and 1640s. The process of change, resulting from the religious, educational and cultural work of Petro Mohyla and the scholarly-intellectual circles of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, has been studied by scholars in great detail, although there are, of course, still many topics requiring exploration or further study. The focus of the present book is the priests as key figures in the revival of the Orthodox Church as well as topics directly associated with them – the essence of the priestly ministry in the light of new requirements, and the rebuilding of the priestly ethos, authority and the dignity of the entire Ruthenian clergy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Reform efforts, focused on representatives of the clergy, were to bring about a growth in the religious-spiritual life not only of the priests but also of the faithful, and thus the entire Ruthenian community in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its Church. An important tool in the entire programme of reforms, including renewal of priesthood, was the printed book – Ruthenian printing houses produced books for schools, but, above all, they satisfied li-turgical needs, providing works which the priests were waiting for to be able to correctly celebrate the services, broaden their knowledge and advance their own and their parishioners’ spiritual life. The first chapter of the monograph deals with the sources of edu-cational material for priests and is an overview of the most important works published in the Kievan Metropolitanate with the reform of the clergy in mind. They include particularly functional books, standing out by virtue of their rich theological, ritual, disciplinary and moral content as well as illustrative material. In addition, the chapter focuses on auxiliary teachings within these printed works, teachings found in prefaces, poems, letters of dedication and afterwords. The inclusion of such optional material in a book guaranteed that the mes-sage would reach both the clergy and often also the secular reader looking for parenetic literature. The works presented in the chapter differ in terms of their provenance; they are translations or original works, known earlier from manuscripts or new, taking into account older and more recent traditions. In particular, I carry out a detailed analysis of those books which hitherto have not been studied by scholars or have been the sources for the study of issues discussed in the following chapters. In Chapters Two and Three I provide a reconstruction of the work of reformers from the Kievan Metropolitanate seeking to renew and mobilize the Orthodox clergy. I examine the thematic areas of fundamental significance to the renewal of priesthood, areas associated with moral theology, pastoral theology and liturgy. Chapter Two is devoted to formative works for the clergy disseminated by various individuals – the authors themselves, translators, publishers and patrons of printing. First of all, they promoted books dealing with priestly ordination, requirements to be met by presbyters and bishops, selection for the priesthood (control of the candidates’ intellectual potential, morality, degree of substantive preparation for the ministry), obstacles to ordination. These texts promoted the image of an ideal priest as a celebrant, minister of the sacraments, teacher, pastor and guide for the faithful. Significantly, the image was to be found not only in strictly religious works (e.g. nomocanons or hagiographies) but also in occasional literature, e.g. laudatory addresses or poems in honour of patrons. In this part of the book I also point to the considerable demand for all types of works supporting the work of priests and providing them with role models. I stress the clergy’s considerable familiarity with the new demands and expectations of their parishioners, who compared their ministers with those of other denominations, hoping that they would be able to equal them in theological debates or religious polemics. Chapter Three explores questions concerning the work of priests as servants of the altar, ministers of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This was one of the basic elements of the vocation of priests, guides of the parish community. In this respect I examine, first of all, the problem of appropriate preparation (i.e. spiritual, substantive, disciplinary and organizational) of celebrants for the Divine Service. This stemmed from an increase in the importance of liturgy in the Catholic Church after the Council of Trent, and in the Ruthenian Church in the 1590s, especially after the Union of Brest. Analyses show that the work of the Ruthenian reformers was a part of a broad context of religious and cultural changes taking place at the time in the Polish- -Lithuanian Commonwealth. The reformers saw the urgent need to introduce order into the Liturgy, which was not only an expression of theology, but also an important element of the cultural and then political identity of the religious community. The problems tackled in the present book have rarely been ex-plored by scholars, mainly those from other countries. In Poland virtually no research has been carried out in this field. Thus the book should fill the gap in the knowledge of the course and outcomes of Orthodox Church reforms in the Polish-Lithuanian state, and, above all, verify stereotypical ideas about the form and course of the re-forms. * * * In the case of old prints and their phototypical copies written in Cyrillic in spite of the variety and spelling or syntax inconsistencies of these sources, I leave the records as they appear in the original (i.a. си єстъ/сиєстъ/сієстъ, оц҃ꙋ/ѿцꙋ/ѿц҃ꙋ, єсть/єстъ). In the case of Polish- -language sources, according to today’s rules, I write the vowel y (as i or j) and o (). In the footnotes and bibliographies, the names of the authors (mostly monks) are given in full. I would like to thank Margarita Korzo, who provided me with access to her excerpts based on an old print of Vilnius: ΘΕΣΕΣ (1608) of Yosyf Velamin Rutskyi, Teaching on the Seven Sacraments (ca. 1618) and the preface to the Trebnyk (1621). On the Sources of Teachings for Priests Books as tools in the reform of the Eastern Church In the late Renaissance and in the Baroque periods complex his-torical and religious circumstances led to the merger in Ukrainian and Belarusian culture of the Byzantine-Slavic traditions with models of thinking with a classical and Renaissance heritage.1 This led to the emergence of a polymorphic and varied culture.2 This characteristic is reflected, for example, in the writings published in the analyzed period. For books were one of the most powerful tools of Church reform in the Kievan Metropolitanate. Its spread, made possible by the use of printing, preceded, by several decades, other initiatives which aimed at a renewal of the Orthodox Church and which would have failed without books3. They 1 G. Brogi Bercoff, Ruś, Ukraina, Ruthenia, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, Rzeczpospolita, Moskwa, Rosja, Europa Środkowowschodnia: o wielowarstwowości i polifunkcjonalizmie kulturowym, [in:] Contributi italiani al XIII Congresso Internazionale degli Slavisti (Ljubljana 15–21 agosto 2003), Ed. A. Alberti, M. Garzaniti, P. Garzonio, Pisa 2003, pp. 329–330 passim. 2 According to Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, this was one of the most important char-acteristics of this culture, which sometimes prevented it from being regarded as a distinct and comprehensive cultural system. Scholars would not look for its specific features, focusing instead on searching for analogies with the neighbouring cultures, Ibidem, p. 366. 3 B. Gudziak, Początki drukarstwa i reform w ruskiej Cerkwi, [in:] Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 159–175. included the development of the school system in the 1590s4 or the renewal of synodal life in the following decade.5 Printing in Cyrillic in the Polish-Lithuanian state began with an edition of four books, to be used in Orthodox churches, by Schweipolt Fiol from around 1491. Despite the fact that his was a for-profit print-ing enterprise,6 it can be assumed that those ordering the books from the Franconian master’s workshop had higher goals in mind.7 For these were books badly needed in parishes at the time.8 A refreshing religious spirit, elements of traditionalism combined with a breath of the Renaissance can be found several decades later in the writing, translation and publishing activities of Francysk Skary-na, a doctor of medicine.9 4 Cf. i.a. К.В. Харламповичъ,Западно-русскія православныя школы 16 и начала 17 вѣка,Казань 1898; Szkolnictwo prawosławne w Rzeczypospolitej, ed. A. Mironowicz, U. Pawluczuk, P. Chomik, Białystok 2002; Історія української культури уп‘яти томах, vol. 2, Київ 2001, pp. 531–591; vol. 3, Київ 2003, pp. 431–534. 5 For more on the synods in the 1590s, cf. А.И. Покровский, O соборах ЮгоЗападной Руси 15–17 веков, “Богословский вестник” 1906, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 126–129; О. Лотоцький, Українськi джерела…, pp. 115-120; Б.Н. Флоря, Епископы, православная знать и братства. Вопрос ореформе церкви в последние десятилетия XVI в., [in:] Брестская уния 1596г. и общественно-политическая борьба на Украине и в Белоруссии вконце XVI – начале XVII в., part 1: Брестская уния 1569 г. Исторические причины, Москва 1996, pp. 95–116; B.A. Gudziak, Metropolici i sobory, [in:] Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 111–116; І. Скочиляс, Галицька (Львівська) єпархія…, pp. 381–383. 6 Cf. A. Naumow, Teologiczny aspekt druku (na materiale najstarszych wydań cerkiew-nosłowiańskich), [in:] Najstarsze druki cerkiewnosłowiańskie i ich stosunek do tradycji rękopiśmiennej, ed. J. Rusek, W. Witkowski, A. Naumow, Krak 1993, p. 80. 7 Various hypotheses concerning people ordering books from Fiol are described by M. Wronkowska-Dimitrowa, Triod Kwietny z Krakowskiej Oficyny Szwajpolta Fiola (1491 r.): studium filologiczno-językowe pierwszego cyrylickiego triodu drukowanego, Bydgoszcz 2010, pp. 14–17. 8 What was also important was the fact that this was a set of books (Oktoechos, LentenTriodion and Pentecostarion, Orologion) containing changing services for the entire liturgical year, cf. Ibidem, pp. 16. 9 A. Naumow, Skoryna o słowie i piśmie,Skoryna o edukacji, [in:] Domus Divisa. Studianad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002, pp. 183–189, 191–200; Edem, Rusin na szlakach renesansowej Europy, [in:] Franciszek Skoryna z Połocka. Życie ipisma, transl. and ed. M. Walczak-Mikołajczakowa, A. Naumow, Gniezno 2007, pp. 9–36. In the post-Tridentine era, when the West presented a number of cultural challenges to the East in the multidenominational Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,10 Ruthenian printing was developed by Ivan Fiodorov (Fedorov). First under the patronage of Hryhorii Khodkevych in Zabłudów, then on his own initiative in Lviv and for Konstantyn Ostrogskyi, a patron of culture, in Ostroh. The printer believed that his efforts were a way to multiply the Biblical talent, a mission from God the goal of which was the Church’s spiritual growth.11 This was followed by the establishment of workshops of secular printers (e.g. the Mamonychs).12 Printing was part of educational and religious-spiritual reforms carried out by members of Orthodox confraternities (primarily in Lviv and Vilnius), bishops (e.g. Gedeon Balaban) and then, in the 17th century, in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. This was also when mobile printing presses were introduced. They belonged to both secular and religious figures, including Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi, one of the first Ruthenian reformers.13 We need to bear in mind that at the same time Ruthenians wrote and printed their works in Polish.14 10 B.A. Gudziak, Wyzwanie rzucone przez chrześcijański Zachód, [in:] Idem, Kryzys ireforma.Metropolia kijowska, patriarchat Konstantynopola i geneza unii brzeskiej, Lublin 2008, pp. 125–140. 11 Cf. A. Naumow, Teologiczny aspekt druku…, pp. 89–91. 12 Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki cyrylickie z oficyn Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI–XVIII wieku, Olsztyn 2003, pp. 59–79 (includes the literature on the subject). 13 For more on the output of printing houses at the time, cf. i.a. І. Огієнко,Iсторія українськогодрукарства, Львів 1925 (and many subsequent editions); A.Kawecka-Gryczowa, Drukarze dawnej Polskiod XV do XVIII wieku. part 5: Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, Wrocław–Kraków 1959; part 6: Małopolska – Ziemie ruskie, Wrocław-Kraków 1960; Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki cyrylickie zoficyn…; Prawosławne oficyny wydawnicze w Rzeczypospolitej, ed. A. Mironowicz, U.Pawluczuk, P. Chomik, Białystok 2004 et al. 14 In the first period of the Orthodox Church revival it was used primarily in po-lemical literature. Bercoff notes that the language was used also to publish re-ligious works like Sylvester Kossov’s Paterikon, which encompassed culturally significant testimonies to national awareness, G. Brogi Bercoff, Ruś, Ukraina, Ru-thenia…, p. 330. Significantly, according to the surviving evidence, already in the very first period of the development of printing there was a deep understanding of the importance of books in religious and cultural life in Ruthenia. One of the earliest and important examples in printed Ruthenian books is a preface to the bilingual (Church Slavonic and the prosta mova) Gospel published by Vasylii Tiapynskii (1570s). He was aware of the crisis and need for a religious revival in the Eastern Church in Poland-Lithuania.15 He criticized the hierarchs’ inertia, at the same time noticing the urgent need to educate the Ruthenian clergy, who were to carry out the much needed reforms.16 Similar intentions guided of the secular publisher of the first sluzhebyk.As we can read in the colophon of the 1583 Vilnius edition, he sought to prepare a correct version of the book and simultaneously re-move from the parish circulation those versions that contained errors: Ко очищенїю і ко исправленїю ненаоученыⷯ и неискꙋсныⷯ вꙿ разꙋмѣ книгописеⷰ. Кꙿ почести же і славѣ всѣⷯ съдѣтелѧ влⷣкы Ба҃ і Ѿца, Га҃ Іс҃ Ха҃ дабы во цр҃вкаⷯ Бж҃їиⷯ слꙋжащїи іерѣи по искꙋсныⷯ и ісправленыⷯ книгаⷯ слꙋжили і ѿправовали слⷤꙋбо дѣйство таинъ Хв҃ыⷯ, молбы и приношенїѧ и мл҃твы за Гд҃рѧ и за хр҃҃17 тоименитый нароⷣ вынꙋ же ко Бгꙋ приношали. His work was continued by another representative of a wellknown family of Vilnius printers, who explained that another edition of the sluzhebyk, from 1617 (featuring numerous useful additions for the celebrants!), had been published: “[…] въ славꙋ Бг҃ꙋ въ Тройци единомꙋ и на пожитокъ станꙋ сщ҃еническаго, ихъ бовѣмъ добро, наше добро.”18 The printing of liturgical books was, therefore, important both to the 15 О. Лотоцький, Українськi джерела…, pp. 30–31. 16 Василей Тяпинскіи, Зацной монархи словенской, а звлаща богобойным ласка и покой от Бога Отца и Пана нашего Ісуса Христа, [in:] Євангелие, ca 1570; a reprint of the preface and its facsimile, cf. Прадмовы і пасляслоуі пасляднікау Францыска Скарыни, ed. У.М. Мальдзіс, Мінск 1991, pp. 33–37, 141–146. 17 Quoted after: И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ книгъ, печатанныхъ кирриловскими буквами, vol. 1: Съ 1491 по 1652 г., Санктпетербург 1883, no. 106, p. 222 18 Леон Козмичъ Мамонич, Ꙗсне Вельможномꙋ Панꙋ єго млⷭти Панꙋ Леонови Сапезе [..] Великомꙋ цнотъ і наꙋкъ милосникови и патронови, [in:] Книга слꙋжебникъ, Вилно 1617, f. [3]. clergy and to the faithful in equal measure. The fate of the parishioners would depend on the spiritual and scholarly preparation of their priest for his ministry. There were many more declarations with a similar message in paratexts from the period. The involvement of the laity in the religious revival is confirmed also by letterssent to the Constantinople patriarchs Theoleptus and Jeremias II Tranos by members of the Lviv Dormition Confraternity. A letter from May 1586 features a vision of a poor Church, deprived of pastoral care, which can be saved by the organization of a con-fraternity school and printing house.19 Another letter, sent after the launch of cultural activity in the confraternity, included a request for church books (typicon, sluzhebnyk, trebnyk) and a Greek version of John Chrysostom’s homily commenting on St. Paul’s 14 Letters. The brotherhood members sought not only to publish these works but also to organize the ritual and liturgical practices in the Kievan Metropolitanate.20 A similar vision of books as weapons, sources for the strengthening of faith can be found in many paratexts. These include Herasym Smotrytskyi’s introductions (a preface in verse and a letter of dedication) to the Ostroh Bible.21 The motif recurred particularly frequently 19 The letter, cf. Confraternitas stauropigiana ad consultum Ioachimi patriarchae Antiochiae conqueritur per legatos suos coram Teolipto patriarcha constantinopolitano de misero statu suo, petit auxilium eius occasione renovationis ecclesiae et erectionis scholae atque typograhiae et proponit ei octoquaestiones spectantes ad doctrinam christianam, ut eos melius de hisce informet (Leopolis 28, maii 1586), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, Leopolis 1895, no. LXXXVI, pp. 138–140. 20 Confraternitas stauropigiana leopoliensis patriarchae Ieremiae varias petitiones et quaestiones proponit, (Leopolis c. 1591), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, vol. 1, p. 873. 21 As Herasym Smotrytskyi wrote, the Slavonic Bible was God’s gift to the East ern Church and the Ruthenian nation, enabling it to successfully defend itself against particularly intense attacks by heretics. It both texts he recommended it primarily as a weapon to be used in the defence of Orthodoxy and as a source of pure faith. The poem with the incipit Всякого чина православный читателю cf. e.g. H. Rothe, Die älteste ostslawische Kunstdichtung 1575–1647, Giessen 1976, pp. 4–6; Українська поезія кінець XVI – початок XVII ст., ed. В.П. Колосова, В.І. Крекотень, Київ 1978, pp. 62–65; preface, cf. Г. Смотрицкий, Предсловїе in homiletic collections22 (to be used in polemics against heretics!23) and in liturgical books. This way of perceiving books can be found, for example, in the preface to the 1616 Kievan Chasoslov – editio princeps from the Kiev Pe-chersk printing house. Explaining the motivation behind embarking on printing activity, its founder, Archimandrite Elisei Pletenetskyi wrote: […] мл҃ѣтеже Бг҃а вꙿ Трⷪци Єдинаго, да поспѣши(тъ) єже оумыслихоⷨⷨ Тѵпарꙿскимъ дѣломъ оугодити цр҃҃ квамъ православныⷨ ннѣшнее, и єже быти хощетъ начинанїє сѹдоу и исправленїю въсточныа Цр҃ кве предающе.24 In their prefaces and dedications hierarchs presented organization of printing workshops or involvement in publishing enterprises usually as part of the episcopal vocation, which also entailed the duty to found schools. Their own printing initiatives were described, for къ благовѣрному и православному всякого чина возраста же и сана читателеви (Библїа сирѣч книгы ветхаго и новаго завѣта, по языку словенску, Острог 1581); reprint of preface [in:] Архивъ Юго-Западной Росии, издаваемый Временною Комиссіею для разбора древнихъ актовъ, Высочайше учрежденную при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и Волынскомъ Генералъ-Губернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 8: Памятники литературной полемики православныхъ южно-руссовъ съ прoтестантами и латино-уніатами въ Юго-ЗападнойРуси за XVI и XVII ст., Кіевъ 1914, pp. 45–58; more recent edition Українська література XIV–XVI ст. Апокрифи. Агіографія. Паломницькі твори. Полемічні твори. Перекладні повісті. Поетичні твори,ed. В.Л. Микитась, Київ 1988, pp. 204–212. 22 E.g. in Mohyla’s preface to the Homiliary Gospel: “Тꙋт моцы валечного Самѱѡна достанете, которою всѣ непрїѧтелей Цр҃ ковных, геретицкїѣ навалности, штꙋрмы и всю превротнꙋю, а ꙗдомъ пекелнымъ наполненꙋю ѡныхъ наꙋкꙋ потлꙋмити и внѣвеч ѡбернꙋти можете”, Петръ Могила, Предмова до Чителника Осщ҃енного (Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанѧ на кождꙋю Нлⷣю и Свѧта оурочистыѣ, Киевъ 1637), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII в.в. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924, p. 324. 23 Cf. M.Kuczyńska, Aby nie byli jak krety w ciemności and Zamknij usta heretyku niewierny!, [in:] Eadem, Ruska homiletyka XVII wieku..., pp. 126–201, 202–283. 24 Єлїссей Плетенецкїй, Православномꙋ родꙋ Рѡссійскомꙋ, сыноⷨ Цр҃ кве Восточныа възлюбленнѣйшиⷨ дш҃есп҃сителнаго здравїа и бл҃годенствїа (Часословъ, Киевъ 1616), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 4. Cf. also Предъмова ѹказꙋючи, що за розꙋм замыкаетъ вꙿ собѣ таѧ книга, [in:] Ꙍхтаикъ, сирѣчъ ѡсмогласникъ, Дермань 1604, f. 11 (recto). example, by the Bishop of Lviv Gedeon Balaban,25 the later adminis trator of the diocese Arsenii Zheliborskyi26 and the Metropolitan of Kiev Petro Mohyla.27 Additional encouragement for users and readers came in the form of numerous praises of printing activities28 and, above all, books. 25 “Ꙗже всѧ азъ смиренный Гедїѡⷩ Болобанⷩ єпⷭпъ галиⷰкїй лвоⷡский и каменеⷰкїй еѯархъ ѳронꙋ константинопоⷧского видⷯѣ Цр҃҃҃го кви Бжїи быти зѣло потребна. Видѧ же и инѣхъ блчⷭтивыхъ и Хрⷭтолюбивыⷯ людей тщанїе творѧщихъ осщ҃енныхъ книгаⷯ въⷥревноваⷯ и ꙗкоже на прочиⷯ дѣло книгъ тѵпарскиⷨⷨ хꙋдожествомъ блгⷭвенїе имый ст҃ѣйшаго Мелетїѧ патрїѧрха Алеѯандрѣйскаго, мꙋжа иже на край внѣшнѧѧ мрⷣости, и бл҃гороⷣнаго нашего наказанїѧ достигшаго, ꙗко изрѧднаго кръмчїѧ къраблѧ Хв҃а. Сице и о сей книзѣ попеченїе имѣхъ събравши на дѣло се людей искꙋсныⷯ вꙿ хꙋдожествѣ томъ, повелѣхъ изслѣдовати и на многих мѣстѣхъ исправити єѧ. Приложивши и свѣдителства ѿ бжⷭⷭтвенныхъ писанїй въ общꙋю поⷧзꙋ велико именитомꙋ росїйскомꙋ родꙋ з дрꙋкарьнѣ своее крилоское властнымъ коштомъ и накладомъ своимъ изъдати потщахъсѧ”, Гедеѡнъ Болобанъ, Предисловїе въ книгꙋ сію, [in:] Еѵⷢлїе Ꙋчительное…, Крилосъ 1606, f. [3v]. 26 “Таѧ [милость] а не што иншее и мою покорность побꙋдила, абымъ, ведле поволанѧ и повинности моеѣ Єпⷭкопскоѣ, оуслꙋговал и выгажалъ ближнимъ моѣмъ […] выдаваніемъ Тѵпомъ на свѣтъ Книгъ, слꙋженїю вашемꙋ належныхъ и потребныⷯ”, Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ ҃ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цркве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ, Превелебнымꙿ Архимандрітѡмъ, Игꙋменомъ, Велебнымъ Протопопѡмъ, Сщ҃енникѡⷨ, Дїаконѡⷨ, и всемꙋ ос҃ щенномꙋ Клирови, Возлюбленнымъ сослꙋжителемъ и Братїй, Блⷭⷭвенства ѿ Ха҃ Ба҃҃твахъ моихъ Архїерейскиⷯ, оупрійме зычꙋ, [in:] Леітꙋргіаріон си , при млєстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1646, f. 3v. 27 “З дарованⷩоѣ мнѣ ѿ Ха҃ Спⷭтелѧ и єго належитых настꙋпниковъ свѣтлости Архїерейского Санꙋ, ꙗко тыж и с повинⷩости оучителскоѣ преⷣ себе взѧлем Зверцало наꙋки Православноѣ, Еѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное Ст҃го Каллиста, негды Ст҃ѣйшого Архїєпⷭпа Константїнополскогѡ […] исправивши Рꙋскиⷨ дїалектомꙿ, з Тѵпографїѣ нш҃еѣ Печерскоѣ выдати”, Петръ Могила, Бл҃городномꙋ и бл҃гочестивомꙋ Єго Млⷭти Панꙋ Ѳеодѡрꙋ Проскорѣ-Сꙋщанскомꙋ писареви земскомꙋ воевоⷣⷣства Кіевского, (Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Киевъ 1637), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 331. 28 E.g. a comparison of a printing house to a granary, thanks to which Archimandrite Yosyf Tryzna was able to feed people like his Biblical namesake, who had given bread to the Egyptians, cf. “Іосифъ зоставши вꙿ Єгѵптѣ Паноⷨ, ѡтвираетꙿ наполненые Житници, абы кормилъ Хлѣбоⷨ телесныⷨ людъ лакнꙋчый ꙗкъ читаемѡ вꙿ Книгаⷯ Бытейскиⷯ. И наⷨ Іосифе блгⷣтїю Бж҃їею, зоставши въ С(вѧтой) Великой и Чꙋдотвоⷬной Лаврѣ Печерской Кіевской, намъ Ѿцемъ и Пастыремъ, откриваешъ Литералнꙋю Житницꙋ, Типографію мовлю тꙋтейшꙋю, абыⷭ кормилъ з ней Хлѣбоⷨ Дш҃евныⷨ, лакнꙋчыхъ Сыновъ Цр҃кви Православнорѡссійскїѧ”, Новоизбранномꙋ Высоце Превелебномꙋ, Єгѡ Млⷭти Гдⷭнꙋ Ѿцꙋ Іѡсифꙋ Трызнѣ, з ласки Бж҃ей С(вѧтой) Великїѧ и Чꙋдотворныѧ Лаѵры Кїево Their apologia is a topos to be found in prefaces and dedications from the period, providing a reason for purchasing and using them appropriately, i.e. in accordance with their purpose.29 Obviously, books from the period also contained critical remarks about the condition of the Ruthenian clergy30; in this context the print-ing of books was to be seen as a remedy: “Внетъ с книги той кождый справитисѧ можетъ, И до полѣпшенѧ сѧ Бг҃ъ мꙋ допоможетъ.”31 Thus printing was an instrument of reform of the clergy encompassing their intellectual, pastoral and moral formation as well as disciplinary and organizational order. Печерскїѧ, Архїмандритови ѿ Бг҃а дарованномꙋ нам Ѿцꙋ и Пастыреви (Тріѡдіон сиестъ Трїпѣснецъ, Киевъ 1648), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 347. 29 An example can be the preface to the 1624 Vilnius Trebnyk, in which we can read that this liturgical book is like the “eyes and hands of a priest”. Other paratexts referred to books as a salvific source, eternally green olive, fragrant Garden of Eden. The most common were traditional terms indicating the value of books, terms like gift, treasure, byssus, pearl and gold. The praises are discussed with paratexts from the Oktoikhs given as examples by A.Z. Nowak, “Co za rozum zamyka w sobie ta księga”. Rama wydawnicza druków cerkiewnych jako źródło wiedzy oksiędze, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 7: Dawna cyrylicka księga drukowa na: twórcy i czytelnicy, 2016, pp. 187–189. 30 Examples, cf. Chapters Two and Three. 31 [Гавриїл Дорофієвич], Къ честнымъ презвѵтерѡмъ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ Міхаилъ . also,Лвовъ1614,f. [29v];cf҃ Сліоска, Чителникови побожномꙋ и ласкавомꙋ тѵпографъ, при добромъ здорови ласки и блⷭⷭвенства Бж҃ого оупрейме зычитъ, [in:] Октѡихъ сирѣчъ Ѡсмогласникъ, Лвовъ 1640, ff. 3v-4; Захарїа Копистенскїй, Преѡсщ҃еныⷨ Архїепⷭпѡⷨ, и Митрополітѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезныⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, Прпⷣбнѣйшиⷨ Архїмаⷩдритѡⷨ, Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ Игꙋменѡмъ, Прпⷣбнымъ Іеромонахѡⷨ, Прчⷭстнымꙿ Протопопѡⷨ, Чтⷭнымъ Іереѡмъ, Православныⷨ Ст҃ыѧ Собѡрныѧ Апⷭльскїа Восточныѧ Цр҃҃ кве сꙋщымъ поклонникѡмъ и Честителеⷨ, дшъ же члчⷭкихъ истинныⷨ пастырѡмꙿ и таинъ строителемꙿ, здравїа и бл҃годенствїа (Номоканонъ, Киевъ 1624), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 106. Teachings for the clergy in religious books A vast majority of printed books from the 16th–early 18th centuries were religious in nature. In this category liturgical books made up the most important and, if various prayer books were to be counted, also the most numerous group.32 Some of them were intended exclusively for the clergy, which is why the paratextual material included in them was addressed mainly to representative of this particular group. Significantly, it would seem, even letters of dedication, which were addressed to a specific secular patron, contained material that was valuable primarily to the clergy (I write more about this below). This clear tendency stemmed from the belief of the authors, publishers, editors and often printers themselves in the effectiveness of education through the distribution of appropriate books. They can be divided into separate instructions added to the main text of a book33 as well as those in the form of prefaces, letters of dedication or afterwords. An example of an additional introductory article in a liturgical book is Basil the Great’s instruction for yereis entitled Иже въ Ст҃ыⷯ Оц҃а нш҃еⷢ Васілїа Великаго, архієпⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа поꙋченїє къ іереѡмъ, incipit: Вънемли себѣ ѡ Іерею. It concerned the ministry of the altar and appeared in numerous printed liturgiarions of the Kievan Metropolitanate until the mid-17th century before the mass section, 32 They include a vast majority of the items and copies preserved in Polish and not only Polish libraries, M. Błońska, Polonica cyrylickie XVI–XVIII wieku, [in:] Z badań nad dawną książką. Studia ofiarowane profesor Alodii Kaweckiej-Gryczowej w 85-lecie urodzin, part 2, Warszawa 1993, p. 476. 33 About admonition added to confession in two editions of the 17th century Vil-nius Poluustavcf. М.А Корзо, История одного текста. Поучение об исповеди всоставе виленских ПолууставовXVII в., “Studi Slavistici” XIII, (2016), pp. 43– 57, ; about new added gospel readings in printed tetragospels cf. also J. Ostapczuk, Ewangelie czytane na wszelką potrzebę, różnorodne w cyrylickich starych drukach tetraewangelii, [in:] Zbrojne i ideologiczne konflikty w dawnym piśmiennictwie Słowian i ich echa w nowszej kulturze (Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 11), ed. M. Kuczyńska, J. Stradomski, Krak 2015, pp. 105–120. immediately after the preface(s). The text was printed for the first time in the Venetian Sluzhebnyk of 1519,34 and then in the first Ruthenian editions of the book prepared in Vilnius in 1583 and around 1598 in the Mamonych printing house.35 In the 17th century it was included in editions of the book published in Stratyn (the Balaban printing house) in 1604,36 Kiev, on Elisei Pletentskyi’s initiative, in 1620,37 in Vilnius, in the printing house of the Holy Spirit Confraternity,38 in Lviv in 1637 in an edition prepared by Mykhailo Slozka39 and in sluzhebnyks from Vievis/Vilnius of 1638 and 1641.40 The subsequent editions of the sluzhebnyks did not feature the instruction, but it did appear outside the Kievan Metropolitanate in the printed Moscow Sluzhebnyk (1640).41 It was a translation into Church Slavonic of St. Basil’s Canon 93 On Divine Grace,42 probably based on an earlier Slavonic source. The form of the canon resembled the oldest ecclesiastical norms transmitted as moral teachings. The instruction was circulated in Ruthenia land in manuscript form; it was part, for example, of the kormchaia books.43 Basil’s precepts from Canon 93 concern responsible celebration of the Eucharist as well as good preparation of the celebrant for the ministry of the altar. They also contain a manual referring to disciplinary (behaviour and actions of the priest celebrating the Mass) and organizational problems (proper conduct of the service), mainly proper conduct in unexpected situations during the liturgy. The popularity of Canon 9344 among the publishers of sluzhebnyks was certainly motivated by many factors. First of all, this canon law 34 Cf. И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 15. 35 Mamonych probably printed the book also for the Orthodox in the Balkans, tak- ing as his model the Venetian editions, as is evidenced by the borrowed decora- tions, cf. Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki…, p. 67. A description of the books, cf. И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 106, 156. 36 Божествъныѧ лѵⷮргїѧ, Стрꙗтiнъ 1604; pp. 5–8 (first pagination). 37 Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620, ff. [4-5v]. 38 Служебникъ или устав литургии, Вилно 1624, ff. [2-3]; cf. Кніга Беларусі 1517– 1917. Зводный каталог, ed. Г.Я. Галенчанка et al., Мінск 1986, no. 102. 39 Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1637, ff. 1-2. 40 Устав Бж҃ественныя литургїя, cf. И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ книгъ…, no. 512; Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…, no. 130, 138. 41 О. Лотоцький, Українськi джерела..., p. 40. 42 Title: Sermo ob sacerdotum instructionem (PG 31: 1685–1668). 43 For more on the circulation of the book and its provenance, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Mate riały opcjonalne drukowanego służebnika (w świetle wybranych przykładów z metropolii kijowskiej, XVI–XVII w.), “Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne” 14, 2018 (forthcoming). text was supported by the authority of Basil the Great. Secondly, a considerable role must have also been played by the simple form of the instruction, appealing to a wide audience, and by the significance of its subject matter. In printed sluzhebnyks the instruction always preceded the mass section, and in those featuring a preface, the instruction followed it. If there were no other texts accompanying a book (as in the books printed by the Holy Spirit Confraternity in 1624, 1638 and 1641), the teaching became especially important, as it served as an introduction to the liturgical part of the book. The first book of legal nature, or, in fact, a collection of various texts put together under the title Ѿ правил СтѾць заповѣди различны, was added by Gedeon Balaban to the final part of the Stratyn Trebnyk of 1606.45 The work, functioning without an established name in academia,46 and described by Aleksy Pavlov as the Nomocanon of Pseudo-Zonaras47 had been known in Slavonic translations since the 14th century; it was popular in the Balkans in the 44 That the instruction functioned as popular teaching for the clergy is evidenced by a quote from it in a fragment of a polemical work discussing the correct cel-ebration of the liturgy, cf. Вопросы и отвѣты православному зъ папежникомъ(1603), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 7: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 2, Санктпетербургъ 1882, col. 82 [further RIB 7]. 45 Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606, ff. 633-681v. The main body of the Trebnyk contains two other additional texts concerning disciplinary and ritual matters: Въслѣдованіє исходноє ѿ ѿвѣтовъ ст҃ѣйшаго патрїархи, гдⷭіна Ѳеѡдора (f. 228) regulating the burial of Christian bodies in churches and Іоанна Ст҃ѣйшаго Єпⷭпа Китрошьскаго къ сщ҃еннѣйшемѹ єпⷭпоу драчьскомꙋ Кавасилѣ. Ѡ раздрѣшенїи брашенъ въ прѣданныхъ седмицахъ, и которыи сїа (ff.628-632v) concerning the rules of fasting. 46 Е.В. Белякова, О составе Хлудовского Номоканона: К истории сборника “Зинар”, “Старобългарска литература” 37–38, 2007, p. 114. 47 А. Павловъ, Номоканонъ при Большомъ Требникѣ, Москва 1897, p. 42 онѡсныхъСтыхъАпⷭлъ,ибг҃ ҃҃ ых 14th–15th centuries, and then appeared in printed trebnyks in Serbia in 1531, in Tîrgovişte, Wallachia in 154548 and in Mileševa Monastery in 1546.49 It usually comprised 149 or 151 rules; the most popular edition in Ruthenia had 200 rules, although there were also versions without numeration.50 The southern and eastern Slavs described this collection of rules as Zonar or Zynar after the name of a well-known commentator on Orthodox rules, John Zonaras (11th century).51 In Kievan Metropolitanate the collection was known as Zynar with God. The Rulesof the Holy Fathers and Apostles on Bishops, Monks and Lay People.52 Thus Balaban used a work known in manuscript form and printed earlier several times,53 and when explaining his decision to add it to the printed Trebnyk, he stressed the clergy’s demand for canonical books: “А понеже не оу всѣхъ сщ҃енниковъ правила обрѣтаютсѧ, сего ради нꙋжнѣйшаѧ ѿ апⷭтолскихъ и Cт҃ыхъ Ѿцъ заповѣдей избравше приложихомъ на концы книги сеѧ”.54 48 Я.Н. Щапов, Некоторые юридические и канонические памятники в славянской письменности XII–XV вв., [in:] Методическое пособие по отношению славянорусских рукописей для Сводного каталога рукописей, хранящихсяв СССР, vol. 1, Москва 1973, p. 268.49 А. Павловъ, Номоканонъ..., p. 42, fn. 4. 50 A similar work, expanded to 547 chapters, was published in a bilingual edition (Greek and Latin) by Johannes Baptista Cotelerius in: Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta, vol. 1, Paris 1677, pp. 68–158; after А. Павловъ, Номоканонъ..., p. 40. The Parisian edition is available in the form of a free e-book from Google Play. The nomocanon was very popular among the Old Ritualists and was found in their books often with Matthew Blastares’ Syntagma, Я.Н. Щапов, Некоторые…, p. 269. 51 А. Павловъ, Номоканонъ..., p. 42; Я.Н. Щапов, Некоторые…, p. 269. 52 Я.Н. Щапов, Некоторые…, p. 269; cf. also Е.В. Белякова,О составе Хлудов ского…, p. 116. The most recent analysis of the book, cf. Е.В. Белякова, Издание памятников каноническoго права в XVI–XVII вв. и использование канонов в московских печатних изданиях, [in:] Е.В. Белякова, Л.І. Мошкова, Т.А.Опарина, Кормчая книга: от рукописной традиции к первому печатному изданию, Москва–Санкт-Петербург 2017, pp. 144–148. 53 Its popularity is evidenced not only by the existence of manuscript copies, but also by the fact that Ruthenian works from the period referred to its precepts, examples cf. А. Павловъ, Номоканонъ..., p. 43, fn. 2. 54 Гедеѡнъ Балабанъ, Предословїє въ книгоу сїю, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ…, Стрѧтинъ 1606, f. 8. The work opened with articles concerning celebrations and dis-cussing the most important festivities of the liturgical year as well as appropriate, Christian ways of celebrating them with prayer, pious singing and incense, not with feasts and dancing. Several articles known from kormchaia books contained instructions concerning the way of establishing the degree of kinship, rules of administering the sacrament of marriage and confessional practice for women. Knowledge about the moral formation of priests could be found in an article entitled Заповѣди о іереѡхъ (675v-678v),55 although some remarks about the matter were spread throughout the nomocanon.56 It is thus worth stressing that this was the first collection printed in the Kievan Metropolitanate of penitential and Orthodox liturgical rules applying to the teaching, confessional and, to some extent, liturgical activities of priests. Three articles, slightly changed in linguistic terms and similar in their content to those included in the Stratyn Trebnyk, were added to the Vilnius editions of this liturgical book published by the monks from the Holy Spirit Monastery in Vilnius in 1621 and 1624, and then in Vievis in 1638 and 1641.57 Another edition published by the confraternity in 1697 no longer featured the texts.58 55 This is the title from the table of contents; in the main body of the Trebnyk it reads O іереѡхъ заповѣди (incipit “Ꙗко подобаєтъ єпⷭпꙋ мала и велика поꙋчити”). 56 Cf. e.g. the fragment with a list of priestly sins resembling the episcopal instruction for the clergy, ff. 636–637. Fragments in the original language and a translation into Polish, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Reforma duchowieństwa wschodniego w Rzeczypospolitej w świetle ogólnego programu odnowy Kościoła, [in:] Między Wschodem iZachodem..., pp. 177–178. 57 Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…, no. 97, 102, 132, 139. The edition was more organized, e.g. the article Иныя заповѣди іереомъ, which in the Stratyn version ap-pears suddenly without a title after the article on holidays, is clearly marked here. Changes introduced into the confraternity version suggest that it was most likely not inspired by the Stratyn Trebnyk or that the editor also had other source of the nomocanon at his disposal. 58 The catalogue does not list them among the contents of the edition, cf. Ibidem, no. 179. Teaching for Yereis Greatly Needed for Appropriate Celebration of Di-vine Service (Наѹка іереомъ до порѧдного ѿправованѧ Слꙋжбы Бж҃ое велце потребнаѧ) was printed by Leon Mamonych in the Vilnius Sluzhebnyk (Книга слꙋжебникъ) of 1617. Scholars attribute the authorship of the work to Yozafat Kuntsevych and Leon Kreuza Rzevuskii, who were involved in the preparation of the liturgiarion, intended for the Uniates, although not Catholic in its content.59 It is to be found in the in- troductory part of the book, directly following the letter of dedication from the printer to Leon Sapieha, and preceding the mass part. Such a text had not been previously found in Greek60 or Ruthenian books; it thus was the first such an extensive instruction, important to the celebrant, with liturgical contents hitherto spread among various, primarily manuscript works.61 The text dealt with the right preparation, 59 The Sluzhebnyk in question is similar to the one published by Gedeon Balaban in 1604 in Stratyn; in this case, too, the editors may have modelled their edi tion on the first Venetian edition of the liturgiarions, П. Ґаладза, Літургічне питання ірозвиток богослужень напередодні берестейської унії аж до кінця XVII століття, [in:] Берестейська унія та внутрішне життяЦеркви в XVII століттi. Матеріали Четвертих “Берестейських читань”, Львів, Луцьк, Київ, 2–6 жовтня 1995 р.,ed. Б. Ґудзяк, О. Турій, Львів 1997, p. 12. 60 А. Петровский, “Учителное извѣстіе” при славянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 235, part 2, p. 553. 61 E.g. in hierarchs’ letters, works concerned with religious instruction, some of which found their way into a kormchaia book or an euchologion; examples from the Ruthenian Middle Ages include Іоана, митрополита руськаго, нaреченаго пророкомъ Христовымъ, написавшаго правила церковная отъ святыхъ книгъ въ кратцѣ Якову черноризьцю; Вопросы Кирика, Саввы и Иліи, съ отвѣтами Нифонта, епископа новгородскаго, и другихъ іерархическихъ лицъ (1130–1156); especially Постановленіе Ильи, архіепископа новгородскаго, и неизвѣстнаго бѣлозерскаго епископа по двумъ случаямъ при совершеніи литургіи (1164–1168), Отвѣты константинопольскаго патріаршаго собора на вопросы сарайскаго епископа Теогноста (1276); Кипріан, Смѣреннаго митрополита Киевскаго ивсея Руси отвѣтъ ко Афанасію, въпросившему о нѣкоихъ потребныхъ вещѣхъ (1390–1405). The works were published in Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880 [further RIB 6]. For more on Rus’ texts in kormchaia books, see Я.Н. Щапов, Византийское и южнославянское правовое наследие на Руси XI–XIII вв., Москва 1978, pp. 170–205. proper celebration and behaviour after the end of Divine Service. In addition to moral and dogmatic instructions, it contains advice and guidelines on how a priest should behave when he makes a mistake and in other emergency situations that could occur before, during and after the mass. According to Petro Galadza, it was influenced by similar works included in liturgical books by the Latins.62 Despite the fact that we can discern here influences of Catholic moral theology and rubrics of the Catholic missal, there is no content that would be a novelty in the Byzantine-Slavonic rite. Moreover, its presence in the Sluzhebnyk, according to the scholar in question, is the only mark of the “Catho-lic nature” of the edition.63 The work is important from the pastoral point of view, because it is one of the first attempts (among printed books) to organize the liturgical and sacramental practices and for priests responsible for this order, so important in communing with the sacred. The instruction must have been very helpful in celebrating the liturgy, addressed as it was to a wide group of priests without any theological education64. The Teaching for Yereis was not reprinted in the subsequent editions of the sluzhebnyks, but its impact, especially on the Mohylan liturgicalbooks, seems undeniable. Like the first edition of 1629, so too in the second edition of Petro Mohyla’s Liturgiarion (1639) some of the material corresponding to the commentary from the teachings found its way into liturgical rubrics. This was an expression of the same pastoral concern for order and dignified celebration of the Eucharist that guided the authors of the Vilnius instruction. We can follow this, using selected examples. The “teaching” from the Vilnius Sluzhebnykfeatured a precept concerning the custom of adding warm water (Greek zeon) to the chalice with wine: “Часꙋ проскомидіи теж має(тъ) сѧ мало барзо толко кроплю до вина оуливати воды и по смѣшенїю тѣла Хв҃а сꙿ кровью тежъ барзо троха теплоє воды а не зиⷨноє”,65 but the text of John Chrysostom’s liturgy does not contain any advise about the quantity of the water.66 On the other hand, the Kievan liturgiarions do not include the “teaching for yereis” in question, but the rubrics in some parts of the book are very extensive: 62 П. Ґаладза, Літургічне…, p. 9. 63 Ibidem, p. 11. 64 Ibidem, p. 10; М.М. Соловій,Божественна літургія, історія – розвиток – пояс нення, Львів 1999, pp. 72–74. И єгда растворѧеши ст҃ымъ Ꙋкропцемъ Бжⷭтъвнꙋю Кръвь Вл҃дчню, тогда да вливаеши съ раⷥⷥсмотренїєм, єликѡ быти доволнѡ всѣм Причаститисѧ хотѧщиⷨ. Такожⷣе и ѿ Вина и Воды, єгда прободаєши С(вѧтий) Агнецъ, тогда да вливаеши толикѡ, єликѡ быти доволнѡ всѣⷨ, Вина обаче нежели Воды множає, ꙗкож быти три части вина єдина же воды, то и съ ѡкропцеⷨ. Послѣдиже никакоже ничесоже да не вливаєш(и), но точїю ѿ растворенїа єдиною єже на Ст҃аѧ Ст҃ымъ. И такѡ Причащай всѣхъ ѿ сихꙿ.67 The metropolitan also fulfilled Leon Sapieha’s desire for the teaching to be included in the Trebnyk. In the light of the information included in Leon Mamonych’s dedication from the Liturgiarion, this was not yet possible in 1617, although the work was included in the plans for forthcoming publications. Hence Sapieha’s decision not to wait for the printing of the Trebnyk (which happened one year later) and include the teaching in the Sluzhebnyk. Mohyla appreciated the work, for he added a similar but consid erably expanded version in the first part of the 1646 Trebnyk. Petro Mohyla’s Eucharistic articles composed largely under the influence of these teaching were included in the section entitled On the Sacred and Most Wondrous Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ѡ Прⷭтой и Предивной Тайнѣ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃а Бг҃а и Сп҃са нашего Іи҃с Ха҃).68 65 Further on the commentary features a ban on adding water during the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, cf. Наоука іереомъ..., [in:] Книга слꙋжебникъ, Вилно 1617, f. [15v]. 66 The fragment concerning the zeon, cf. Книга слꙋжебникъ, Вилно 1617, pp. 109–111 (first pagination). 67 Леітꙋргїарїон си єстъ Слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1629, p. 80 (second pagination). 68 Ѡ Прⷭтой и Предивной Тайнѣ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃а Бг҃а и Сп҃са нашего Іи҃с Ха҃, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646, pp. 217–270. The composition of the Vilnius and the Kiev commentaries is sim-ilar. Both are preceded by short introductions listing the conditions for the celebration of the liturgy and then are divided into a number of chapters with separate titles. The metropolitan’s version contains additional subchapters, which must have been intended as a way to facilitate orientation in the vast text and content search. Reading was supported by a table of contents taking into account all distinguished parts. The chapter concerning the spiritual and disciplinary conditions which should be met by a priest before undertaking the ministry of the altar is preceded with a short title Пред служеньєм, in the Sluzhebnyk (ff. [9-14]), and an extensive one in the Euchologion.69 Part two of Mohyla’s article Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже вꙿ самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ (pp. 229-251), divided into smaller sections,70 dealing primarily with unexpected situations priests may encounter during the liturgy, corresponds to three chapters of the Teaching: Вꙿ слꙋженїи (ff. [7v-10v]), Ѡ матерїи тайны тѣла и крови Хв҃ы, ꙗкаа має(тъ) быти (ff. [12v-15v]), Ѡ формѣ (ff. [16-18v]).They contain detailed disciplinary information about liturgical practice with an indication of the mandatory proce-dure to be applied if a given situation occurs. The section closes with a brief commentary on the post-liturgical time,71 ending with material for which an analogy can be found in the two analyzed works. 69 Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней, и ѡ єже како подобаетъ семꙋ предъ оуготовлѧти себе къ достойномꙋ слꙋженїю Бжⷭтвенныѧ Литꙋргїѧ, и Причащенїю Бжⷭтвенныхъ Хв҃ыхъ Таинъ (pp. 219-228). 70 Cf. Ѡ матеріи сієстъ вещи таинѣ Тѣла и Крве Хв҃ой (pp. 235–238); Ѡ формѣ сієстъ ѡ образѣ, или съвершенїи Тѣла и Крве Хв҃ой (pp. 238–239) in which the matter and form of the sacrament are discussed separately; Ѡ слꙋчаѧхъ въ слꙋженіи Бжⷭтвенныѧ Литꙋргїи приключитисѧ могꙋщиⷯ, сице ѿ части Матерїи, сієстъ вещи, ꙗкоже и Формы, сієстъ образа или съвершенїѧ, ꙗкоже и самагѡ слꙋжителѧ, сієстъ сщ҃енника (pp. 239– 251) concerning the order of the liturgy as well as irregularities associated with its matter (pp. 242–243), form (pp. 243–244) and celebrant (pp. 245–251).71 Што маєть по слꙋженїи чинити (Vilno, ff. [10v-12v]) and Ѡ єже что долженъ єстъ іереѵ по съвершенїи Бжⷭтвенныѧ Литꙋргїи творити (Kiev, pp. 251–252). The Eucharistic section of the Euchologion contains parts with separate titles,72 dealing with, for example, preferred preparation of the church for the service, behaviour of the priest and the servers as well as appropriate storage of sacrificial gifts, especially for the sick, and their administration. The differences also concern some of the contents.73 Both works were appreciated, as is evidenced by the popularity of the Mohylan version in particular. Its abbreviated version was reprinted in Orthodox as well as Uniate trebnyks in the 17th–18th centuries. An instruction with the same title as in the Mohylan book but much shorter (eleven pages) can be found in the Lviv Euchologions of 1668, 1682, 1688, 1695 (ff. 49-54) and 1719.74 The table of contents features the Lviv instruction with a title identical to that of the Mohylan version, but is accompanied by an additional subtitle from the first part of the commentary (Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители…). This corresponds to the content of the text in the Lviv version, for it is a reprint of the introduction, with the last sentence being moved to the end,75 and an abbreviated version of the first article.Thus what 72 Ѡ нѣкіихъ исправленіѧхъ въ слꙋженїи Преждесвѧщенныѧ Слꙋжбы (p. 253), Ѡ подаꙗніи, пріꙗті и храненіи и достодолжной чⷭсти, и бг҃олѣпномꙿ поклоненїи Бжⷭтвеннагѡ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (pp. 254–270). 73 For more on the differences between the Vilnius and Kiev versions, and the text added to the Moscow sluzhebnyks from the 18th century onwards, cf. А.Петровский, “Учителное извѣстіе” при славянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 235, part 2. Examples of differences concerning the use of liturgical altar cloths, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Materiały niekonieczne w księgach liturgicznych: objaśnienia dla kapłanów na przykładzieantimensionu, [in:] O miejsce książki whistorii sztuki, ed. A. Gronek, Kraków 2015, pp. 163–168. 74 In the 18th century the Kiev Euchologions, too, contained this abbreviated version, cf. e.g. Єѵхологіѡн, или требникъ, Киевъ 1750, ff. 76v-80 () (20 April 2016). This confirmsArkadii Zhukovskyi’s findingswhereas the 1646 Euchologionwas popular especially in western Ukraine, А. Жуковський, АналізаТребникаПетраМогили, [in:] ТребникПетраМогили (reprint), Canberra-Munchen-Paris 1988, pp. 35–37. 75 The logic of the changes introduced in the text demanded a move to the end of the formula urging the addressee to follow the instruction: “Внимателнѡ оубѡ и часто сіѧ прочти и опаснѡ съблюди”, (f. 54). has been preserved are the elements concerning primarily spiritual preparation of the celebrant for the liturgy and indicating possible obstacles to its celebration. The Uniates, too, printed an abbreviated version of the Euchologion for a long time, and the Pochaiv editions of 1741 and 1752 reprint the rites and commentaries included in it almost in their entirety.76 The Mohylan liturgical commentaries were referred to in Dmytro Tuptalo’s instructions. They were published only in 1824 in Kiev.77 The Rostov Metropolitan drew on the Euchologion, referring to its part corresponded to the thematic content of the Vilnius Teaching, and on the remaining commentaries, e.g. those concerning the storage of the Agnets for the sick or keeping the church clean. On numerous occasions he would refer the addressees of his instructions to the Mohylan source to expand their knowledge or see that what he was teaching was true.78 An extensive version of the “instruction” in question survived in a slightly changed form not only thanks to trebnyks but also titled: Извѣстїє Оучителное, како долженствꙋєтъ іерей и дїаконъ слꙋженїє въ 76 А. Жуковський, Аналіза Требника Петра Могили..., pp. 35–36; the links between the Uniate Pochaiv and Lviv trebnyks in the 18th century, and Mohyla’s Trebnykis discussed by А. Хойнацкий, Западнорусская церковная унія въ ея богослуженіи и обрядахъ, Кіевъ 1871, pp. 222–234. 18th-century Kiev Trebnyks were also in-creasingly influenced by the Russian Orthdox Church and local practice, as is illustrated by the Kiev edition of 1721. 77 The first volume contained three texts dealing with the preparation of yereis for the liturgy: Митрополітъ Ростовскїй и Ꙗрославскїй честнымъ Іереомъ, по всѣхъ паствы нашеѧ градѣхъ и весѣхъ сꙋщымъ, благословеніе и миръ ѿ Гд҃а нашего Іи҃са Хрⷭта (О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю); Второє прїꙋготовленїє. В началѣ пред причащенїємъ да предидꙋтъ троє сїє: Вѣра, Надежда, Любовь; Третїє прїꙋготовленїє [Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю] [in:] Сочиненїя Святаго Димитрїа митрополіта Ростовскаго, vol. 1: Содержащая въ себѣ разныя небольшыя сего Святителя творенїя, съ присовокупленїемъ житїя єго и келейныхъ записокъ, Киев 1824, pp. 130–141. 78 Cf. e.g. “Прочее же каково ѿ всѣхъ почитанїє пречистымъ тайнамъ Хрⷭтовымъ имать быти творимо, да зритъ всѧкъ іерей въ великомъ требникѣ Кієвскомъ въ части 1, листъ 266, и иже потомъ. И частѣ тамѡ да прочитаєтъ, и наставлѧєтсѧ самъ, и инѣхъ поꙋчаєтъ”, Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю, pp. 132–133. Цр҃҃҃ кви Стѣй совершати, и приꙋготовлѧтисѧ ко сщеннодѣйствꙋ, найпаче къ бж҃ественнѣй лїтꙋргіи: и каковіи бываютъ бѣдственнїи и недоꙋмѣннїи слꙋчаи, и какѡ въ томъ въ скорости исправлѧтисѧ, предложисѧ въ кратцѣ as a part of other Orthodox church books. It found its way into many 18th-century Kiev editions, for example Правило къ бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю of 1746, 1760 and 1764.79 The Moscow, slightly changed, version of the work was also included in the sluzhebnyks printed there throughout the 18th century; there is even a known Serbian edition, though it comes from the 20th century.80 Modern editions of Orthodox Sluzhebnyks contain a similar instruction appearing as Навчальні відомості.81 The text was also apparently a model for Metropolitan Ilarion (1882–1972), who compiled a guide for priests during his post-war emigration in Canada.82 Worthy of note is the fact that in Mohyla’s Trebnyk commentaries and articles similar to the Eucharistic ones also accompany the de-scription of other sacraments and rites. The most numerous group of paratexts containing information useful to the clergy in the period in question comprised prefaces, 79 All works are available on . 80 The instruction can be found, for example, in the sluzhebnyks published in Mos-cow in 1699, 1705, 1717, 1734, 1739 and 1747, М. Соловій,Божественна літургія..., p. 74. The story of the work and the changes in its content in Moscow in comparison of the Vilnius Teaching for Yereis (1617) and articles from the Trebnyk (1646), as well as the provenance of the rules included in it (i.a. Council canons, writ ings of the Fathers) are discussed by А. Петровский,”Учителное извѣстіе” приславянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 235, part 2; vol. 236, part 1–2. 81 І. Ісіченко, Історія Христової Церкви в Україні, Харків 2003, p. 154; the article can be found e.g. in the Sluzhebnyk of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Літургікон або Служебник, Київ-Харків-Львів 2005, pp. 441–461); in the edition of the Orthodox Church of the Kievan Patriarchate (Служебник, Київ 1999, pp. 409–462). 82 М. Тимошик, Жива душа народу: митрополит Іларіон (ІванОгієнко) про церкву в житті українців (вступ), [in:] Любім свою Церкву, Київ 2015, p. 15. Як правити Святу Літургію. Практичні поради священникам при Богослуженні is reprinted in the volume (pp. 123–164) together with other writings by Metropolitan Ilarion (Ivan Ohienko). letters of dedication and introductions in verse placed before the main part of the printed works or before their chapters. Afterwords were not just as numerous,83 and given their position in the books they could not, unlike the articles “opening” them, highlight the content introducing the world of each work. Religious books – liturgical and theological works, collections of sermons, prayers and services – were a “natural environment” for teachings addressed to the clergy. Although they did not constitute a mandatory component of such books, they appeared in most editions of this type in the 17th century. They were to be found in nearly half of the printed Cyrillic books from printing houses on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 16th–18th centuries.84 They were no less numerous in the other regions of the Kievan Metropolitanate. They 83 They were popular in the 16th century and could be found in Ivan Fedorov’s printed works. A brief afterword was added to the Zabłudów Psalter with a Cha-soslovof 1570, and an extensive one in the Lviv Apostol of 1574, cf. И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 77, 84. The Ostroh Bible contains no fewer than two afterwords: the first is a traditional colophon stressing the role of the prince in the preparation of the edition and providing information about the printing; the second contains a word from the printer, first in the form of a prayer and then thanks for Ostrogskyi for his invitation to work on the Bible, cf. Ibidem, no. 101 (fragm.), 102. The afterwords in question and other 16th-century afterwords in facsimile versions, cf. М.В. Щепкинa, Переводы предисловий и послесловий первопечатних книг, [in:] У истоков русского книгопечатання, Москва 1959, pp. 233–254. The afterword to the Apostol (1574) in a translation by A. Naumow into Polish, cf. Idem, Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Kraków 2002, pp. 223–228. For more on Fedorov’s afterwords, cf. Я. Ісаєвич, Літературна спадщина Івана Федорова, Львiв 1989, pp. 139–140, A. Naumow, Teologiczny aspekt druku…, pp. 89–91. A description of the edition and its reception, cf. also Я. Ісаєвич, Першодрукар Іван Федоров і виникненнядрукарства на Україні, Львiв 1983, pp. 92–106. 84 Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki…, p. 195. The scholar notes that the big-gest number of prefaces was to be found in confraternity editions from Vilnius and Vievis, which, in her view, constituted one body of printed matter, Ibidem, pp. 100–101, cf. also Л.А. Итигина, Белорусские старопечатные предисловия XVI – первой половины XVII в. (просвитительные тенденции), [in:] Тематика и стилистика предисловий и послесловий. Русская старопечатная литература 16-первая четверть 18 в., Москва 1981, p. 27. found their way into most Kiev Pechersk editions85 as well as Lviv editions: those of the confraternity and those of Mykhailo Slozka. The scale of their presence is well illustrated by the fact that many books have more than one introductory text86 and that they functioned with their various variants.87 Prefaces and dedication texts were numerous and very popular; according to Lidia Sazonova, they made it possible to quickly respond to social needs as they emerged.88 Some texts served as journalistic,89 85 The wealth of introductory articles is illustrated by Khvedor Titov’s antologies, cf. Приложеніякъ первому тому изслѣдованіяТипографіяКіево-Печерской Лавры.Историческій очеркъ,Кіевъ 1918 and Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи наВкраїні в XVI-XVIII в.в. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. 86 For more on the topic, cf. Л.И. Сазонова, Украинские старопечатные предисловия конца XVI - первой половины XVII в. (особенности литературной формы), [in:] Тематика и стилистика предисловий и послесловий. Русская старопечатная литература 16-первая четверть 18 в., Москва 1981, p. 184. For example, the Apostol published by Mykhailo Slozka featured a poem with a representation of Petro Mohyla’s coat-of-arms, followed by a dedication: Ꙗсне в Хрⷭⷭтѣ Превелебнѣйшомꙋ Господинꙋ и Ѿц҃ꙋ Єго Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿц҃ꙋ Петрꙋ Могилѣ and preface: Чителникови Побожномꙋ и ласкавомꙋ тѵпографъ, при добромъ здорови ласки и багⷭтва Бж҃его оупрійме зычи(тъ), [in:] Апостолъ, Лвовъ 1639. 87 Several variants of a dedication appear especially when it is addressed to gen-erous patrons of the Orthodox Church, founders of monasteries, churches and printing houses, cf. Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki…, p. 195. For example, six different dedication letters are to be found in the Homiliary Gospel (Vievis 1616). They may all have been composed by Meletii Smotrytskyi, cf. D.A. Frick, Introduction. Meletij Smotryc’kyj’s Ruthenian “Homilary Gospel” of 1616, [in:] The “Jevanhelije učytelnoje” of Meletij Smotyc’kyj, Cambridge Mass. 1987, pp. XIV–XVI. In addition to a preface to the Homiliary Gospel (Rokhmaniv 1619) Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi prepared four letters of dedication (for Irina Mohylanka, DuchessWiśniowiecka; Jerzy Czartoryski, Samuel Korecki); for the Pentecostarion (Тріѡдіон си єстъ Трипѣснецъ, Ст prepared no fewer than four (for Adam Kisiel, Petro Mohyla, Hospodar Vasile Lupu of Moldavia and Hospodar Matei Basarab of Wallachia). 88 Л.И. Сазонова, Украинские старопечатные предисловия конца XVI – первой половины XVII в. (борьба за национальное единство), [in:] Тематика и стилистика..., p. 132. 89 Journalistic content can be found, for example, in prefaces by Francysk Skaryna, Symon Budnyi, Vasylii Tiapynskii, Л.А. Итигина, Белорусские старопечатные предисловия..., p. 30. ҃ ой Великой Пѧтдесѧтницы, Лвовъ 1642) Mykhailo Slozka polemical, propaganda material,90 and, given the efforts to form wellprepared pastors aware of their vocation, they also serve important formation and education purposes. Paratexts were usually written by clergymen, mainly literate and well-educated representatives of the hierarchy: bishops, archimandrites, hegumens, and printers, editors, proof-readers and initiators of various editions; less often secular intellectuals performing these functions.91 If a preface was part of a book addressed to the clergy, its secular author, too, would try to fill it, at least to some extent, with content that was addressed to (or useful to) clerical readers.92 This tendency is noticeable even in the case of letters of dedication ad-dressed to secular patrons.93 A considerable part of dedication letters as well as stemmatic verses placed on the reverse of the title pages of printed works were an expression of gratitude to the initiators and sponsors of the various editions. The contained praises of the virtues of representatives of the clerical hierarchy as well as their work undertaken to strengthen the 90 For more on the content of prefaces addressed to opponents of the Orthodox Church, see Л.И. Сазонова, Украинские старопечатные предисловия конца XVI – первой половины XVII в. (борьба за национальное единство), pp. 132–134; cf. also Л.А. Итигина, Белорусские старопечатные предисловия..., pp. 30–33. 91 Authors of introductory texts are discussed by Л.И. Сазонова, Украинские старопечатные предисловия конца XVI - первой половины XVII в. (особенности литературной формы), pp. 156-157. 92 For example, Mykhailo Slozka, a secular printer, addressed various exhortations to the clergy; the one found in the Sluzhebnyk (Lviv 1637) concerned pastoral duties: disciplinary and ritual matters, with the printer using motifs characteristic of bishops’ teachings. Cf. on the subjects A.Z. Nowak, Elementy świeckie w ramie wydawniczej siedemnastowiecznych ksiąg cerkiewnych w Rzeczypospolitej (wybrane przykłady), [in:] O miejsce książki w historii sztuki. Państwo i Kościół. Wrocznicę chrztu Polski, ed. A. Gronek, Kraków (forthcoming). Examples of such texts, cf. Eadem, Bracka oferta wydawnicza a odnowa kapłaństwa w Rzeczypospolitej – wybrane przykłady (pierwsza połowa XVII w.), [in:] Ośrodki kultury dawnej Słowiańszczyzny i ich znaczenie dziejowe(Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol.12), ed. M.Kuczyńska, J. Stradomski, Kraków 2017, p. 181–210. 93 Content important to priests can be found in a dedication of a secular printer to Leon Sapieha (Sluzhebnyk, Vilnius 1617), Cf. on the subject, A.Z. Nowak, Elementy świeckie w ramie… (forthcoming). Church.94 Such laudation is worthy of note on account of the image of an ideal priest it created.95 The significance of role models in teaching is discussed below (Other works section). Prefaces and letters of dedication – a source, important to priests, of information about church books and their place and role in the ministry – are also a treasure trove of information about the dignity of the pastoral ministry, and the authority and responsibility stemming from it. An excellent example is provided by Petro Mohyla’s prefaces, analyzed by Marek Melnyk.96 Reflections on the dignity and hardship of the priesthood appeared in the majority of books addressed to the clergy. They were placed in the context of obligations and powers granted to ministers of the sacraments (especially confessors), cele- brants, prayerful intermediaries between God and people, servants of the word and “angels in the flesh”, who should serve as examples. Some of the texts were in part or in their entirety in the form of formative instructions or exhortations, others – mini treatises on the ministry or manuals with information of disciplinary or organization-al nature. The way the various topics were placed in these teachings was to some extent dictated by the content and purpose of the books, although this was a tendency and not a rule.97 The most consistent in this respect were prefaces in the sluzhebnyks. Celebrants could find 94 For more on the involvement of secular circles in the Orthodox Church reform in the 16th century, cf. B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…., pp. 159–228. 95 There are numerous coat of arms verses dedicated to Petro Mohyla (i.a. Мїхаилъ Сліоска, На Пресвѣтный Клейнотъ ихъ Млⷭтей ПП. Могилѡвъ, [in:] Апостолъ, Лвовъ 1639; Idem, На Пресвѣтный Клейнотъ ихъ Млⷭтей Пановъ Могілѡвъ епікграмма, [in:] Тріѡдіон си єстъ Трипѣснецъ, Лвовъ 1642); and other dignitaries i.a. На старожитный Клейнотъ ихъ Млⷭтей Панѡвꙿ Желиборскихъ, [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭтѡлъ, Седми Соборѡвъ, и Помѣстыⷯ нѣкїи.ⷯ Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихъ Ꙋчителей и Преподобныхъ Отецъ, Лвовъ 1646; a coat of arms with verses dedicated to Yosyf Shumlanskyi, cf. Зерцало до прейзренѧ і латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Сакраментѡⷡ, Десѧтословїѧ Бж҃їѧ, грѣхопаденїй члчⷭескиⷯ, Дх҃овныⷨ и свѣцкиⷨ людемъ приличнѡ, Ꙋневъ 1680; Псалтиръ, Лвовъ 1688). 96 M. Melnyk, Godność i tożsamość sakramentalna stanu kapłańskiego, [in:] Idem, Problematyka antropologiczna w pismach Piotra Mohyły, Olsztyn 2005, pp. 210–220. 97 E.g. Gedeon Balaban wrote about a sluzhebnyk in the preface to the Trebnyk of 1606. Liturgiarion, Kiev 1629 in them a description of the liturgiarion, information about the origins and authors of the Divine Service (Sluzhebnyk, Kiev 1629), history of its translation into Slavonic (e.g. editions of Vilnius 1617 and Supraśl 1695). Most authors of the prefaces presented the ministry of the altar as an honour and responsible vocation; they defined the conditions of its celebration and dignified preparation for it. Some provided instructions concerning ritual practice and disciplinary rules (e.g. on the furnishing of churches) (Lviv 1637). This is discussed in Chapter Three. Among the prefaces from the period the one that stood out was written by a Pechersk professional, Tarasii Zemka, to the Kiev Sluzhebnyk of 1629, described by Khvedor Titov as a “liturgical treatise”.98 This specialist though brief commentary was divided, as announced, into three parts. In the first part the author explains the most important liturgical concepts (“Первѣє: оубѡ Слꙋжба бжⷭтъвнаа, ꙗже єсть Литꙋргіа, коими нарицаетсѧ имены”), in the second – dignified celebration of the Divine Service (“Второе: Коликое є(сть) єѧ преизѧщество и достоинство, и съ коликою чтⷭїю и преⷣꙋготовленїєⷨ къ ней пристꙋпателно є(сть)”), while in the last Father Tarasii lists the authors of the liturgy celebrated in the Kievan Metropolitanate, main ways through which the Greek sluzhebnyk reached the Slavic countries (“Прочее: ѿ кого изѡбрѣтена є(сть) и преданна въ кратцѣ изѧвити”) and the reasons behind the publication of its new version.99 Meletii Solovii noted that this was an original 98 “Предисловіе Т.Л. Земки представляєтъ собою прекрасный литургическій трактатъ, составленный на основаніи святоотческихъ твореній и вообще въ духѣ тѣхъ богословско-историческихъ литературныхъ произведеній, которыя создавались въ ученомъ кружкѣ, существовавшемъ при печерской типографіи въ годы управленія єю Елиссеемъ Плетенецкимъ и Захаріею Копистенскимъ”, Ф. Титовъ, Типографія Кіево-Печерской Лавры. Историческій очеркъ (1606–1616–1916), vol. 1: (1606-1616-1721), Кіевъ 1916, pp. 180–181. 99 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ, [in:] Леітꙋргїарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1629, ff. 5v. Complete text, cf. ff. 12v-20v; cf. also a reprint in: Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, pp. 199–211. For more on the topic, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Artykuły wstępne w księgach liturgicznych, jako źródło wiedzy dla celebransów w metropolii kijowskiej w XVI–XVII w., [in:] Ad fontes liturgicos 5. Літургійні коментарі як джерело літургіології, ed. В. Рудейко, Львів 2015, pp. 26–42. and the first in Ukrainian work of this nature and that it preceded by several decades the Moscow edition of Nikon’s compilation.100 Paratexts included in trebnyks were not as decidedly focused the-matically as those included in sluzhebnyks. The preface to the only surviving copy of the confraternity’s Trebnyk published in Vilnius in 1621 was taken up by a lecture on sacramentology.101 This was one of the oldest printed Orthodox texts featuring elements characteristic of the old Catholic and new Greek theology (e.g. division of the sacraments into matter and form, concept of intention).102 In his Trebnyk introduction (Stratyn 1606) Gedeon Balaban described his efforts to obtain appropriate Greek texts on the basis of which the book could be corrected.103 Priestly dignity is a central theme tackled by authors like Arsenii Zheliborskyi (1645), Petro Mohyla (1646), author(s) of the preface to the Vilnius confraternity’s edition (1624) (with the same text appearing also in two subsequent editions, from 1638 and 1641), and briefly also by Yosyf Tryzna (1652) as well as the author of the preface to the 1668 Lviv edition (reprinted in 1682) (examples will be given in the following chapters). Paratexts in homiletic collections, hagiographies and catechisms were usually devoted to the teaching ministry of priests and con-tained encouragements and/or exhortations to preach the Word of 100 М.М. Соловій, Божественна…, pp. 123–124. 101 I was using an excerpt made by M. Korzo based on an old print, which has sur- vived in one copy kept in the Russian State Library (РГБ МК 4, no. 3859) 102 Such elements appeared in the treatise by Patriarch Gabriel Severos discussed in the section on catechism teachings; for more on the matter and form, cf. Chapter Three. 103 This was the first attempt made in the Kievan Metropolitanate to correct the trebnyk. For more on the changes introduced by Gedeon Balaban on the basis of Greek versions of the book, cf. Е.М. Крыжановский, Заботы объ исправленіи требника въ южно-русской митрополіи до изданія Требника Петра Могилы, [in:] Собраніе сочиненій, vol. 1, part 1: Очерки и изслѣдованія по Русской церковной исторіи, Кіевъ 1890, pp. 70–76. God,104 warnings for priests who were reluctant to do so105 as well as advice concerning, for example, the content of sermons,106 sources of inspiration for preachers107 and sometimes also remarks of dis 104 “Тѣмъже къ таковѣмъ, и въпїю съ Соломономъ: въстани и трꙋждайсѧ, ѿверзи очи свои и насыщайсѧ хлѣба, а сей єсть первый хлѣбъ Слово Бж҃їе. Слышѣте и оужаснѣтесѧ, єже Бъ҃ оусты Пррⷪока Ꙍсиа гл҃етъ: ꙗкѡ ты ꙋмѣнїе ѿверглъ єси, ѿвергꙋ и аз тебе ѿ єже жречествовати мнѣ, и ꙗко забыл єси закона Ба҃ своего, забꙋдꙋ и азъ чада твоѧ”, Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє на книгꙋ Бесѣдъ С(вѧтого) Іоанна Хрісостома Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінополского (Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 59; “Проповѣдите ꙋбо и наꙋчайте, и аще не ѿ любве оусеръдїа, обаче ѿ нꙋжды и за долгъ, и за страх Бж҃їй, да не осужⷣени и тꙋ и въ онъ день сꙋда пріймете месть”, Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Православнымъ и смѣреномⷣрымъ Читателемъ, мира, здравїа и спасенїа (Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на Дѣѧнїѧ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Киевъ 1624), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, pp. 101–102; cf. also Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Предмова до Сщ҃енниковъ Законныхъ и Свѣцкихъ, (Ключъ Разꙋмѣнїѧ, Киевъ 1659), [reprint in:] К. Біда, ІоанікійҐалятовський і його «Ключъ Разумѣня”, Рим 1975, f. [2], p. 3. [Hereafter I give the original folio number and, in parentheses, the page number of the facsimile edition]. 105 “Горе ꙋбо вам аще не бл҃говѣстите, времѧ бо вамъ и долгъ никогдаже вами въздателный възложенъ є(сть). Слышите и разꙋмѣйте єже Ст҃іи Апⷭли заповѣдаю(тъ). Єпⷭпъ или попъ небрегій причта людей, и не кажа ихъ блгчⷭтїю да ѿлꙋчитсѧ пребываѧй же в лѣности, да извержетсѧ. Чти и толкованїе. Внемлѣте єще и оужаснѣтесѧ и сътворѣте, єже шестагѡ Събора Вселенскагѡ Канонъ, и толкованїе єго гл҃е(тъ)”, Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Православнымъ…, p. 102; “[…] Котрыи заⷭ сщ҃енники не проповѣꙋдютъ слова Бж҃ого, не наꙋчаютꙿ людей, що маю(тъ) ѡны чинити, жебы Нб҃а достꙋпили? И чогосѧ маютъ хранити, жебысѧ пекла оѵхранили, такиⷯ сщ҃енникоⷡ бꙋде(т) Бъ҃ карати […]”, Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Предмова до Сщ҃енниковъ…, Киевъ 1659, f. [2] (3–4). 106 “[…] то єстъ каждого Христїаⷩского Казнодѣи повинⷩост не дишкꙋрсы о непонѧтныⷯ вѣры таеⷨниⷯ скрытостѧⷯ строити, але воли и приказаⷩѧⷨ Бѡⷥскиⷨ простыⷯ и неꙋкиⷯ люде(й) оучити”, Мелетій Смотрицкий, Велможной Паней єй Милости Паней Соколовой Воининой Каштелѧновой Берестейско(й) […] намъ Милостивой, о Гд҃ѣ радоватисѧ, (Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанѧ на кождꙋю неⷣⷣлю и Свѧта Ꙋрочистыи, презъ Ст҃го Ѿца нашего Калиста, Архїепⷭкопа Коⷩстаⷩтинопоⷧского и Вселеⷩского Патрїаⷬхꙋ пред двѣма сты лѣ(тъ) по кгрецкꙋ написаныи, а теперъ ново з Кгрецкого и Словеⷩского ꙗзыка на Рꙋскїй переложеныи, Євє 1616), [reprint in:] The “Jevanhelije učitelnoje”…, f. [4], p. 21. [Hereafter I give the original folio number and, in parentheses, the page number of the facsimile edition]. 107 “Ст҃ыа Апⷭльскїа Въсточныа Цркве Оучитлей Книги, стѧжѣте, и ѿ сихъ наꙋчайтесѧ, ҃҃и проповѣдите въ Цр҃ квахꙿ”, Захарїѧ Копистенскїй, Православнымъ…, p. 101; “[…] написалеⷨ и длѧ того тыи казаⷩѧ, жебы сщ҃енники (не мовлю о тыⷯ, которыи оумѣютъ) самы собѣ на Нлⷣи и на ст҃а могли оучинити и повѣдати казанѧ, поглѧдаючи на мои, бо ciplinary nature (e.g. prohibition on assigning preaching duties to diaks, on collecting fees for preaching).108 Like the introductory texts in books to be used in the church, they determined the value of the work, especially its salvific power109 and promised a reward to priests who were diligent in their preaching.110 What stands out in this respect is Petro Mohyla’s preface to the Homiliary Gospel (Kiev 1637), in which the Metropolitan delivers an apologia for preaching111 and the teaching ministry of the priest referred to as cherubin, eye, light, salt, i.e. in a manner characteristic of the teachings of the synods (the teachings are analyzed separately below). The value of God’s word was highlighted by prefaces to many books to be used in Orthodox churches, e.g. the apostol;112 the themes мови(тъ) Пррⷪкъ Дв҃дъ: Бл҃говѣстите дн҃ь ѿ дн҃е Спⷭнїе Бг҃а нш҃его”, Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Предмова до Сщ҃енниковъ…, f. [2] (3). олюбезнымъ,Прпеннымъ,БгВъпервыхъжеобращаюсѧвъпреосщ҃“ ҃҃ бнымъ, и Прчⷭтнымъ, ꙗко да наслажденнѣ имъ книги прочитовати, и поꙋчатисѧ, въ цр҃ квахъ же з оустъ проповѣдати, а не дїакомъ сїе своє началнѣйшее слꙋженїе попꙋщати, самымъ на сѣдалищахъ или на поⷣпораⷯ оунывающымъ, ꙗвлю и оувѣщꙋ”, Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє…, p. 59. On the prohibition on collecting fees for preaching, cf. Hilarion Denisowicz, PARERGON cudów świętych obraza przeczystej Bogarodzice wmonastyru Ku-piatyckim, Kij 1638, [in:] Seventeenth-Century Writings on the Kievan Caves Monastery, With an Introd. by P. Lewin, texts: vol. 4, Cambridge Mass. 1987, p. 320. 109 Cf. e.g. Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Предмова до чителника, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанꙗ на нлⷣꙗ през рокъ и на празники Гпⷪдкїе и нарочитыⷨ ст҃ымъ оугодникѡⷨ Бж҃їимꙿ, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 6. 110 “И такій сщ҃енникъ [who delivers sermons] є(сть) выбранымъ начинемъ Бз҃кимъ, которыи слово Бж҃ое проповѣдꙋетъ, […] бо кто проповѣдꙋючи слово Бж҃ое, невѣрного чл҃вѣка, геретика, жида, албо поганина наꙋкою своею навернетꙿ на вѣрꙋ хрⷭтїѧнскꙋю, албѡ хрⷭтїѧнина грѣшного ѿведетꙿ ѿ злыⷯ єго оучинковъ, и наведетъ на дорогѹ покаѧнїѧ, той великꙋю ѡдержитъ ѿ Бг҃а нагородꙋ”, Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Предмова до Сщ҃енниковъ…, f. [2] (3). 111 Examples and an analysis, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Pieczerska oferta wydawnicza w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku a rozwój kaznodziejstwa prawosławnego, [in:] Rola monasterów w kształtowaniu kultury ukraińskiej w wiekach XI–XX, ed. A. Gronek, A.Nowak, Krak 2014, pp. 212–213. 112 Cf. e.g. Михаил Слоска, Ꙗсне въ Хрⷭтѣ Превелебномꙋ Єгѡ Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿцꙋ Арсенію Желиборскомꙋ з ласки Бж҃ей Єпископꙋ Лвовскомꙋ, Галицкомꙋ и Каменца Подолскаго и проⷱ [in:] Апостолъ сіестъ Книга Новаго Завѣта, Лвовъ 1654, f. 3; Преⷣмова до чителни were also tackled in the introductions to those books that contained “spiritual nourishment” in the form of songs.113 Prefaces to menaia, akathists, oktoikhs and triodons are usually brief and concern just the edition in question. Few contain reflections on the role of prayer in the life of Christians and the ministry of the priest – a mediator interceding for the faithful, worshipping God and giving thanks for the grace received.114 Most teachings concerned with the intellectual and moral forma- tion of priests pointed to a need for self-education and appropriate preparation for the ministry.115 Two qualities that should characterize ка, [in:] Таблица невидимаѧ сердца чловєчагѡ на которой не перомъ, але палцеⷨ Бж҃іимꙿ и ꙗзыкоⷨ Апⷭкиⷨ не чернилоⷨ але Дх҃омꙿ С(вѧтимъ) и слезами Апⷭлкими написаны сꙋтъ посланїа албо листы апⷭлскїи, Лвовъ 1666, ff. 2-4v. 113 “[...] каждый дх҃ъ албо дх҃овный чл҃вкъ, маєтъ Покармъ дх҃овный, даный собѣ ѿ Бг҃а. Покармъ той, Покармъ єстъ гл҃ъ Бж҃їй посилѧючїй дш҃ꙋ чловечꙋю, ведлꙋгъ наꙋки Сп҃сителѧ нашего. Не ѡ хлѣбѣ єдиномъ живъ бꙋдетъ чл҃вкъ, но о всѧкомъ глаголѣ исходѧщемъ изъ оустъ Бж҃їихъ (Мат. 4). Такимъ Покармомъ, и Посилкомъ, постѧщимъсѧ през дній Четырдесѧтъ Великагѡ Поста єстъ книга сіѧ названаѧ, ТРЇОДЬ Постнаѧ”, Михаилъ Сліозка, Ꙗсне Превелебномꙋ вꙿ Бг҃ꙋ Єго Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿцꙋ Аѳанасїю Желиборскомꙋ Млⷭтїю Бж҃їею, Православномꙋ Єпⷭкопꙋ, лвовскомꙋ, галицкомꙋ и Камєнца Подолскагѡ, администраторови Метрополїй Киевской и прочаѧ, Ѿцꙋ, Панꙋ, Пастыреви, и Добродѣеви моемꙋ велце милостивомꙋ, [in:] Триѡдїѡнъ си єстъ трїпѣснецъ, Лвовъ 1664, ff. [2-4v]. 114 Предъмова ѹказꙋючи, що за розꙋм замыкаетъ…, Дермань 1604, f. 11. 115 For more on the subject on the basis of the printed matterfrom Pechersk, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Pieczerskaoferta…, pp. 209–221; cf. also “Оучт҃лѣ вселенскїи послѣдꙋюще им заповѣдаютꙿ: Бг҃ослоⷡ Грїгорї(и) вꙿ С(ловѣ) на Погребенїе С(вѧтаго) Аѳанасїа Александрїска(го) ѡчиститисѧ, рече, подобає(т) прежⷣе, таже очищати, оупремꙋдритисѧ, и сице оупремꙋдрѧти, быти свѣтъ, и просвѣщати, приближитисѧ Бг҃ꙋ, и приводити иныхъ, ѡст҃итисѧ, и осщати и прочаѧ”, Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє…, p. 59; “[…] Гды ҃оумѣетности Сщ҃енникъ мѣти не бꙋдетъ надаремнѡ, и на згꙋбꙋ свою вѣчнꙋю, в таковомꙿ станꙋ знайдꙋетъсѧ, а ꙗкъ слѣпый провадѧчїй слѣпого посполꙋ в ꙗмꙋ впадаетꙿ, такъ и ѡн посполꙋ з зараженымъ проказою, мѣсце вѣчне смꙋтное засѧдетъ и одѣдичитꙿ. Щожъ албовѣⷨ по лѣкарꙋ немаючиⷨ оумѣетности и досвѣдченѧ? Що по Пастырꙋ неꙋмѣючим стеречи и боронити стада? Бг҃ъ Всемогꙋщій оу Їезекїлѧ Пророка, сꙋдѧми и ꙋчителѧми сщ҃енниковъ хочетъ мѣти. [...] Єсли Сꙋдѧми и Ꙋчителѧми сꙋтъ над людомъ ѿ Бг҃а постановлены Сщ҃енници маютꙿ ꙗко найдосконалѣй в оумѣетности закона Бж҃ого и всѣхъ приказанїй єго, такъ тыжꙿ и преданїй Цр҃ ковныхꙿ знайдоватисѧ”, Петръ Могила, Предмова до Чителника Осщ҃енного (Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанѧ на кождꙋю нлⷣю и свѧта Оурочистыѣ, Yosyf Shumlanskyi, Metrical Records or a Register, Unev 1680 each minister were emphasized: piety in life and possession of knowl edge. According to bishops, the faithful should be taught with the word and example of one’s life,116 with the priests being discredited by their lack of skill and “impure life”.117 Exhortations to improve priests’ knowledge were also found in prefaces to small nomocanons. The second and third Kiev editions (1624, 1629), in addition to presenting to the clerical readers the book the content of which was – as the authors of the prefaces wrote – man- datory, suggested other books that would be valuable and helpful in Киевъ 1637), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 323. The work is available on . 116 “Треба теды до ѡвецъ поꙋченїє часто мовити. И єгда своѧ овца ижденетъ, преⷣ ними ходитъ. Архіерее теды повинны ѡвца провадити прикладнымꙿ житїємъ и наꙋкою, а не овци Архіереовъ”, Петръ Могила, Пренайвелебнѣйшимꙿ и Бг҃олюбезнѣйшиⷨ ихꙿ Милостѧⷨ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемъ и вꙿ Дх҃ꙋ Ст҃омъ Братїѧмъ, Епⷭпомъ православнымъ Церкви Рѡссійской, Преподобнымꙿ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемꙿ Архімандритѡмꙿ, Превелебнымꙿ Игꙋменомꙿ, Велебнымъ Іеромонахѡмъ, Пречестнымъ Протопопоⷨ, Честнымꙿ Іереомꙿ, и всемꙋ весполꙿ клирꙋ церковномꙋ православномꙋ бл҃гословенства Бж҃ого, ласки, покоѧ, и всѣхъ дочасныⷯ и вѣчныхъ добръ оупрійме зычитъ, [in:] Єꙋхологїон..., Киевъ 1646, f. [3]. For more on the teaching “with the word and pious life”, cf. also “Такъ и сщ҃енника чꙋлого, а побожногѡ, все старанє и трꙋды, бе(з) вшелѧкиⷯ дневныⷯ и нощныⷯ отпочинковъ, на томꙿ маютъ засажоны быти, абы всѣхъ ѡвечокъ своиⷯ, собѣ ѿ Бг҃а повѣроныхъ на паствискꙋ збавенныⷯ Єѵⷢлскиⷯ лꙋкаⷯ, словоⷨ и житїемъ побожныⷨ добре ꙋпасши Бꙋ҃ ꙗкъ бл҃говонный запаⷯ вꙿ чистꙋю офѣрꙋ принести могъ, а жадноѣ зꙿ нихъ не погꙋбилъ”, До чителника дꙋховнаго, (Требникъ сирѣчъ Мл҃товникъ имѣѧй в себѣ Црковнаѧ послѣдованїѧ Іе҃реемъ подобающїѧ […] повеленїемъ ꙗсне в Бз҃ѣ Превелⷧ Єго Млⷭти Ѡц҃а Іосифа Тризны, Архимандрита (Киевъ 1652), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 376. 117 “Аще ты не возвѣстиши безⷥаконникꙋ безⷥаконїа єго, крове єго ѿрꙋкꙋ твоєю истѧжꙋ. И заправды нѣчого такъ сщ҃енника не шпетитъ, ꙗкѡ животъ мерзеный и не оумѣєтноⷭ(т), ꙗко єденъ зꙿ оучоныхъ повѣдѣлъ: Смѣхꙋ речъ годнаѧ, алꙿбо рачей небезпечнаѧ. Стражничїй алꙿбо Выглѧдаⷱ слѣпый, оучителꙿ глꙋпый, прекꙋрсоръ алꙿбо попреⷣникъ хромый, пралатъ алꙿбо Преложоный недбалый, Ѡповѣдаⷱ алꙿбо Возꙿный нѣмый”, Арсеній Желиборскій, З ласки Бж҃еѣ Єпⷭкопъ Лвовскїй, Галицкїй, и Каменца Подолскогѡ, Превелебнымъ, Велебнымъ, и Чт҃и годныⷨ Архімандритѡⷨ, Іеромонахѡⷨ, Протоїереоѡⷨ, Іереѡмꙿ, и всемꙋ весполꙿ Клирꙋ цр҃҃ ковномꙋ. Ласки Бжеѣ, покоѧ, и всѣхъ дочасныхъ и вѣчныхъ дѡбръ ѹпреймє зычитъ и вѣншꙋєтъ, [in:] Єꙋхологїон си естъ молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1645, f. [7]. the ministry of the confessional.118 Education was also the purpose of Petro Mohyla’s introduction to the 1629 edition, which to a large extent complemented the Nomocanonitself. It was one of the first treatises printed by the Orthodox concerning hamartiology. The preface was dominated by content dealing with the essence of sin, its categories and kinds – distinguished on the basis of Catholic practice – as well as advice on penitence. Some elements of this knowledge, needed by confessors, were explained by Arsenii Zheliborskyi, the author of the preface to the Lviv nomocanon (1646) (e.g. differences between common sins and the original sin on the basis of the sacraments of baptism and penance). However, it was primarily about moral instruction, like in the case of the bishop’s text preceding the Sluzhebnyk (Lviv 1645).119 Most introductory texts in religious books, mainly liturgical and homiletic, dealt with worthy celebration of the liturgical-ritual and teaching ministry. They were focused simultaneously on broadening the knowledge of the clergy and on their formation. We can point to isolated examples of how these purposes were fulfilled in medieval manuscripts; however, the scale of book use for reform-related purposes in the 16th–17th centuries was completely different.120 We are not talking about an incidental or exceptional phenomenon. In the case of books printed in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, the most interesting prefaces, afterwords and dedications appeared in the first period of its existence, until 1721.121 As early as in the last decades of the 17th 118 An elaboration on the recommended literature, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Źródła wiedzy dla kapłana – przedmowy w siedemnastowiecznych nomokanonach metropolii kijowskiej, [in:] Chrześcijańskie dziedzictwo duchowe narodówsłowiańskich, Series III, vol. 2, Chrześcijaństwo w kulturze, sztuce i historii, ed. Z. Abramowicz, K. Korotkich, Białystok 2016, pp. 291–292. 119 For more on the topic, cf. Ibidem, pp. 283–301. 120 Evidence for this can be found in Metropolitan Kyprian’s afterword on the significance and rules of using the Sluzhebnyk, included in a new type of liturgiarion introduced by the Metropolitan of Kiev in the 14th century, cf. Митр. Кипріан, Послѣсловіе (Изъ Служебника), [in:] Ф. Буслаєв, Историческая хрестоматия церковнославянскаго и древнерусскаго языков, no. 16, Москва 1861, col. 136–138. 121 From 1721 onwards printing houses in the tsarist empire operated under the censorship of the Great Synod, Ф. Титов, Типографія…, vol. 1, pp. 7–8. century a significant part of prefaces were reprints from the earlier editions. The situation was slightly different in the other regions; e.g. the 18th century was a golden age for the Basilian workshops. From 1708 the Uniates printed their books also in the printing house of the Lviv Dormition Confraternity. Other additions to printed religious books – selected examples Orthodox church and homiletic books also contained other, smaller supplements – graphic and textual. They included pictures of the diskos or tetrapodion placed in the rubrics of the liturgical part of the sluzhebnyk. Usually, however, they depicted figures of the Fathers, who were sometimes accompanied by quotes from their writings or praises in prose or in verse.122 Optional elements included forms (e.g. of metric records) or one-page announcements, directives, often framed by decorative borders, which must have been intended to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the content placed in them was important. They included mainly excerpts from the Bible, Church Fathers, canonical sources; short official texts in the form of instructions commenting on variouslegal cases as well as those concerning ritual practice, and defining norms dealing with the moral principles of the conduct of priests and their proper ministry in parishes. Some texts were polemical in nature.123 122 Examples and significance of these additions are discussed in the following chapters. Cf. also A.Z. Nowak, Synodalne źródła nauk dla kapłanów w metropolii kijowskiej do XVIIw., “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej” 5, 2014, p. 191; Eadem, Materiały niekonieczne w księgach liturgicznych…, [in:] O miejsce książki…, pp. 148–150; Materiały opcjonalne w drukowanym służebniku…, “Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne” 14, 2018 (forthcoming). 123 E.g. Напомненіє сщ҃енникови (Incipit: “Нехай ти вꙿ подивеню не бꙋдетъ, чⷭтный и побоⷤ Іерею”) from the Trebnyk (Lviv 1645), in which Bishop Arsenii Zheliborskyi in-forms his clerical readers that the book does not contain a prayer absolving the dead. According to Kasian Sakovych (Epanorthosis, Krak 1642), the Orthodox promoted the prayer, contrary to the teaching of the Church, which is why Yosyf Shumlanskyi, A Mirror for a Review and Better Understanding of the Holy Faith, Lviv 1687 They were usually distinguished in church books by means of a title: Завѣщанїє, Ꙋвѣщенїє, Поꙋченїє, Пристеженїє, Напомненіє, with the content of the addition sometimes being made more specific: Пристеженїє. Дозде о исправленїи кающыхъсѧ.124 Many commentaries the bishop refuted the charges in a manner that was offensive to his adversary: “Пастирѣ єднаⷦ теразнѣйшїи и беⷥ твоєго дꙋрню напоминанѧ, вꙿ требникꙋ новѡ скорыгованомꙿ, зꙿ грецкимꙿ сѧ требникомъ згажаючи, того розгрѣшенѧ не положили”. The remark was to be found in the place occupied by the prayer in question in other trebnyks, cf. Єꙋхологїон, Лвовъ 1645, f. 158v. 124 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ имѣѧ(й) по сокращенⷻї Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Сеⷣми Съборовъ, и помѣстныхъ нѣкїихъ. Къ семꙋ и вселенскихꙿ Ѹчителей и Прпⷣбныхъ Ѡц҃ъ were preceded by a title in the form of a precept: Вѣдомо же бꙋди и се, Вънемли и семꙋ, Вѣдомо бꙋди;125 occasionally, it would be part of a more extensive announcement: Събранїє ѿ различныхъ Правилъ, ѡ єже каѧ съгрѣшенїа возбранѧю(тъ) быти сщ҃енникꙋ. И внима(й) семꙋ съ опасенїємꙿ, ѡ дрꙋже!126 Matters particularly worthy of note were marked on the margins by inscriptions: “Вѣждъ”,127 “Внимай” or a picture of a hand with a finger indicating the fragment in question.128 These small texts accompanying or complementing the main part of the work facilitated its reception, proper understanding of the purpose and role of a given book. Readers of printed books were considerably helped in their reception by notes on the margins, which guided their reading, helped them understand the text and pointed to the most important problems. The margins contained information about the sources quoted, but also – which was no less important to the didactic function of the books – guidelines concerning quality books that would enable the readers to explore a given topic further. There were also concise explanations of key terms and even short organizational recommendations. This was how e.g. the monumental collections of John Chrysostom’s sermons on St. Paul’s Apostolic Letters (1623) and Acts of the Apostles (Kiev 1624) were prepared for publication.129 третее съ болшиⷨ исправленїеⷨ изданны(й), Киевъ 1629; facsimile ed. O. Horbatsch, Romae 1989, pp. 11–12, 23, 78, 27–28; pages in the reprint (28), (40), (95), (44–45); [hereafter I give pages of the original with pages of the facsimile in brackets]. In the Nomocanon of 1646, cf. Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭтѡлъ, Седми Соборѡвъ, и Помѣстыⷯ нѣкїи.ⷯ Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихъ Ꙋчителей и Преподобныхъ Отецъ, Лвовъ 1646, f. 82v. 125 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 22, 17 (39, 34). 126 Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, ff. 2 and 41. 127 Ibidem, f. 53. 128 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 18, 78, 107, 123, 144 (35, 95, 124, 140, 161); Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, f. [5]. 129 Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623; cf. (10.03.2017); Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на Дѣѧніѧ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Киевъ 1624, cf. (10.03.2017). Readers received information about the provenance of inspirations from e.g. Yoanykii Galatovskyi (Key of Understanding, Kiev 1659, Lviv 1663, 1665), who would pinpoint the borrowings, writing on the margins the name of the author, title of the work and, in the case of quotations from large or multi-volume works, also the number of a chapter or book.130 Thus emerged yet another collection of impor-tant information, which, according to Natalia Yakovenko, was meant especially for the participants in the homiletics and controversial theology course.131 Commentaries on the margins of the Homiliary Gospel published by Petro Mohyla in 1637 facilitated search for the content needed and orientation in the hierarchy of the problems discussed in the work. Usually in the form of a thesis of short definition, they pointed to the topics discussed in the various sermons. For example, in the Teaching glorifying the memory of St. John Chrysostom132 and concerning largely priests we learn from these notes that the fragment in question is devoted to Christ – the Good Shepherd (“Хс҃ правдивый пастыръ”), selection of candidates for the priesthood (“Пастыреве порѧⷣкоⷨ церковныⷨ на пастырство встꙋповати маютꙿ, бо гды инакшимꙿ способомꙿ встꙋпꙋю(тъ) сꙋтꙿ наемникамі”), differences between genuine and false shepherds (“Пастыра и наемник(а) знаки сꙋ(ть) розныѣ”).133 Printed notes on the margins complemented or highlighted the main content of the work, thus facilitating its reception. 130 M. Kuczyńska, Ruska…, pp. 35 and 120–121. 131 Н. Яковенко, “Європа” в українському сприйнятті: між географією та оцінковою амбівалентністю, [in:] Дзеркала ідентичності. Дослідження з історії уявлень та ідей в Україні XVI – початку XVII століття, Київ 2012, p. 213. In her latest book the scholar includes a supplement in the form of a list of authors referred to by Galatovskyi, cf. Eadem, У пошуках Нового неба. Життя і тексти Йоаникія Ґалятовського, Київ 2017, pp. 597–684. 132 In the table of contents the work has a longer title suggesting its subject: Мѣсѧца тогоⷤ [Ноемврїѧ], 13 днѧ, [наꙋка] на памѧ(ть) Ст҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго о пастырꙋ до бромъ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Киевъ 1637, p. 1028. 133 Ibidem, pp. 807, 811. Bishops’ teachings for priests The most numerous group of instructions addressed solely to priests had been, since the Middle Ages, bishops’ teachings – synodal and post-consecration teachings (chirotony). The former were delivered by a metropolitan during a general synod traditionally held on the first Sunday of Lent, known as the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy (or Council Sunday); or by a bishop during synodal meetings in the diocese. The chirotony teachings addressed by the consecrating bishop to newly ordained priests and the synodal teach ings were written down in the form of a circular and handed to the priests leaving for their parishes.134 It is worth bearing in mind that consecration often took place during synods and given the fact that both types of teachings discussed a similar set of topics, they must have been used interchangeably in both situations (the subject is dis-cussed further below). The instructions have survived thanks to being included in nu-merous manuscripts, primarily legal books: kormchaia books, nomocanons but also other miscellanies (e.g. Златаѧ цѣпъ135 or Ізмарагдъ136). They often appeared in them as instructions forpresbyters or bishop’sinstruction for yereis, and their authorship was attributed to the Church 134 О. Лотоцький, Українськi..., p. 102 , I. Skoczylas, Pouczenia (nauki pasterskie), [in:] Idem, Sobory eparchii chełmskiej XVII wieku. Program religijny Slavia UnitawRzeczypospolitej, [Studia i materiały do dziejów chrześcijaństwa wschodniego w Rzeczypospolitej, vol. 4], Lublin 2008, pp. 53–54. 135 Elena Bielakova gives the example of Zlataya cep (Golden Chain) from St. Ser- gius Lavra collection, which features a set of instructions attributed to, among others, Serapion of Vladimir, Е.В. Белякова, Поучения киевских митрополитов как источник по истории образования духовенства, “Europa Orientalis. Studia z dziejów Europy Wschodniej i Państw Bałtyckich” 6, 2015, p. 137, . 136 Cf. e.g. “words” of Izmaragd (Emerald) from the Stefanyk National Science Li-brary, cf. Кириличні рукописні книги у фондах Львівської наукової бібліотеки ім. В. Стефаника НАН України.Каталог, vol. 1: XI–XVI ст., ed. М.М. Кольбух, Львів 2007, no. 199. Fathers (e.g. John Chrysostom,137 Basil the Great138) or well-known Ruthenian hierarchs (e.g. 14th-century Metropolitans of Kiev, Petro Ratenskyi139 and Kyprian140). One of the oldest pieces of evidence of teaching being delivered during a council, from the times of Kievan Ruthenia, is Епископское поученіе собору епархіальнаго духовенстваwith the incipit “Cлышите ерѣискый преподобный изборе.”141 This instruction, popular especially in southern Ruthenia,142 was believed to have been the work of, in addition to the Fathers mentioned above, a monk and bishop from the Pechersk monastery, St Leontius of Rostov (d. ca 1071), and the 137 E.g. Іоанна Златоꙋстаго наказанїє всѧкомꙋ попови (ff. 414v-415) in the 16th-century Kormchaia Book, which follows the Instruction for Presbyters, cf. Кириличні рукописнi..., no. 202, p. 264. 138 Наказаніє ко презвитеру о Божественнеи службѣ... , this was the canonical Instruction of Basil the Greatreferred to above. Сf. i.a. М.В. Корогодина, Кормчая книга в Галиции (XVI – начало XVII века), Санкт Петербург 2015, p. 41. 139 The text of Petro Ratenskyi’s instruction, also attributed to Kyprian, cf. [Петръ Ратенский], Поученіе митрополита Петра духовенству (объ епитиміяхъ ивдовыхъ попахъ) и мірянамъ (объ усердіи къ церкви), [in:] RIB 6, no. 17, col. 159–164. It is included in a 15th-century Kormchaia Book, until recently kept in the Jagiellonian Library in Krak (Rękopisy cerkiewnosłowiańskie w Polsce. Katalog, ed. A. Naumow, A. Kaszlej in collaboration with E. Naumow, J. Stradomski, Krak 2004, no. 446) but now returned to its owners (the Tarnowski family). Other sermons by this author addressed to the clergy, cf. Поученіе Петра Митрополита Кіевскаго всея Русіи Господи благослови къ єпископомъ, и попомъ, иархимандритом, и игуменом и дьякономъ, и ко всѣм православным крестьяном, [in:] Памятники старинной русскойлитературы, ed. Г. Кушелевый-Безбородко, vol. 4, ed. H. Костомаров, Санктпетербургъ 1862, pp. 186–188; Поученіе смиренного Петра митрополита Кіевскаго и всея Руси игуменомъ, попомъ идіякономъ, [in:] Ф. Буслаєв, Историческая хрестоматия церковнославянскаго идревнерусскаго языков, Москва 1861, no. 34, col. 723–728. 140 Texts of Metropolitan Kyprian’s instructions in: RIB 6, no. 26–32, col. 230–270. 141 A reprint of the teaching in: RIB 6, no. 8, col. 111–116. 142 According to A. Pavlov, the instruction became very extensive in the kormchaia books in the region, cf. commentaries on the text RIB 6, col. 111—112. Metropolitan of Kiev Кyryl II(III)143 (1249–1281).144 It was to be found in kormchaia books,145 but also in the euchologion Slavonicumno. 15(15th–16th centuries),146 which may have been in use in the Kievan Metropolitanate even as late as in the 17th century.147 Worthy of note is also another very popular exhortation, reprinted several times in the 17th century. It was a 13th-century instruction for new priests entitled Святительское поученіе новопоставленному священнику with the incipit “Се тобѣ чадо Господь пороучи священие.”148 Scholars believe that the instruction emerged in Kiev Rus’ in the period preceding the Turkish-Tartar onslaught as a model text, compiled especially for the Kormchaia Book of Novgorod. It may 143 According to the Chronologyof the Orthodox Metropolitans of Ruthenia added to the Paterikon by Sylvester Kossov, this was the third Metropolitan of Kiev of that name and twenty-third from the beginning of the existence of hierarchical Church structures, cf. Paterikon abo żywoty oyców pieczerskich, Kij 1635, p. 175; [reprint in:] Seventeenth-Century Writings on the Kievan Caves Monastery, Cambridge Mass. 1987, p. 96 144 Cf. A. Pavlov’s commentary in: RIB 6, col. 111–112. Today the instruction is sometimes also linked to another well-known author of medieval sermons, Serapion, Bishop of Vladimir; after: G. Podskalsky, Literatura teologiczna Rusi Kijowskiej (988-1237). Homiletyka, [in:] Chrześcijaństwo i literatura teologiczna na Rusi Kijowskiej (988–1237), Krak 2000, p. 152. The argument concerning Serapion’s authorship was supported by M. Hrushevskyi and V. Kolobanov, while Makarii (Bulgakov) noted that in many sources the text of the instruction was placed immediately below the synodal principles, without any indication of its author, as if providing a conclusion to the rules. Thus it may have been a speech closing the deliberations, a suggestion confirmed by forms, to be found in its text, of direct address to the yereis; for more on the topic, cf. Ю. Пелешенко, Українська література пізнього середньовіччя (друга половина XIII–XV ст.), Київ 2012, pp. 114–115. 145 Я.Н. Щапов, Византийское и южнославянское…, pp. 181–182; Ю. Пелешенко, Українська література…, p. 116. 146 Kyryl II(III)’s rules from the 1273 council, followed by Пооученїє къ бг҃ обоязнивым иереомon ff. 443–440,cf. a description: М. Ваврик, Цінний пам’ятник обрядовости київської митрополії XV–XVI ст., [in:] Miscellanea in Honorem Cardina-lis Isidori (1463–1963), Roma 1963, p. 428; М. Марусин, Чини Святительських Служб в Київському Евхологіоні з початку XVI ст., Рим 1966, p. 203. 147 М. Ваврик, Цінний пам’ятник..., p. 438. 148 Reprinted in: RIB 6, no. 7, pp. 101–110. also have been a form presented by a bishop to newly ordained priests, which was to serve also as a document authenticating con-secration (the so-called svytok chirotonii, stavlennaia gramota). There is ample evidence to confirm that the text did indeed serve this function.149 The instruction, entitled Херитонія поповськая, was included, for example, in the 16th-century pontificale(chynovnyk) Священник святительский, popularly referred to as Osvyashchennyk(Освященник).150 The same text was also preserved as an instruction of the Metropolitan of Kiev Sylvester Bilkevych (1556–1567).151 That this particular work was chosen to be printed was most likely motivated by its established position, several centuries of existing and functioning in canon law and liturgical books. The initiative emerged in the wake of the renewal of synodal life together with the custom of delivering teachings for the clergy. The instruction may have been pub- lished for the first time in Stratyn in the short-lived Balaban workshop (1604) under the title of Хиротоніѧ. Поꙋченіє новопоставленомꙋ іереевѣ.152 149 Cf. Е.В. Белякова, Поучения киевских митрополитов…, pp. 135–136. According to Atanasii Neselovskyi, the so-called svytokchirotonii, handed to priests leaving for their parishes, is mentioned in numerous sources. The scholar believed that the name was that of the instruction and not of the document confirming consecration, because those receiving the document were often urged to deepen their knowledge with its help; А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій и хиротоній (опыт историко-археологіческаго изслѣдованія), Каменецъ-Подольскъ 1906, p. 196, cf. also footnote 57. Supplements to the work (Приложенія) contain examples of priestly installation charters, cf. no. 26, pp. XLIII–XLVI. 150 Reprinted in: Ibidem, no. 25, pp. XXXIII–XXXV. 151 Поученіе Кіевскаго митрополита Сильвестра новопоставленному іерею, [in:] Акты, относящіеся къ исторіи западной Россіи,vol. 3: (1556–1557), СанктПетербургъ 1848, pp. 116–118. 152 Unfortunately, this cannot be confirmed as the text of the work has not sur-vived; cf. Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич,Пам’ятки книжковогo мистецтва.Каталог стародруків виданих на Україні, Львів 1981, vol. 1, no. 60, p. 33. The work was called “Charitoniathat is an instruction for priests” in a complaint against Gedeon Balaban; the text of the complaint, cf. Першодрукар Іван Федоров та його послідовники на Україні (XVI – перша половина XVII ст.) Збірник документів, ed. Я. Ісаєвич, Київ 1975, p. 128. Bishop Arsenii Zheliborskyi popularized the instruction by is-suing its two editions. First he published the work two days before the planned Synod of Lviv in 1642, adding it to a reprint of Sylvester Kossov’s Didaskalia (1637).153 Bearing the title: Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧщенномꙋ, єгда ѿпꙋщаетъ Іереа Епⷭкопъ ѿ себе къ Прⷭтолꙋ єго, сей свитоⷦ емꙋ, подаетꙿ, it was printed again four years later (Lviv 1646) as part of the Nomocanon, typographically set by Mykhailo Slozka.154 A similar edition, with a slightly different linguistic layout and with minor additions, was prepared by Lazar Baranovych in 1676 in the Novohorodok printing house. The instruction was given the title On Chirotony and was published in print, like the Lviv version of 1642, with the teaching on the seven sacraments and a short formula of the bishop’s blessing for a newly ordained presbyter: Ꙍ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ на ново поставленномъ Іереи. Выписано з Правилꙿ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ и Ст҃ыхъ Ѿцъ и ѡ Сакраментахъ или о Тайнахъ за бл҃гословенїемъ ꙗсне вꙿ Бг҃ꙋ Преѡсщ҃еннагѡ Єгѡ Млⷭти Гдⷭна Ѿца Лазара Барановича (Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676). As Oleksandr Lototskyi rightly noted, the form of the medieval teachings in question is usually that of official, disciplinary and li-turgical instructions, and – to a lesser extent than could be expected – moral-ethical or spiritual-formative instructions.155 Thus in their content they resemble synodal principles, rules or constitutions com-posed by Church hierarchs. What makes them different is only slightly lesser conciseness and form. They are not presented as points, but, assuming the form of direct address, “words of the spiritual father to his sons”; they contain precepts and advice in which can be found a note of concern for the welfare of the priest and safety of the faithful entrusted to his care. The problems most often tackled in them con-cern liturgical ministry, veneration and sacerdotal authority as well as the hardship, often also threats, stemming from the dignity of the priesthood and mission.156 153 For more on the Didaskalia, see the section on catechism teachings below. 154 Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки книжковогo…, vol. 1, no. 351, p. 68. 155 О. Лотоцький, Українськi..., p. 102. 156 Bielakova distinguishes in the teachings three main groups of instructions con- cerning daily conduct of priests, duties associated with the celebration of the The problems were updated in the new pastoral teachings in the 17th century, which served formative purposes to a greater extent. The first printed synodal instruction was produced in the Kremenets confraternity’s workshop as part of the book describing the Synod of Lutsk of 1638: Синод ведле звичаю дорочного. This was Bishop Atanasii Puzyna’s synodal instruction for the Lutsk clergy with the incipit: “Пречестныи Гд҃нове Отцеве, Братїа о Хрстѣ и сослꙋжители мнѣ возлюблен҃ныи”, considered by scholars to have been lost until the appearance of Ivan Ohienko’s edition.157 Like the medieval chirotonypublished by Bishops Zheliborskyi and Baranovych, it may have been accompanied by the catechism teachings on the sacraments. That is why the bishop devoted a considerable part of the instruction to the need of teaching the faithful and preparing appropriately for the mission. He also addressed the clergy and candidates for the priesthood with a call for responsible ministry and understanding of the essence of the power entrusted to them by God: “Зна(й)моⷤ теды и ѡ чⷭти нашой, и не легце єй себѣ ваⷤмо”. 158 Some interesting pastoral instructions remained in manuscript form and were distributed among the clergy by means of copies sent to parishes. This was the form of the surviving instruction by Bishop Yakov Susha (ca 1610–1687) entitled Teaching of the Synod and Various liturgy and pastoral duties, Е.В. Белякова, Поучения киевских митрополитов…, p. 138. 157 A reprint of the instruction and discussion of the fate of the printed work, cf.І. Огієнко, Загублений кремянецький стародрук: “Синод луцький” 1638 р., “EΛΠΙΣ” V, 1931, pp. 86–95. 158 “Забава ваша нахай ваⷨ належꙿнаѧ бꙋде(тъ), вꙿ читанꙿю писма ст҃аго, вꙿ розмышленꙿю праⷰ апⷭлскиⷯ и ст҃ых ѡтецꙿ, ведлꙋгъ котрыⷯ абысте сами жили и паствꙋ свою оуправовали. А найбоⷧше вꙿ роспамѧтывⷩю оурѧду своегѡ, вѣдаючи иⷤ наⷨ земныⷨ небеⷭнаѧ владза порꙋчеⷩа, що бовѣмꙿ мовиⷮ звѧжете на земли, бꙋдеⷮ свѧзанно на нб҃си, а кого роⷥвѧжете нa зеⷨли бꙋдеⷮ роⷥвѧзанꙿ на нб҃си. А щоⷤ боⷧшее, ваⷤнѣйшее можеⷮ быти, грѣхѡⷡ бовѣⷨ нѣхто не можеⷮ ѿпꙋскати кроⷨ Єдного Бг҃а, а тꙋтꙿ бачимо ижъ и наⷨ слꙋгаⷨ своиⷨ то Хс҃ дароваⷧ и тымъ насъ оупевнилъ. Зна(й)моⷤ теды и ѡ чⷭти нашой, и не легце єй себѣ ваⷤмо. Бовѣⷨ чⷭти величеⷭтво недосто(й)нѣ чⷭти жити проиⷥволѧющиⷨ приложенїе мꙋки єстъ. Стара(й)тесѧ воⷥлюблеⷩныи абыⷭте тꙋю чⷭть маючи нѣ в чомꙿ не здорожали, а найбоⷧше абыⷭте вѣрꙋ ѿ Ст҃ыⷯ Апⷭлъ и ст҃ыхꙿ ѿцъ поданꙋю вцалѣ заховали и статечне в не(й) стоѧли”, Атанасій Пꙋзина, Синод ведле звичаю дорочного, Кремѧнецъ ca. 1638, pp. 94–95. Resolutions of 1669 and devoted to elucidation of the various parts of the Liturgy and the sacraments, primarily of penance.159 According to Ihor Skochylas, the work, which inspired further episcopal pro-nouncements, contributed to a revival of religious life, reform of the clergy and strengthening of ecclesiastical institutions.160 In April 1684, probably in connection with a planned synod, the Bishop of Przemyśl Innokentii Vynnytskyi († 1700) promulgated a pastoral letter entitled Нравооученіе іереемъ подобаетъ.161 A few years later, in 1687, an instruction for yereis was published as part of Metrical Records or a Registerby the Bishop of Lviv Yosyf Shumlanskyi.162 It comprised his moral teachings from the 1670s and 1680s entitled Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа, вамъ мїрскимъ їереомꙿ таковое преподаетсѧ.163 The Lviv vladyka, who by that time had become a crypto-Uniate, drew on the above-mentioned works by the Bishops of Przemyśl in 159 ЯковъСуша, Наука Соборовая и розные постановення въ намѣстництвѣ Cпискомъ и Бѣцкомъ и где индей поданыи, fragments of teaching and its description in: В. Щурат, Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї Западно-Рускої Церкви XVII в., Жовква 1907, pp. 6, 9–12; cf. also I. Skoczylas, Sobory eparchii chełmskiej XVII wieku..., pp. 54–55. 160 I. Скочиляс, Історичний нарис, [in:] Собори…, p. CXXIX. 161 The author may have been his predecessor, Bishop Yurii Hoshovskii, cf. В.Пилипович, Владика Інокентій Винницький у дослідженнях перемиських істориків, [in:] Катихисіс або бароковий душпастирський сад, ed. В. and Д.Пилиповичі, Перемишль 2007, p. 15. Text reprinted in: В. Щурат, Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого…, pp. I–V; Innocenty Winnicki, Ustawy rządu duchownego i inne pisma biskupa Innocentego Winnickiego, ed. W. Pilipowicz, Przemyśl 1998, pp. 85–89. 162 Метрика алꙿбо реестръ, длѧ порѧⷣкꙋ Цр҃҃ кви С(вѧтой) и снаⷣнѣйшо(й) їнформацїє(й), дховныⷨ свѣцкиⷨ, зꙿ тѵпографїи єппⷭко(й) Лвовской, при обители С(вѧтихъ) Велиⷦ Мнⷱика Хв҃а Геѡргіа выдана, Лвовъ 1687 (second edition Lviv 1688), cf. Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки книжкового..., vol. 1, no. 641 p. 101; no. 648, p. 102. 163 I. Skoczylas, Sobory eparchii chełmskiej…, p. 55. The scholar believes that there is aconsiderable affinity between the instruction and the writings of Atanasii Puzyna (Lutsk 1638), Sylvester Kossov’s Didaskalia (Kutein 1637) and other older works of this type, І. Скочиляс, Історичний..., [in:] Собори…, pp. CXXVIII–CXXIX. A reprint of the instruction in: Акты, относящіесякъ исторіи западной Россіи, vol. 5: 1633–1699, Санкт-Петербургъ 1853, pp. 196–207, no. 167; І.Скочиляс, Собори..., pp. 225–236 (all quotations come from this edition), translation into Ukrainian, pp. 236–247. writing his instruction. Like Susha, he devoted a lot of attention to theministry of the altar and specificity of the sacraments; like Vynnytskyi – to the problem of drunkenness164 as well as origin and preparation of future priests. Teachings for yereis have also survived in the writings of Dmytro Tuptalo, who may have preached them to the clergy during his ministry in the Rostov-Jaroslav Metropolitanate.165 With time there also emerged new types of teachings for the clergy, addressed to the bishop’s officials. An example is a work by Bishop Yosyf Shumlanskyi entitled Ꙗкосѧ маютъ Ѿц҃еве протопопове, а ꙗк сщ҃енници и весъ клиръ дх҃овный вꙿ порѧдкахъцр҃ковнихъ заховати (ff.56v-60), which regulated the duties of protopresbyters166 and was in the form of a set of principles. It was published as part of a theology textbook (Univ 1680)167 and dealt with synodal practice and organizational order in the church. The bishop made monthly confession of priests mandatory for protopresbyters and demanded synodal control of trebnyks, sluzhebnyks, antimensions,168 installation charters 164 I. Скочиляс, Історичний..., p. CXXIX. 165 Cf. e.g. Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Поꙋченїє ко Іереемъ, [in:] Сочиненїя Святого Дмитрїя митрополита Ростовскаго, vol. 1, pp. 104–110; Idem, Слово ѡ пастырствѣ дх҃овныхъ пастырей, [in:] Сочиненїя Святого Дмитрїя митрополита Ростовскаго, vol. 3, pp. 349–361. 166 On the duties of protopresbyters (archpriests, vicars), cf. L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego w Polsce, [in:] Kościół w Polsce, vol. 2: Wieki XVI–XVIII, ed. J. Kłoczowski, Kraków 1970, pp. 808–813. 167 Зерцало до прейзренѧ і латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Сакраментѡⷡ, Десѧтословїѧ Бж҃їѧ, грѣхопаденїй члчⷭескиⷯ, Дх҃овныⷨ и свѣцкиⷨ людемъ приличнѡ, Ꙋневъ 1680 (the work is discussed below). 168 During synods the vladyka would check the antimensions, which testified to ca-nonical subordination of a parish to its bishop. The practice of handing them to priests made it possible to control the life of the eparchy, not only in terms of the liturgy, and was widespread both among the Orthodox and Uniate bishops. For example, the 1635 diocesan Council of Sanok was convened especially by Petro Mohyla’s vicar to revise the antimensions and installation documents, I. Skoczylas, Pouczenia (nauki pasterskie), [in:] Idem, Sobory…, p. 51; cf. also Idem, Собори..., p. XLVII; As Kasian Sakovych wrote bitingly about the high fees for liturgical altar cloths, “[..] na biednych popów łakomi władykowie wymyślili, że na sobory swoje każą popom z antimisem się stawić i te antymisy lustrują, rewidują ilada przyczynkę antimisowi dawsze z popa winą wezmie”, Kasjan Sakowicz, and parish metrical records kept by presbyters. Some rules concerned irregularities in the ministry of the altar, which they were supposed to prevent.169 Yosyf Shumlanskyi, A Mirror for a Review and Better Understanding of the Holy Faith, Lviv 1687 The 17th century saw the emergence of printed bishops’ teachings for the clergy read out in situations other than those referred to above.170 Symeon Polotskyi’s posthumously published collection EПANOPΘΩΣIΣabo Perspektywa i objaśnienie błędów, herezjej i zabobonów w Greko-ruskiej Cerkwi Disunickiej tak w artykułach wiary, jako i w administrowaniu sakramentów i w inszych obrządkach i ceremoniach znajdujących się, Krak 1642, p. 50. 169 A reprint of the instruction in: І. Скочиляс, Собори.., pp. 3–5, translation into Ukrainian pp. 5–7. Discussion, cf. Ibidem, p. CXXIII. 170 Such teachings are also known from earlier periods and have survived in man-uscript form. An interesting example of an instruction delivered by an archi-mandrite or protopresbyter on behalf of a bishop to a priest to whom the parish church is handed over: Повченїє от архімандрита или от протопопы, повеленїєм ствятительским коли попоу новопоставляєму церков дають и ключ церковный, of sermons, Spiritual Supper (Moscow 1683) featured among its var-ious thematic sermons a speech, delivered by a newly consecrated bishop to the clergy in the eparchy, with the following title: Слово ѿ архїереа новопоставленнагѡ во єпархїю си пришедша кꙿ сщ҃енникѡⷨ ѡ єже жити имъ бл҃гоговѣйно, внимати же себѣ и стадꙋ. It is no different from the above-mentioned moral teachings addressed to priests and point-ing to the ideal of priestly life as well as the need to give the faithful a good example.171 The analyzed sources were for centuries one of the best – given their accessibility and relatively low cost – forms of influencing the clergy. In most parishes there were no kormchaia books or even small nomocanons, but some properly ordained presbyters may have re-ceived from their bishops synodal or post-consecration instructions or at least brief teachings added to the installation charter (stavlenna gramota). That is why Elena Bielakova analyzed these hand-written instructions, treating them as a source for the study of the history of the education of priests.172 Newly ordained priests would still receive such written teachings as late as in the 19th century173 or even for a century longer, according to scholar.174 They could be resorted to in case of doubts which must have arisen during daily liturgical-sacramental practices in parishes; they reminded the priests of their dignity, responsibility and duties. This with the incipit “Євангелское слово и благодать Ст҃҃ го Дха”, can be found in the Euchologion Slavonicumno. 15, cf. a description of the work М. Ваврик, Цінний пам’ятник…, p. 414. 171 Симеон Полоцкий, Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ на праздники Гдⷪскїѧ, Бг҃ородичны и ст҃ыхъ нарочитыхъ изꙿ пищъ слова Бж҃їѧ дꙋшамъ хрⷭстїанъ православныхъ въ насыщенїе дх҃овное, Бж҃їимъ пособїємъ оуготованнаѧ, Москва 1683, part 2, ff. 40v-45v. 172 The analysis covers three manuscripts, discovered by Ludmila Moshkova, with teachings which may have been edited and updated by the Kievan Metropoli tan Yosyf Soltan to adapt them to the pastoral needs of the day, Е.В. Белякова, Поучения киевских митрополитов…, pp. 139–153; Information about the collection and reprints of texts, cf. Eadem, Циклы поучений священникам в Кормчих западнорусской редакции, “Slavistica Vilnensis” 2016, vol. 61, pp. 187–255. 173 О. Лотоцький, Українськi..., p. 102. 174 Е.В. Белякова, Поучения киевских митрополитов…, p. 138. is suggested by the advice, to be found in many of these texts, to read the instruction often or even to use it in the weekly examination of conscience. Блюди іерею, да не тѣмъ самымꙸ точїю доволенъ быти въсхощеши, ꙗко стѧжалъ и приѡбрѣлъ єси ѿ насъ поꙋченїє сіє, но и на кꙋюждѡ седмицꙋ, поне єдинощи вꙸ то приникъ, разсмотрѧй свою совѣсть, аще тѧ вꙸ чемъ, противꙋ завѣщанїѧмъ симъ съгрѣшивша, не ѡбличаетъ.175 That synod, chirotony and other instructions intended for the clergy contained similar content and served a similar purpose can be seen in the texts themselves. For example, in his pastoral letter to vicars, monks and priests of the Diocese of Przemyśl, Innokentii Vynnytskyi confessed that his teaching was based on “fragments of the Holy scriptures and parables of your priestly ordinations”. In addition, he advised them to frequently peruse the letter or, alternately, their own chirotony instructions and behave in accordance with the truths they contained.176 The identity of these teachings was also confirmed by polemical literature. In Lithos Euzebi Pimin, i.e. probably the Metropolitan of Kiev Petro Mohyla, in trying to convince his adversary that Orthodox priests did observe the duty of monthly confession, stressed that information about it came from at least two sources, chirotony and synodal instructions: “[...] zawsze nowo poświęconych przy poświęceniu, jako i wszystkich na Synodach Swiaszczenników uczą, i im koniecznie przykazują, aby każdy Spowiednika osobliwego miał, i oprócz przypadków dwanaście razy 175 The advice can be found in Bishop Arsenii Zheliborskyi’s supplement (“пристеженїє”) placed below the text of the instruction, cf. Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви єгда єпⷭкопъ ѿпꙋщаєтъ къ прⷭтолꙋ єго ѿ себе, подаетъ мꙋ свиток сей (Лвовъ 1642), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Приложения, Кіевъ 1898, p. 210. 176 “[...] возлюбленнїи мои честнїи свѧщенници, пишꙋ до васъ сїє моє посланїє, сꙿ писма свѧтого, и харитонїй вашихъ їерейскихъ выписавши зачала, прилежно желаю вамъ, нелѣнѣтесѧ своѧ харитонїѧ на кождꙋю пѧтницꙋ читати, албо сїє моє посланїє въ кротцѣ собранноє читати, и тꙋю наꙋкꙋ свою їерейскꙋю хотѣйте памѧтати а памѧтаючи творити [...]”, Іннокентій Винницкій, Нравооученіє іереемъ подобаєтъ, [in:] Ustawy rządu…, p. 87. do roku z przygotowaniem się i porachowaniem sumienia Spowiedź odprawował.”177 It seems that the teachings not only reminded priests to regularly cleanse their conscience, but may also helped them in diligent preparation for the sacrament of confession. Some texts list sins which should not be committed by priests, while others contains lists of honourific titles of priests stemming from their virtues and pastoral authority. An example of both compilations can be found in a medieval instruction printed in the 17th century.178 This function of instructions is confirmed by Innokentii Vyn nytskyi. In it he included no fewer than two lists – considerably expanded in comparison with those known from the 13th century – of titles of Biblical provenance, which may have been inspired by the writings of the Church Fathers. Of particular importance from the point of view of the usefulness of the compilation seems to be the fact that the first list included brief explanations concerning pastoral duties. As a result, obligations stemming from a yereis being “like light, salt, adoctor” were made more specific: Свѣтъ мирꙋ, соль земли, врачъ албо лѣкаръ болныхъ, вождъ слѣпыхъ, наставникъ блꙋдѧщимъ, оучитель Законꙋ Божїѧ, ѡко тѣлꙋ церковномꙋ, пꙋть албо дорога до неба приводѧщаѧ, дверникъ небесный і ключаръ райскїй, дѣлатель дѣлъ Божїихъ, строителъ чинꙋ церковномꙋ, кꙋпецъ, кꙋпꙋючи каменѧ много цѣннаго клейнота Хрїста. Гостинникъ, маючи старанѧ ѡ исцѣленїи впадшаго въ разбойники, сирѣчъ человѣка впадшаго въ грѣхи ѡчищати. Єстесь сторожъ, стрегꙋчи стада Хрїстова ѿ волковъ, си єсть геретиковъ, и ѿ дїаволовъ. Єстесь пастыръ ѡвецъ Хрїстовыхъ. Єстесь вождъ дꙋшевный. Єстесь сꙋдїѧ, ижъ въ особѣ Божїєй хрїстїѧнъ на сповѣди сꙋдишъ, покꙋтꙋ имъ задаєшъ, вѧжешъ и до пекла ѿсылаєшъ, то єстъ до покꙋты свѧтой, и розвѧзꙋєш, а зъ землѣ до неба впроважаєшъ. Єстесь властитель, и тꙋю 177 Euzebi Pimin, LIΘOΣabo kamieńz procy prawdy cerkwie świętej prawosławnej ruskiej na skruszenie fałeczno ciemnej Perspektiwy albo raczej paszkwilu od Kassiana Sakowicza, Kij 1644, p. 34. 178 First comes a praise of the priesthood and the titles in question, followed by an instruction and list of sins, cf. Святительское поученіе новопоставленному священнику, col. 101, 103–104; Ꙍ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, ff. [2v-3, 5]. ѿ єпископа маєшъ, а єпископъ ѿ архїєпископа, а архїєпископъ ѿ Бога. Єстесь чиститель, ижъ грѣхи людскїи ѡчищаєшъ. Єстесь ѡфѣровникъ ижъ ѡфѣрꙋ за грѣхи своѧ и людскїѧ приносишъ. Єстесь холмъ албо пагорокъ из землѣ до неба смотрѧчїй. Єстесь тайный домъ, то єстъ седми свѧтыхъ сакраментовъ. Єстесь премꙋдрости столп, абовѣмъ Богъ єстъ премꙋдрость, а твоє свѧщенство Божїй столпъ. Єстесь оуста Божїѧ даючи покой свѣтꙋ. Єстесь Аг҃гелъ Господень. Єстесь трꙋба небеснаѧ. Єстесь отецъ братїй своєѧ, иже вꙿ ѡсобѣ Божїєй грѣхи ѿпꙋщаєшъ, сповѣдаєшъ и причащаєшъ. Єстесь Богꙋ нꙋдитель, иже въ день и въ ночи молитвами Бога за своѧ и людскїѧ грѣхи благати маєшъ. Єстесь всемꙋ свѣтꙋ молитвенникъ. Єстесь подражатель Господень, понеже Богъ єстъ свѧтый, и ты маєшъ свѧтымъ быти. Єстесь апостолскїй подобникъ, понеже апостоли свѧтіи в послꙋшенствѣ, в чистости, в покорѣ и в терпенїи жили, и ты такожде жити маєшъ. Єстесь кормитель церковный, ꙗко ꙗкого кораблѧ стырникъ, препроважаючи хрїстїѧнъ з сего бꙋрливаго житейскаго морѧ на ѡнꙋю сторонꙋ до небеснаго града Іерꙋсалимꙋ. Єстесь источникъ свѧтаго Дꙋха, маючи водꙋ живꙋю, ѿ Бога отца и Сына истѣкаючꙋю и во животъ вѣчный до царства небеснаго въводѧчꙋю179. Such a considerable expansion of a fragment of the medieval in- struction could be attributed to the Baroque amplification tendency, especially given the fact that the long list was repeated once again in aslightly different form. It seems, however, that this time it was above all an expression of the bishop’s desire for the text to be applicable in practice. And for the instruction to bring expected spiritual benefits also to less sophisticated priests, it had to be comprehensible to them. This may have been the reason why Vynnytskyi – to make content in question more memorable – again referred to the list of titles, this time with additional information and addressing yereis directly, e.g. with a directive: “If you are a Leader, lead them to penance, and then let them prepare for the terrible Divine Judgement”, or with a reprimanding question concerning their daily sacerdotal duties: “If you are the Offerer, why do you not bring Sacrifice to God, for you sin all week and approach the altar only on Saturday and Sunday, thus you look after your body more than you venerate God.”180 179 Іннокентій Винницкій, Нравооученіє іереемъ подобаєтъ, pp. 86–87. 180 Ibidem, pp. 87–88. Like in the supplement to the medieval instruction quoted above, in the final part of his letter Vynnytskyi asked priests: “read this teaching every Friday”, which means that it was to serve parish priests in their weekly preparation for the sacrament of penance. There is no doubt that such a list facilitated self-assessment of the priests’ ministry and aroused in them a sense of responsibility for the souls of the faithful. For priests, as the bishop taught them, should always act “in accordance with their titles.”181 Catechism teachings and catechisms Catechism teachings, in the form of conversations between a knowledgeable and a layperson, had circulated in manuscripts since the Middle Ages. Their authors were the Church Fathers and then Ruthenian hierarchs; their texts can be found in kormchaia books for the clergy.182 The appearance of the first printed Orthodox catechisms or catechetical writings for a broader circle of readers in the late 16th century was preceded by transformations in religiosity. Triggered primarily by Protestantism, they were subsequently made more dynamic during the preparations for the Union of Brest.183 The faithful and the lower clergy faced new questions: What is sin, prayer, fasting? How to follow God’s commandments in practice? Answers to these questions were initially given in simple sermons, the authors of which sought to explain the foundations of faith included in a new 181 Ibidem, p. 87. 182 A reprint of two hitherto unpublished texts and discussion, cf. М.В. Корогодина,Древнерусское богословие и катехитические тексты XIV в., “Древняя Русь.Вопросы медиевистики”, 4 (58) декабрь 2014, pp. 5–22. Cf. also other very popular texts: Вопросы Кирика, Саввы и Иліи, съ отвѣтами Нифонта, епископа новогородскаго, и другихъ іерархическихъ лицъ (1130–1156); Отвѣты константинопольскаго патріаршаго собора на вопросы сарайскаго епископа Теогноста (1276); Кипріан, Смѣреннаго митрополита Киевскаго и всеяРуси отвѣтъ ко Афанасію,въпросившему о нѣкоихъ потребныхъ вещѣхъ (1390–1405), [in:] RIB 6. 183 М.В Дмитриев., Между Римом и Царьградом…, pp. 64–65. type of Homiliary Gospels (Uchytelnoie Evanhelie).184 These manuscript collections included numerous instructions, not linked to the liturgi-cal calendar, and some homiliaries also featured a brief catechetical part at the end.185 One of the oldest printed Orthodox texts devoted to a description of the truths of faith and the sacraments was a short work of catecheti-cal nature or, rather, a polemical confession of faith entitled Katechizm to jest Sumariusz albo krótkie zebranie wiary i Ceremonij Cerkwie świętej Wschodniej. The work was added by Meletii Smotrytskyi to the fa-mous polemical work ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament jednej ś. Powszechnej Apostolskiej Wschodniej Cerkwie z objaśnieniem Dogmat Wiary (Vilnius 1610)186 he published under the pseudonym of Theophil Ortholog. Despite the fact that the work, following the king’s order, was de-stroyed and his publisher Leontii Karpovych was imprisoned, it was quickly snapped up.187 Moreover, the Sumariusz was published just one year later (1611), in Vievis, in a Church Slavonic translation and a slightly different version as Катехизисъ албо короткое зебранье вѣры и церемонїй Свѧтое Соборное Апостолское Всходннее Церкви in the prayer book Молитвы повседневные […] до которых и Катехизмъ вѣри предан 184 Г. Чуба, Українські рукописні…, p. 10. As the scholar noted, the sermons often end with instructions in the form of directives which make up a “code of Christian conduct”, Ibidem, p. 17. This role of sermons has also been noted by Margarita Korzo, who discusses it, referring to the example of explanations of the Decalogue, cf. М.А.Корзо, Толковaние Декалога в рукописных Учительных Евангелиях конца XVI – начала XVII века, [in:] Theatrum humanae vitae. Студії на пошану Наталі Яковенко, Київ 2012, pp. 288–295. 185 Г. Чуба, Українські рукописні…, p. 22. 186 Meleсjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament jednej ś.Powszechnej Apostolskiej Wschodniej Cerkwie z objaśnieniem Dogmat Wiary przez TheophilaOrthologa tejże świętej wschodniej Cerkwie Syna, Wilno 1610, ff. 208-218v; reprint in:Collected Works of Meletij Smotryc’kyj, With an Introduction by D.A. Frick, texts: vol. 1, Cambridge Mass. 1987, pp. 224–235. [hereafter I give the folio from the original with the page of the re-edition in brackets]. 187 The edition was sold out before the order to confiscate it was promulgated, J.Stra domski, Spory o “wiarę grecką” w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2003, p. 40. єстъ вкоротцѣ.188 The changes introduced in the prayer book version concerned the person pronouncing the truths of faith, because in Threnosit was a personification of the Eastern Church, which added authority and dignity to the pronouncement and was also a way to influence the reader’s emotions.189 In the prayer book version there was no prosopopoeia, the text was devoid of expression, becoming instead calm and neutral in its tone.190 The first confessions and catechism teachings, like this from Threnos, were polemical,191 at the same time they were valuable works providing some systematization to the knowledge of the truths of faith and the sacraments. The Vilnius Trebnyk (Молитвъникъ или Требникъ имѣѧ въ себѣ цр҃ ковнаѧ послѣдованїа), an upcoming edition of which was announced by Leon Mamonych in his dedication to the Sluzhebnyk of 1617, was to have featured the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments (Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃҃ ковныⷯ. Преⷥвитеромъ до прыстойного шафованꙿѧ тайнами стыми барꙿзо потребнаѧ)192. However, in the dedication to the Vilnius Trebnykof 1617 or 1618193 the same printer made no mention of his earlier an-nouncement being put into practice. It seems unlikely that a treatise 188 М. Корзо, Украинская и белорусская катехетическая традиция конца XVI-XVIII вв.: становление,еволюция и проблема заимствований, Москва 2007, pp.272–274. According to the scholar, the translation may have been done by the publisher, Pavlo Domzhyv-Lutkovych but also by Meletii Smotrytskyi, Ibidem, p. 275. 189 For more on this rhetorical device and its application in Ukrainian literature at the time, see A. Nowak, Rola prozopopei w ukraińskiej poezji elegijnej XVI–XVII w., [in:] Język, literatura, historia Ukrainy, ed. W. Mokry, Krak 2003, pp. 77–93. 190 М. Корзо, Украинская…, pp. 279–280. 191 Before Threnos there emerged several polemical catechism teachings – in print and manuscript form – produced by Stefan and Lavrentii Zizanii or attributed to them. Not all of them have survived. For more on the topic, cf. А. Жуковський, Катехизис Петра Могили, Київ-Париж 1996, pp. 6–8; A. Fałowski, Język ruskiego przekładu katechizmu jezuickiego z 1585 roku, Kraków 2003, pp. 13–14; М. Корзо, Украинская…, pp. 216–291. 192 I was using an excerpt made by M. Korzo based on an old print. Every quotations come from this source. 193 There were two editions of the Trebnyk: from 1617 and 1618 or two slightly different versions were published. On the problems with the ultimate explanation of this editorial conundrum, cf. М.А Корзо, О некоторых изданиях киевской on the sacraments could be included in the book without a word of comment, without any praise for its authors or those who inspired it, like in the case of the Teaching for Yereis from the 1617 Sluzhebnyk,194 in accordance with the convention followed at the time. Although many scholars, including Mykhailo Vavryk,195 Antonina Ziornova196 or Petro Galadza,197 link the work on the sacraments with the Trebnyk, the latest findings demonstrate that this publishing plan was most likely not put into practice. This is evidenced by the fact that probably no copy of the liturgical book with the text in question has survived. Ivan Karataiev did note the existence of a Trebnyk featuring the Teaching,198 but according to Margarita Korzo, it may have been a copy bound together with the liturgical book199. The fact that the Trebnyk published in Vilnius in 1621 features a preface the author of which provides a brief description of the sacraments and refers his readers for more in-depth information to Gabriel Severos’ work available only in manuscript form seems to confirm this assertion.200 At the same time it suggests, as I. Karataiev believes, that the edition was published in Vilnius around 1630,201 according to M. Vavryk, after the trebnyk model.202 Heorhii Halenchanka’s catalogue does not list the 1630 edition, although the description of the 1618 Trebnyk mentions митрополии в рукописном наследии Евфимия Чудовского, “Славяноведение” 2, 2014, pp. 90–91. 194 М.А Корзо, О некоторых…, p. 91. 195 М. Ваврик, Церковні друкарні й видання в українській католицькій церкві 17-го ст.,“Analecta Ordinis P. Basilii Magni”, 15, Рим 1974, p. 111. The scholar be-lieved that another, separate edition of the teaching, from 1630, was modelled on the Trebnyk edition, Ibidem, p. 112. 196 After Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…, no. 87. 197 Cf. П. Ґаладза, Літургічне питання, [in:] Берестейська унія..., p. 10. 198 Cf. И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 242. 199 Margarita Korzo continues research and exploration of Trebnyk with Teaching. 200 М.А Корзо, О некоторых… p. 90. 201 The teaching was published without the date and place of publication, cf. И.Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 356. 202 М. Ваврик, Церковні друкарні…, p. 112. Yurii Labyntsev’s and I. Karataiev’s theses concerning possible separate editions of the work from 1620 and 1630.203 The extensive, 178-page Teachings on the Sacraments, is attributed to Yozafat Kuntsevych and Leon Kreuza Rzevuskii, i.e. the same au-thors who apparently prepared the liturgical commentary “for yereis” (Sluzhebnyk, Vilnius 1617). The work was probably inspired by a book on dogmatics by the Greek scholar Gabriel Severos (1541–1616), Metropolitan of Philadelphia in Lydia (with the seat in Venice). A Slavonic translation of his Syntagmation – a work on the sacraments – was circulated in the Polish--Lithuanian Commonwealth in manuscript form,204 introducing the Ruthenian readers into the world of modernized Greek theology.205 The work was published for the first time in Greek in Venice in 1600, while a translation into the prosta mova, Синтагматіонъ или о св҃ тих седми цр҃҃ ковных списаниє блженного митрополита Филаделфискаго […], was made, according to Yurii Yasinovskyi, around 1603 in the Holy Trinity Monastery in Derman, Volhynia. A printed version did not appear until 1659, when it was published in Moscow as part of the SpiritualTablet (Скрижал духовна), a Byzantine book commenting on 203 H. Halenchanka, referring to the description of the 1630 edition of the Teachingin I. Karataiev’s catalogue, erroneously refers to item no. 536 (it should be 356), cf. Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…, no. 87. 204 A discussion of the content of the work, В. Попелястий, Богослов’я таїнствапокаянняна основі текстів Требника митрополита Петра Могили, “Acta studiosа: богословський науковий збіник”, 7: Літургійний випуск, 2014, pp. 80–83. 205 А. Ясіновський, Про венеціансько-острозькі культурні контакти: “Синтагматіон” Гавриїла Севера, [in:] Україна XVII ст. між заходом та сходом Європи. Матеріали І-го українсько – італійського симпозіуму 13–16 вересня 1994р., Київ–Венеція 1996, pp. 556–564; Idem “Синтагматион” Гавриила Севера: греческий оригинал и украинский перевод, “Славяне и их соседи”, vol. 6: Греческий и славянский мир в средние века и раннее новое время, Москва 1996, pp. 163–164, cf. also Idem, Внесок острозького культурного осередку в розвиток української богословської думки (кінець XVI – початок XVII століть), “Ковчег. Науковий збірник із церковної історії”, vol. 3, ed. Б. Ґудзяк, І. Скочиляс, О.Турій, Львів 2001, pp. 224–225. The scholar believes that the impact of the Syntagmation was considerable and in addition to the analyzed catechetical works it also influenced the preface – a treatise by Tarasii Zemka – to the Sluzhebnyk (Kiev, 1629) as well as Petro Mohyla’s Trebnyk (Kiev 1646), Ibidem. the Holy Liturgy.206 The book has a question-and-answer form, char- acteristic of catechisms. It provides definitions of all the sacraments, taking into account the division characteristic of new Greek theology: into form, matter, person of the minister, conditions for receiving the sacraments and effects of the sacraments. According to M. Vavryk, this substantial work provided the basis for shorter catechism teachings dedicated to representatives of the clergy. In the scholar’s view, the first was by Sylvester Kossov (1637), the second by Atanasii Puzyna (1638).207 Yet the latter was most likely a reprint of Sylvester Kossov’s Didaskalia, published in print for the first time in Kutein as Дідаскалїа, альбо наꙋка котораѧсѧ первѣй изъ ꙋстъ свѧщенникѡмъ подавала ѡ седми сакраментахъ, алболи тайнах на синодѣ помѣстномъ въ Бг҃оспасаємом градѣ Могилевѣ […] ѡⷣ правованыⷨ ѿ Превелебнаго Єго Млⷭти Господина Ѿца Силвестра Косова Єпⷭпа Мстиславского, Ѡршаⷩского и Могилевского, потомъ преⷥ тогожъ въ дрꙋкъ подана въ Типографїи Монастыра общежителнаго Кꙋтеенꙿского, Цр҃҃҃ кви Стыхъ Бгоѧвленій Рокꙋ 1637 […].208 The title suggests that on becoming bishop Sylvester Kossov preached the teachings at the Synod of Mohylev and then decided to publish them to support priests in their teaching ministry in parishes.209 The fact that the work was written in the prosta movawas likely the reason why it became so popular among its publishers and those initiating various editions, i.e. mainly hierarchs. Didaskaliawas reissued many times. The work was addressed primarily to the clergy, which is why its editions were often accompanied by other writings dedicated to 206 А. Ясіновський, “Синтагматион”…, pp. 163–168; Idem, Про венеціанськоострозькі…pp. 562-563. 207 That the scholar lists both works probably means that for him they were not the same, М. Ваврик, Церковні друкарні…, p. 111. 208 I give the title after С. Голубев, Кіевскіймитрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2 (Приложенія), Кіевъ 1898, pp. 228–229, footnote 1. A facsimile edition of Stepan Golubiev’s work, including its pagination, was prepared by Oleksa Horbach, Три українські катихизми з 17 ст., Рим 1990; Cf. a description of Didaskalia, И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 445; Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…, no. 127. 209 I. Скочиляс, Історичний..., [in:] Собори…, p. CXXIX. A. Mironowicz, Sylwester Kossow biskup białoruski, metropolita kijowski, Białystok 1999, p. 17. priests. In 1653 it was printed again in Kutein with the title page featuring the information that this was the third edition,210 but according to Zoja Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, there is no second edition in the existing bibliographies.211 It did not come from the same printing press in the Epiphany Monastery in Kutein. The work may have been reprinted for the first time in the confraternity’s short-lived printing house in Kremenets, which published only the Grammar, the bishop’s teaching212 and a catechetical work entitled О мистиріѧх или тайнахъ впосполитости213 – books long considered to have been lost. Accord-ing to Ivan Ohienko, who discovered the 1638 synodal teaching of Atanasii Puzyna, the Bishop of Lutsk, the work on the sacraments most likely was not printed separately but with the instruction in question.214 This is suggested by a reference placed towards its end and encouraging the readers to explore the essence of the seven sac raments using the text just submitted for publication: И тоєⷤ до дрꙋкꙋ росказалеⷨ подати, абы каⷤдый зꙿ чⷭтносте(й) вашиⷯ, єсли бы котрїй добре ѡ тиⷯ та(й)нахъ не вѣдаⷧ, або иначе(й) розꙋмѣⷧ, длѧ согласїа то на писмѣ мѣл, абы кгды ѡ то бꙋдетъ пытаⷩ порѧⷣне и згоⷣне ѿповѣлъ. Бо не беⷥ каⷬности пеⷡне недбалы(й) мꙋсѣл бы быти. По тыⷨ при всѣхъ собраⷩю ѡ всѣⷯ та(й)наⷯ порѧⷣне читано, ꙗко тꙋтъ єстъ написано.215 A combination of the two texts, exhortation and catechism, seems plausible, if only because of the fact that there were other such publications. An example is another edition of Didaskalia entitled O тайнахꙿ церковных вꙿ посполитости, published in print on Bishop Arsenii Zheliborskyi’s initiative in Lviv in 1642 together with an instruction for 210 “По трете в типографии монастыра общежителнаго Кутеенского типом издася року1653”, Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…., no. 163. 211 Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki…, p. 95. 212 И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 467, Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., vol. 1, no. 264. 213 Karataiev records a 16-page publication, without a title page, cf. И. Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 468; The authors of a contemporary catalogue believe that it is a reprint of Sylvester Kossov’s Didaskalia, Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич,Пам’ятки..., vol. 1, no. 262. 214 І. Огієнко, Загублений кремянецький стародрук…, pp. 86–92. 215 Атанасій Пꙋзина, Синод ведле звичаю дорочного, Кремѧнецъ ca. 1638, p. 95. newly ordained priests: Поꙋченїє новосвѧщенномꙋ іерееви.216 This publishing model was also used by Bishop Lazar Baranovych, who in 1676 published a work that was a reprint, with slight changes and additions, of the entire Lviv edition with a new title, Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи. Such double editions emerged out of concern for yereis having access to essential aids. Both the instruction for yereisand the catechism constituted convenient material for self-education, with the latter also being used in the teaching for the faithful. This must have been the kind of usefulness of the catechism that Bishop Yosyf Shumlanskyi had in mind, when he included the Didaskalia in its version from the 1668 Kiev edition (entitled О сакраментахъ217) in the Mirror, a theological work dedicated to the clergy.218 In Kiev the work had also been published earlier, in 1657, as О таинахъ.219 The Pechersk editions of the catechism probably did not have prefaces, but, according to Petr Piekarskyi, they featured rules, important to priests, concerning the degree of kinship mak-ing marriage possible.220 There is also a slightly changed Chernihiv edition from 1716 (Краткое поꙋченїє о семи сакраментахъ или таинахъ церковнихъ221) including other supplements supporting pastoral 216 I quote Didaskalia from the 1642 Lviv edition entitled Омистерїахъ или тайнахъ в посполитостиreprinted with the instruction in: С. Голубев, Кіевскіймитрополит..., vol. 2, no. LVII, pp. 206–226; descriptions of the works, cf. И.Каратаєвъ, Описаніеславяно-русскихъ…, no. 548; Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., p. 63, no. 297. 217 Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., vol. 1, no. 445. 218 It was Зерцало до прейзренѧ і латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Сакраментѡⷡ, Десѧтословїѧ Бж҃їѧ, грѣхопаденїй члчⷭескиⷯ, Дх҃овныⷨ и свѣцкиⷨ людемъ приличнѡ, Ꙋневъ 1680; cf. Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., no. 591. 219 Я. Запаско,Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., vol. 1, no. 390. For more on the Kiev editions of the work with different titles, cf. Ф. Титов, Типографія Кіево-Печерской Лавры…, vol. 1, Кіевъ 1916, p. 366. 220 П. Пекарский, Наука и литерaтура в Росии при Петре Великом, vol. 2: Описание славяно-русских книг и типографий 1698–1725 годов, Санктпетербургъ 1862, pp. 355–356. 221 I give the title after Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., vol. 2, part 1, no. 911. ministry: Приложеніе нꙋжнѣйшихъ вещей, ꙗже іерею слꙋжителю св. Таинъ вѣдать подобаєтъ.222 In addition to the Didaskalia, other catechisms, too, were to be the basis for teaching the faithful. There is evidence to suggest that this was the case with a hand-written catechism by Yozafat Kuntsevych,223 who is also believed to be the author of the Vilnius texts: Teaching for Yereis (1617) and Teaching on the Seven Sacraments (ca. 1618). The work was written between 1618 and 1623 and like the similar – but published in Vilnius as late as in 1628 – first Basilian work in Cyrillic entitled Наꙋка ꙗко вѣрити маєтъ каждый, который щититсѧ нареченїемъ Православїѧ. Зъгоднаѧ зъ писмомъ свѧтымъ, и со свѧтыми оучителми церковными, и принѧтаѧ ѿ соборное апостолское церкви224 seems to have been significantly influenced by Jacob Ledesma’s Catholic catechism.225 Kuntsevych’s hand-writtencatechism survived in its beatification file and in the 19th century was published for the first time in a Latin translation.226 The Didaskalia or the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments do not quite fit in with the format of catechism as a genre. According to M.Korzo, the first printed publication in the Orthodox circles that can be fully regarded as a catechism was Lavrentii Zizanii’s work printed 222 Unfortunately, P. Piekarskyi does not say what type of material was included in the edition; on the other hand he cites one example of changes introduced into the text of the catechism and concerning the description of the sacrament of the Eucharist, П. Пекарский, Наука и литерaтура…, p. 356. The addition was quite extensive – the 1657 edition of the Didaskalia encompassed 19 folios with the degrees of kinship, while the Chernihiv edition – of the same format and with a bigger number of lines per page – no fewer than 33 folios. 223 As can be read in Yakov Susha’s surviving notes, Yozafat Kuntsevych taught the faithful, using catechetical instructions, cf. M.A. Корзо, Украинская…, p. 414. 224 I give the title after М.A. Корзо, Украинская…, p. 416. 225 M.A. Korzo, Polski przekład katechizmu Jakuba Ledesmy T.J i jego wpływ na tradycję unicką w XVII w., “Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce” XLVIII, 2004, pp. 149–159; for more on the subject cf. М.A. Корзо, Украинская…, pp. 409–429. 226 On the fate of the work, cf. М.A Корзо, Украинская…, pp. 409–412. I use amodern edition: [Йосафат Кунцевич],Катехизм, укладений слугою Божим Йосафатом, [in:] Святий Йосафат Кунцевич. Документи щодо беатифікації, transl. Й. Романик, Жовква 2010, pp. 271–295. in Moscow in 1627.227 In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the genre is represented by the so-called Brief Catechism prepared by Petro Mohyla and Isaia Trofymovych Kozlovskyi. Compared with the previous works, the book was better ordered and closer to modern catechism editions.228 In addition, it was also the first catechism published after having been accepted by a synod. The synod was held in Kiev in 1640 and among the topics it discussed was the problem with non-Orthodox catechisms, also disseminated in Polish, addressed to the Eastern Church believers. The matter was tackled by Father Isaia Trofymovych Kozlovskyi on 9 September 1640: Świety i zbrany bogonośny zborze! Iż w Cerkwi naszej Ruskiej xiegi Słowienskie są, których nie wiele swieszczenicy Ruscy rozumie li: co widząc przeciwnicy i heretycy nadrukowali xsiąg, przypisując i opacznie udając za prawosławne xięgi, językiem do wyrozumienia snadnym Polskim; w których xsięgach wiele takowych xsiąg dostały one czytał, i sam tak wierzył, i drugich także wierzyć nauczał. Zaczym wiele chrzescijanów odpadło od wiary naszej w rozmaite herezje i tak cerkiew przepirają, przemagają i zasmęcają. Iego mć ociec metropolita, to widząc, chce to uspokoić i znowu do pierwszej prawości przywieść: katechism spisawszy z wielką ostrożnością i wielkim rewidowaniem pism cerkiewnych którego puncta przed was, przeoświecony soborze, wnosi i pokłada. Pierwszy o wyznaniu wiary, aby wszyscy prawosławni jednako wierzyli i wyznawali.229 The Brief Catechismwas published in Kiev in 1645 first in Polish asZebranie krótkiejnauki o artikułach wiary prawosławno-katholickiej chrześciańskiej, jako Cerkiew Wschodnia Apostolska uczy, a dla ćwiczeni młodzi, 227 М. Корзо, Украинская…, p. 292, a description of the work and problems with its acceptance for publication, cf. Ibidem, pp. 292–353. 228 D. Kuźmina, Katechizmy w Rzeczypospolitej XVI i początku XVII wieku, Warszawa 2002, p. 159. 229 Кіевскій соборъ 1640 года по разсказу Саковича, [in:] RIB 4, pp. 27 and 29 (28 and 30 Ruthenian version of the speech). At that time the Orthodox lacked a catechism described by Arkadii Zhukovskyi as “official” or “legislative”; the gap was probably to be filled by the Great Catechism prepared by the Kievan Metropolitan, А. Жуковський, Катехизис…, p. 20. za roskazaniem y blogosławieństwem Starszych do druku podane,230 and then twice in the prosta mova: Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки. О Артикꙋлахъ Вѣры Православнокаѳѡлической Хрїстїꙗнской ведлⷢꙋ вызнанѧ и Наꙋки Цр҃ квє С(вѧтой) Востоⷱнои Соборной Апⷭлской, длѧ цвѣченѧ и наꙋки, всѣмъ вꙿ школахꙿ сѧ цвѣчачимъ Хрїстїѧнскимъ Православнымъ дѣтемъ. За росказанємъ и Блгⷭлвенствомъ Старшиⷯ Первѣй ꙗзыкомъ Полскиⷨ, а теперъ дїалектомъ рꙋскимꙿ зꙿ дрꙋкꙋ выданое.231 Just one year later the work, featuring a preface by the Bishop of Lviv Arsenii Zheliborskyi, appeared in the printing house he had founded, again in the “Ruthenian dialect” with a slightly modified title: Зобранїе Короткой наꙋки ѡ артикꙋлахъ вѣры правослаⷡнокатолицкой Христїанской. Ꙗкъ Цр҃ ковъ Всходнаѧ Апⷭтолскаѧ оучиⷮ, а длѧ цвиченѧ людїй молодыⷯ, до дрꙋкꙋ поданое.232 The vladyka’s motivation behind his decision to reprint the book was the fact that the Kiev editions had too few copies and that, at the same time, the catechism was, in his view, of extraordinary value. He recommended that confessors and all priests read the Kiev catechism of 1645 in the prosta mova and in Polish, also pointing to its apologetic and polemical function.233 Despite being re-printed numerous times in the 18th century, the catechism had three 230 A reprint of the title page, cf. Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., p. 70, a biblio-graphic description, see Ibidem, no. 345, 346. 231 Cf. , A bibliographic description, cf. Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., no. 333, 334. 232 The full title, cf. С. Голубев, Кіевскіймитрополит..., vol. 2 Приложенія, no. LXXXI, p. 473; Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки..., no. 350. 233 This was a reflection of the events of the 1640s, when after nearly ten years of calm, polemics over the union were on the rise again. J. Stradomski believes this happened as a result of “Kasian Sakovych’s crude taunts”, cf. Spory o “wiarę grecką”…, pp. 52–53. The taunts so enraged Bishop Arsenii Zheliborskyi that he attacked the author of Epanorthosis in the Lviv Trebnyk of 1645. A discussion and fragments of the addition, cf. fn. 123. more editions in Chernihiv (1715, 1745 and 1752) and one published by the Basilians in 1788.234 Another catechism was published in Univ in 1685 by the Bishop of Przemyśl Innokentii Vynnytskyi. The book left the monastery print-ing house at a time when the vladyka had already decided to accede to the union, but continued to keep the fact secret. As a result, the catechism – which scholars believe was a slightly altered translation from the Polish-language version of Jacques Marchant’s parish catechism,235 popular in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – was prepared primarily with Orthodox readers in mind. The bishop’s intention was that the content of the catechism should bring them closer to the Catholics. At the same time the catechism was not com- pletely Catholic, which the author tried to account for in his letters to the Roman Curia, calling his text “neutral”.236 Vynnytskyi did what Petro Mohyla had done several decades earlier, publishing the Brief Catechism without the disputed fragments, as he waited for a decision concerning the extensive Confession of Faithsubmitted for debate at the Council of Jassy (1642).237 An example of an interesting instruction in the form of questions and answers characteristic of catechisms was Varlaam Golenkovskyi’s work, dedicated to the clergy and the laity, entitled Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й) си єстꙿ двоєсловїє вꙿ немъ же бесѣдꙋєтъ любитель со любовїю ѡ іереєⷯ 234 Interestingly, the Supraśl edition was a repeat of the Moscow edition of the catechism with additional articles from 1649 (М.A. Корзо, Украинская…, pp. 395–396). That version, on the other hand, did not fully correspond to Mohyla’s catechism, cf. С. Голубев, Кіевскій: митрополитъ..., vol. 2 (Приложенія), Кіевъ 1898, pp. 481–487. 235 A Polish translation was published for the first time in 1648 in Kraków. For more on this translation, see J.Z. Słowiński, Katechizmy katolickie w języku polskim od XVI do XVIII wieku, Lublin 2005, pp. 136–138. 236 It lacked, among others, the filioque formula or a description of the Latin form of the sacrament of baptism, while the description of the third place in the other world could apply both to the purgatory and to the heavenly toll, cf. Д.Пилипович, Катихисіс єп. Інокентія Винницького в богословському контексті епохи, [in:] Катихисіс або бароковий…, pp. 72, 78, 82, 97. 237 А. Жуковський, Історія Катехизису Петра Могили, [in:] Idem, Катехизис…, pp. 9–14. добрыⷯ и злыⷯ и ѡ Таинѣ Єѵхариⷭтїи Ст҃о(й) и ѡ плодаⷯ єѧ вꙿ поⷧзꙋ дх҃овнымъ и мірскимъ, published in Kiev in 1714. We will not, however, find in it a description of the confession of faith, commandments, orderly list of the seven sacraments, cardinal virtues or sins, although the text does provide suggestions in the conversations between personified concepts: “Love” and “Loving One” (“One Who Loves”). The work deals first of all with the question of the preparation of priests for the liturgy, dignity of sacerdotal ministry, reverence due to priests as well as behaviour of the laity and the clergy in the church before, during and after the service. Thus the dialogue is filled with topics tackled in numerous instructions for yereis, including synodal instructions, chirotony instructions and prefaces, as well as the Vilnius teaching from the 1617 Sluzhebnyk and Eucharistic commentaries from Mohyla’s Euchologion. The form and content of catechisms made them a convenient source of teachings preached by the bishop to candidates or newly ordained priests and, above all, made them the basis of daily catechetical instruction of the faithful. Editions of these works could revive the custom of preaching, even in its simplest, unsophisticated variety, focused on the consolidation of the truths of faith, commandments, basic prayers and knowledge of the sacraments.238 This purpose of disseminating catechisms was indicated unanimously by the initiators of the Catholic and the Orthodox editions.239 238 Such a basic teaching ministry was advocated by Bishop Yakov Susha in the second half of the 17th century: “Повиненъ тыжъ честный отецъ намесникъ нашъ карати кождый єрей во церкви своей, абы оучили своихъ парафѣянъ, Отче нашъ, Вѣрую въ единаго Бога, Богородице Дѣво, дестятеро Божіе приказаня […]”, Яковъ Суша, Наука Соборовая и розные постановеня…, p. 9. 239 Walenty Kuczborski, the author of the preface to the Roman Catechism published in Polish (1568), listed among the addressees of the work first of all parish priests and preachers, whom it was to help teach simple people and to “błędy […] wszczęte i wskrzeszone albo wznowione niszczyć, burzyć, a z umysłów ludzkich wybijać”, Katechizm albo Nauka Wiary i pobożności krześcijańskiej, Krak 1568, pp. 5–6 unpagined; quoted after: J.Z. Słowiński, Katechizmy…, p. 96; Similar dedications can also be found in the prefaces to the “parish” catechisms of Hieronim Powodowski (1577) and Stanisław Karnkowski (1603), Ibidem, pp. 38–39, 96. For example, both authors of the prefaces to the Brief Catechismreminded priests of their teaching responsibilities to their parishioners, of the need to instruct the faithful when dispensing the sacraments and preaching the Sunday, feast day and ordinary daily sermons.240 A printed collection of the articles of faith facilitated the dissemination of catechism truths also among the laypersons, who, as the metropolitan wrote, thanks to their ability to read developed their religiosity and could also contribute to the spiritual growth of other, less learned 241 242 Christians: Втотъ цель и конецъ, Абы нетылкѡ самыє Іерее, вꙸ Парафѣѧхъ своихъ, повѣронымꙸ Собѣ ѿ Хрⷭта Сп҃сителѧ Кровїю Єгѡ Ст҃ою ѿкꙋпленымъ ѡвечкоⷨ наꙋкꙋ, певнымъ и оуторованымꙸ способомъ подавали на кожⷣый день, а найбарзѣй єднакъ вꙸ Неделю, и вꙸ дни Ст҃ыє. Лечъ абы тежъ, и свѣцкїе Православные оумѣючїи читати, неꙋмѣючимъ и простѣйшимъ сповинⷩости Хрїстїанской, єднаковымъ способомъ наꙋкꙋ преподаючи заправовали.241 […] казалемъ тꙋюжъ книжкꙋ вꙸ тѵпографѣи моєй ново спорѧженой выдрꙋковати, хотѧчи то пилꙿно мѣти, таⷦ по всѣхъ дх҃овныхъ ꙗкѡ и свѣцкихъ Паствы моєй ѡвечкахъ, абы єй ꙗкѡ найпилꙿнѣй собѣ, длѧ цвѣченѧ дх҃овного набывати старалсѧ. Вы заⷭ сщ҃енници и дидаскалове шкѡлꙿныи ѡной набывши, абысте зъ ꙗко найбоⷧшею пилꙿностю тꙋюжъ наꙋкꙋ преподавали, собѣ вꙸ дозоръ повѣронымъ, поважне властїю оурѧдꙋ нашегѡ єпⷭпскогѡ приказꙋємꙸ, поⷣ каранємꙸ на непослꙋшныхъ и досыть повинности своєй нечинѧчихъ, каноннымъ. Вѣдати абовѣмꙸ вамъ належиⷮ, ижъ оучити собѣ повѣроныхъ, єстъ ваша повинность, а дѣло Бж҃їє.242 240 For a long time the catechism was used as a textbook in teaching the clergy. As evidence of this M. Korzo cites Varlaam Yasinskyi’s request to the tsar con-cerning another edition of the catechism (Moscow 1696), needed to “teach yereisand simple people”, cf. М.А.Корзо, Русская катехетическая традиция XVII - первой половины XVIII в.: к постановке исследовательской задачи, [in:] Человек вкультуре русского барокко, ed. М.С. Киселева, Москва 2007, p. 202. 241 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки…, [in:] С.Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит..., vol. 2, Приложенія, p. 359. 242 Арсенїй Желиборскїй, Всѣмъ бл҃гочестивымꙸ и Хрⷭтолюбивымꙸ Дх҃овного и Свѣцкого Станꙋ Цр҃҃҃҃҃ кви Стой Восточной, и нашего смиренїѧ вꙸ Стомъ Дхꙋ, възлюбленнымꙸ сномꙸ ласки Бг҃а Вседержителѧ, и бл҃гословенїѧ нашего Архїєрейского, при ꙋставичныⷯ молитваⷯ, вѣрнє и оупрїйме сприѧємъ (Зобранє Короткой наꙋки…, Лвовъ 1646), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит..., vol. 2, Приложенія, p. 474. Such works were used by simple yereis, if they had any doubts concerning the dispensation of the sacraments. With the Teaching on the Sacraments, featuring an extensive analysis of the sacrament of penance, the presbyters probably got the first ever printed work with a division of sins into mortal, venial, cardinal (with a list of related sins), other persons’ sins and sins against the Holy Spirit. The classification of sins made the book a handy aid in the ministry of the confessional. As the sacramental commentaries were very extensive, they could constitute a basis for instructions for the faithful. In the MirrorBishop Shumlanskyi stressed that every parish priest should know the correct order and conditions of the dispensation in order to consolidate this knowledge among the faithful. This last re-mark applied in particular to baptism, which, if necessary, could be administered by lay persons: women and men, and even non-Chris-tians, which was extremely important at a time when the death rate among newborns was high and the sacrament was indispensable in attaining heaven.243 That is why catechisms contained information about the form and the matter as well as the origin, essence, names and effects of the sacraments, and a description of the rituals associated with their administration. Catechisms and teachings on the sacraments were also compendia of information about the priesthood. Its most extensive analysis could be found in the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments published around 1618 in Vilnius, although the basic information was included in shorter works, e.g. the Katechizm to jest Sumariusz from Threnos. All sources listed clerical ranks, at the same time defining the framework corresponding to the competences of presbyters and bishops. Stan Kapłański z siedmiu stop-Много єⷵ степеній албо ли станоⷡ niów dla porządku Cerkiewne-Іерейства? Седмъ, першій єстъ go sporządzony we wszystkimвратарства, албо ли вратаръ. Дрꙋгій uczciwy przyznawam. Kapła-чтецъ, или пѣвецъ. Третій еѯорциста, ny, Arcykapłany i insze kleri-или заклинатель. Четвертый акколитъ ki podług Cerkiewnej uchwałyили свѣщеносецъ. Пѧтый поⷣдіаконъ, 243 Cf. Іосифъ Шꙋмлꙗнский, Вꙿ иншихъ зась сакраментахъ потреба вѣдати ѡнаѧ исправленїѧ, [in:] Зерцало до прейзренѧ і латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ..., Ꙋневъ 1680, ff. 54. wybrane i posłane poważam шестый діаконъ, седмый іерей, але iczczę od najuboższego Kapłana двоѧкій сꙋтъ іереи одны вышшыи aż do najwyższego w duchownym которій єпⷭкопами называютъсѧ, stanie stopnia równo Kapłańskiego а дрꙋгіи низшыи которыи презвѵтерами urzędu wiązania i rozwiązywania сꙋть. Вчимъ сѧ Іерей ѿ єпископа władzę być opowiadam. A władzę дѣлитъ? Въ посвѧщеню и ѡфѣрованю błogosławieństwa albo rąk porząd-пречистагѡ Тѣла и честной Крови ku różną, to jest że niektórzy i dają Хрⷭтовой іерей єсть ровнымъ єпискоi biorą błogosławieństwo a niektó-пови, але дѣлитъ сѧ тымъ ижъ іерей rzy biorą a nie dają.244 посвѧтити дрꙋгого іереа не можетъ такъ тежъ и мѵра, бо тоє самомꙋ епⷭпови належитъ, и прочаѧ.245 244245 Compared to the brief descriptions of the “states of yereihood”, the commentary from the Vilnius teaching is very thorough and contains plenty of information essential to bishops or priests guarding the order in the church. The authors not only list the various ranks but also provide a detailed description of the duties of servers and clergymen, divided into groups differing in their status: Пристꙋпꙋючи до выкладꙋ тыⷯ стꙋпене(й) починаемо ѿ меⷩшиⷯ, которые на(й) первей бывають подаваные, сꙋть тогды четверочиⷭленꙿные. 1. Одверные […] 2. Заклинателïе, […] 3. Степень есть чеⷮцовъ […] Болꙿшïе степени, которыхъ и Ст҃ыми называемꙿ сꙋть тры. 1. Ипоⷣдïѧконовъ, которыхъ оураⷣ естъ, ꙗко имѧ самое показꙋеть, дïѧконꙋ до ѡлꙿтара, слꙋжити бо маютꙿ ѡ ѡдежды сщ҃енные, сосꙋды, хлѣбъ и вино до слꙋжбы Бж҃ое готовати, а часовꙿ нн҃ѣшнихꙿ водꙋ на рꙋки подавати при лѵтꙋргïи ст҃ой. Во второмъ степени сꙋть дïѧконы которыхъ послꙋга ширꙿшаѧ естъ, и завше онꙋю засвѧтоблившꙋю почитано, ихꙿ оурѧⷣ еваⷩгелïе читати на амꙿбонѣ, оуставичꙿне за епиⷭкопомъ ити, хрⷭтиѧнꙿ чаⷭто оупоминати, абы лvтꙋргïи Божественъной пилꙿновали, негодъные албо ѡглашенꙿные зꙿ цр҃҃ кви абы выходили. […] Переⷣ тымъ тѣло и кровъ Хвꙋ ѡни народомъ роⷥдавали, нн҃ѣ зась показꙋють толко людем оустрашаючи. Надꙿто былꙿ имъ порꙋченый добръ церꙿковныхъ шафꙋнокъ. Естъ еще ꙋрадъ ихъ обачовати которые вꙿмѣсте побоⷤне и ст҃обливе живꙋтъ, а которые не 244 Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣ to jest Lament…, p. 232. 245 [Силвестер Косовъ], O мѵстирїах или таинахъ вꙿ посполитости…, Лвовъ 1642, pp. 225– 226. пристойне, а ѡвсемъ епⷭкпꙋ своемꙋ ѡзна(й)мовати, на дꙋховенꙿство ст҃итиⷭ хотѧщиⷯ приводити до него: А если бы епⷭкпа и Iереѧ не было, тогды може(ть) и еѵⷢлïѧ вꙿ цр҃҃ кви выкладать. […] На(й)болꙿши(й) зо всѣхъ чиновъ стыхꙿ естъ степень Презвитерства.246 The analyzed sources define the essence of priestly ordination. The various teachings describe the authority granted to priests during the consecration, usually without providing its full picture. Vynnytskyi’s catechism refers to the privilege of the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ: “Хс҃ [...] далъ зꙋполнꙋю влазⷣꙋ зꙿ хлѣба тѣло своє Пренайст҃ѣйшое, а зꙿ вина кровъ свою претварѧти...”247 The Vil-nius teaching also points to this power as well as the judicial power to bind and loose, which required an additional blessing from the bishop.248 The definition found inDidaskalia mentioned only the right to administer the sacraments: “Тайна іерейства єстъ, вꙸ которой даєⷮсѧ власть, іереѡви шафовати тайнами, и ѡныи посвѧщати, а даєтсѧ ѿ Бг҃а презъ рꙋкоположенїє архїєреѧ.”249 The Brief Catechism, too, mentions it, but it adds that priests are consecrated also to teach: “на шафованьє ст҃ыхъ Таємницъ, и на подаваⷩє наꙋки збавенной Хв҃ой, бо Гдⷭь выразилъ обадва оурѧди тыє, вꙸ оныхъ слѡвах: Идꙋчи теды наꙋчайте всѣ нарѡды, а.”250 крⷭтѧше ихъ, въ имѧ Ѿц҃а и Сн҃а и Ст҃агѡ Дх҃ Catechetical works contained the most important information about the requirements to be met by candidates for the priesthood. These questions are analyzed in Chapter Two of this book. Some catechisms may have served a formative role for the clergy to some extent. Evidence for this can be found in the content of the prefaces preceding some editions as well as in the text of the catechisms themselves. For example, the authors of the Brief Catechism 246 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ..., Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 129–133. 247 Іннокентій Винницький, Катихисіс албо Наꙋка хрⷭтїанскаꙗ, вꙿ коротцѣ зꙿ розныхъ авторѡвъ зебраннаѧ (Ꙋневъ 1685), [facsimile in:] Катихисіс або бароковий…, Пере мишль 2007, pp. 249–250. 248 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ..., Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 145–146. 249 [Силвестер Косовъ], O мѵстирїах или таинахъ вꙿ посполитости…, Лвовъ 1642, p. 225. 250 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки..., Киевъ 1645, p. 417. presented the image of a good pastor, who should take care of the poor members of his flock, and obligated bishops in particular to pro-vide for hospitals, schools and people in need: “Дх҃овныє зась немаютъ ихъ [добръ цр҃҃ ковныхъ] зле заживати, але на потребꙋ дховныхъ и оубогихъ людей, по томъ на охендозꙿствѡ и выгодꙋ Церковнꙋю, а найбарзѣй Єпⷭкопѡве, на шпиталѣ, на школы, на люде ꙋтрапленыє добра Церковныє ѡборочати маютъ, и мѣстца такіє дозирати, которыє ратꙋнкꙋ потребꙋютꙸ.”251 Other works The 17th-century publishers had on offer a number of quality books on Church law, theological treatises, collections of sermons as well as other works useful to priests. Some of them were translations, while others were based on the Eastern and Western patristic writings or were inspired by more recent treatises by mainly Catholic authors. Inspirations also came from selected older works known in Ruthenia in manuscript form. Readers of prefaces to church books, short instructions and teachings could find in these printed works information supplementing their textual aids and broaden their knowledge of the priestly ministry. * * * The reform was clearly supported by editions of the writings of the Church Fathers, especially those of John Chrysostom. The first printed publication with his writings was Marharyt (Pearl), a collection of homilies published in Ostroh in 1595,252 and a book entitled On the Rearing of Children (О воспитанії чадъ)253 printed in the Dormition 251 Ibidem, p. 407. 252 Книга иже въ ст҃ыⷯ ѿтца нашего Іоанна Златооустаго, архїєпⷭпа Kостантина града Маргаритъ гл҃емаа, Острогъ 1595. The collection features, among others, a sermon on good and bad ministers. 253 Иже въ свꙗтыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іоанна Златоꙋстаго Бесѣда избраннаѧ ѡ въспитанїи чадъ, Лвовъ 1609. Confraternity’s printing house in Lviv in 1609.254 Individual works by St. John can be found among the contents of various books.255 What mattered more, however, to a renewal of the priestly ministry was a work published in the Lviv printing house as Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена со҃у. The title, suggesting that the book encompasses the Life of St. John Chrysostom,256 Dialogue on the Priesthood257 as well as “other necessary”, though not mentioned, works by Chrysostom and other authors, definitely did not reflect the wealth of texts included in it, texts important to the rebuilding of priestly ethos. 254 Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки…, vol. 1, pp. 31, 76. The oldest printed book in Cyrillic, Schweipolt Fiol’s Oktoikh, included St. John Chrysostom’s Word, cf. J. Rusek, “Oktoich”Szwajpolta Fiola a rękopiśmienne Oktoichy w księgozbiorach polskich, [in:] Najstarsze druki cerkiewnosłowiańskie i ich stosunek do tradycji rękopiśmiennej, ed. J. Rusek, W. Witkowski, A. Naumow, Krak 1993, p. 38. 255 C.f. e.g. the sermon entitled Иже въ ст҃ыхъ оц҃а нашего Іѡанна архїєпⷭпа Константинополѧ Зл҃атоꙋстаго. Слово оутѣшително въ ст҃ый и великїй четвертокъ. Бл҃ви ѡч҃е in the Trebnyk(Stratyn 1606, ff. 523-524v); Varlaam Golenkovskyi used a sermon by John Chrysostom as an introduction to his own work, cf. Предисловїє ѿ слова Іоана Златоꙋстагѡ къ читателю бл҃гочестивомꙋ Дх҃овномꙋ (Варлаам Голенковский, Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овный…, Киевъ 1714, ff. [4v-5v]). John Chrysostom’s authority is confirmed by frequent quotations from his writings (e.g. in polemical literature), numerous praises (e.g. the Lviv volume of 1614 discussed below) as well as commenta ries, which suggest that without fidelity to the teachings of this particular Father salvation would be impossible, like in Zakharia Kopystenskyi’s dedication to Prince Stefan Chetvertynskyi in the Kiev edition of John Chrysostom’s homilies commenting on St. Paul’s 14 Letters (Kiev 1623). 256 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ ѡц҃а нашего Іоанна Златоꙋстаго Архіепіскопа Кѡнстантїноѵполѧ, ѿ Сѡкрата Схолѧстіка, Феодѡрита, епіскопа Кѵръскаго града, Еремїа Сѡзомена, Геѡргїа, архіепⷭпа Алекѯандріискаго, Фѡтіа и Соѵіды въ кратцѣ събраное житїе, ff. [5-25v]. 257 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ, pp. 1–210. Sluzhebnyk, Kiev 1692 Dialogue on the Priesthood was one of the most important works concerning the formation of the clergy. The topics it tackled included the dignity of priests, dangers associated with their ministry, knowledge and sanctity of life, vices of which they should be wary. The moral ideal was discussed in the context of the teaching ministry and pastoral service to society. The second part of the edition featured an impressive (over 200 pages) collection of selected fragments from St. John Chrysostom’s homilies commenting on St. Paul’s Letters and Acts of the Apostles.258 They were grouped with regard to the problem of the right candi-dates for the priesthood, although they commented also on other mat-ters associated with the ministry: on the need for pastoral vigilance and diligence, love and dedication to the sheep; on the hardship and demands associated with teaching and other. A complete set of the sermons was published in Kiev in 1623 and 1624.259 The sermons from the 1614 collection were followed by a legal section concerning the ban on simony (letters and messages from Basil the Great, Patriarchs Gennadius and Tarasius, and Isidore of Pelusium).260 There is no doubt that that the edition’s assets also include the prefaces, introductions in prose and in verse to the various parts as well as the texts closing the work. A detailed analysis of the book, hitherto underappreciated by culture scholars and historians, as well as a list of texts included in it are presented in greater detail in a sep-arate article,261 and briefly in Chapter Two and Three of this study. In that same year the Dormition Confraternity published a brochure with the canons of the 1509 Synod of Vilnius entitled Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільні бывшій.262 Convened by Metropolitan Yosyf Soltan, the synod was one of the last large gatherings for many 258 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Тогожде иже въ ст҃ыхъ оц҃а нашего Іоанна Златооустаго архіепⷭкпа Кѡнстантинѡполѧ, ѡ тѣхъжде, ихъ же ѡ сщ҃енꙿствѣ въспоминаеⷮ ѿ бесѣдꙿ паче же ѿ ꙗже на пѡсланїа Павла Апⷭла, ꙗже сѹтъ сщ҃енꙿствꙋ прилична, въ общꙋю плъзꙋ сщ҃енꙿствѹющимъ избранныѧ еклѡги, pp. 211–399. 259 As Khvedir Titov rightly points out, the oeuvre of the “golden-mouthed Father”, hugely respected in ecclesiastical circles, provided Ruthenian priests at the time with a powerful inspiration and invaluable help in the preparation of their own sermons and homilies, Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли..., p. 64. 260 Сіе же паки, не токꙿмо ꙗко прилично еⷵ сщ҃енꙿствꙋ, но и ѕело ноужⷣно, и прежде всⷯѣ, аще и свѣдителꙿство имѣти бѫдⷮꙋ ѡ себѣ добро, вѣдати сщ҃енныⷨ, ꙗко толико достоинꙿство всѣхъ превъсходѧщее, и блгⷣть ейже ничтоже равно естъ, ѿнюдъ не достоитъ сребрѡмъ или златѡмъ сіе стѧжавати (pp. 407–436). 261 A.Z. Nowak, Bracka oferta wydawnicza…, p. 181–210. 262 The text of the canons [in:] RIB 4, part. 1, pp. 6–18. decades of the Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth attempting a reform of the clergy. The selection of the doc-uments, disciplinary and pastoral in nature, as well as the fact that the publication was sometimes bound together with the collection of writings by John Chrysostom and other Fathers referred to above were by no means accidental.263 It could be included in this extensive work all the more so given the fact that both tackled the topic of proper preparation of candidates for the priesthood, especially the problem of simony. The issue was updated here, for in Ruthenia simony was often a consequence of secular patronage. The knowledge presented in supplements to church books, catechetical teachings and bishops’ exhortattions for yereis was presented in greater detail in nomocanons. Their editions – Kiev Pechersk of 1620, 1624 and 1629, and one Lviv edition of 1646 – were a convenient source of knowledge for the clergy. The last two nomocanons com-prised a liturgical and a canonical part. The first part, featuring the order of the sacrament of penance, was preceded by an exhortation for confessors entitled Наказанїє дꙋховникꙋ.264 It contained a required model of a spiritual father: “moderate, humble and virtuous”, a doctor for all penitents. This manual-like part of the nomocanon, intended for confessors (hierarchs or priests who received the bishop’s blessing for this ministry), contained guidelines concerning the gravity of sins and appropriate penitence. The second part featured selected and abbreviated Apostolic canons, canons of the Fathers (Basil the Great, Theodore the Studite), ecumenical councils and local councils. It was a handy collection of over two hundred essential organizational and disciplinary rules con-cerning the spiritual ministry of priests, including instructions associ ated with difficult situations occurring during the liturgy, selection of candidates for clerical positions, discipline of the life of those already 263 cf. Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки…, vol. 1, no. 96. 264 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ..., Киевъ 1629; the facsimile edition was prepared by O. Horbatsch, Romae 1989, pp. 1–3; facsimile, pp. 18–20. [Hereafter I give the original page number and, in parentheses, the page number of the facsimile edition]; Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, ff. 1–2. consecrated, especially monks and nuns.265 The various contents of the nomocanons printed in the Kievan Metropolitanate became sub-sequently part of other collections used by the part of the Belarusian and Ukrainian Churches that found themselves within the borders of the tsarist empire.266 In the second half of the 17th century there emerged other printed theological works on the sacraments, especially of penance. In comparison with the collections discussed above, they considerably expanded the topic. 1669 was marked by the publication of an extensive – over 700 pages – treatise by Archimandrite Innokentii Gizel, Peace with Godfor Man(Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ или Покаѧніє Ст҃оє, примирѧющее Бг҃ови чл҃вѣка Ꙋченїємъ ѿ Писанїѧ Ст҃го и ѿ Ꙋч҃тлей Цр҃ кѡвныхъ собраннымъ).267 It was the first treatise on moral theology printed in the Kievan Metropolitanate,268 a set of norms of conduct mandatory for the entire Orthodox community (the laity and the clergy).269 It contained instructions for confessors concerning the preparation of the faithful for the sacrament of penance, the 265 A detailed description of the contents of the Nomocanon, cf. О. Лотоцький, Українськi…, pp. 90–91. On the significance of the book in the light of the prefaces to the four editions in question, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Źródła wiedzy dla kapłana - przedmowy w siedemnastowiecznych nomokanonach..., pp. 283–301. 266 They were Книга о должностях презвитеров приходских, Устав Духовних Консисторій, О. Лотоцький, Українськi…, p. 96. For more on these books, cf. Ibidem, pp. 278–279. 267 Text for the treatise in: Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 1, p. 2: photocopy of the original, Київ-Львів 2009 [hereafter I will give the page number from the original, and the page number of the photocopy in brackets]; evidence of I. Gizel’s authorship, cf. Н. Бондар, Історико-книгознавчий огляд видання “Миръ з Богомъ человѣку” (1669) та його примірників, [in:] Інокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ-Львів 2010, pp. 291–292. 268 According to Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, Gizel’s treatise was also important in the shaping of “moral philosophy” in the 17th century, which did not become an independent part of the philosophy course until the 18th century, Д.Броджі Беркофф, “Мир з Богом чоловіку” як система моральної філософії, [in:] Інокентій Ґізель, Вибрані…, vol. 3, p. 108. The scholar proved her thesis in her article, Ibidem, pp. 103–132. 269 Ibidem, p. 113. confession, types of sins as well as appropriate penitence. In terms of its genre and function, it was related to the nomocanon, as both works were normative in nature.270 The work must have been a valuable source of knowledge for the clergy; a substantial fragment of the second part of the book dealt with the sacraments, including the priesthood. They were described in accordance with the order known from the Teaching on the SevenSacraments(ca. 1618) – with a division into the matter, form, effect as well as the person administering and receiving the sacraments.271 The fifth subchapter of the second part of the treatise, entitled О грѣсехъ при тайнахъ церковныхъ, the section concerning the priesthood (Догмат 6. о тайнѣ сщ҃енства), contained a list of conditions that should be met by candidates for the priesthood.272 The tenth (Догматъ 1. Которыи сꙋть грѣхи дꙋховнаго сана) – discussed sins of the clergy divided into those of archpresbyteres, presbyters, confessors, preachers and monks as well as those committed by all of them.273 The third part concerned confessors to a large extent – their duties before, during and after 270 Л. Довга, Соціальна утопія Інокентія Гізеля, [in:] Україна XVII ст.: суспільство, філософія, культура, ed. Л. Довга, Н. Яковенко, Київ 2005, p. 229. Gizel’s treatise bears some similarity to catechisms and, given the type of philosophy presented in it, also to Mohyla’s Trebnyk, according to the Italian scholar, cf. Д. Броджі Беркофф, “Мир з Богом чоловіку”…, p. 108. 271 Descriptions of these two sources are sometimes very similar, which may testify to borrowings from the same sources or even to the use of the Vilnius work by Gizel. Examples of links between the two books are discussed by Margarita Korzo, who has also indicated a link between the treatise and Western as well as, to a lesser extent, Eastern religious sources, cf. М.А. Корзо, “Мир з Богом чоловіку” Інокентія Ґізеля у контексті католицької моральноїтеології кінця XVI– першої половини XVII ст., [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори…, vol. 3, pp. 195–262. The Italian scholar points to a similarity between fragments of the Peace and a work by the Dominican Pedro de Ledesma, Theologia moralis, in qua universa Sacramentorum doctrina exactissime… traditur, written towards the end of the 16th century and translated into Latin only in 1630. At the same time she advocates further research and does not exclude other inspirations, Д. Броджі Беркофф, “Мир з Богом чоловіку”…, p. 129. 272 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 134–146 (89–95). For more on the subject, see Chapter Two. 273 Ibidem, pp. 382–389 (212–216). confession, appropriate preparation for the dispensation of the sacrament, an image of the spiritual father and his tasks as a judge and doctor.274 The composition was different from the one traditionallyused in canonical books, in which the material was divided by canons or titles (grans). According to Ihor Isichenko, this was no coincidence, because such a thematic division made the vast collection functional and provided confessors or penitents with more profound insights into the content needed to understand spiritual matters.275 Despite the fact that the work was not original and was based on Catholic moral theology textbooks, it was, nevertheless, as rightly Vladimir Peretts noted, a response to a market demand. Father Innokentii used his models in a creative manner, to make the teaching commensurate with the expectations of Ukrainian society in the second half of the 17th century. He must have succeeded, as the treatise became very popular,276 despite being intended for educated readers.277 274 Ibidem, pp. 441–666 (242–354). 275 Архиєп. Ігор (Ісіченко), “Миръ з Богомъ человѣку” в контексті богослов’я покаяння, [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори …, vol. 3, p. 150. According to Yaroslav Butsiora, confessors would find in Gizel’s work not only a definition of the main characteristics of sin with regard to a human being’s inner life, but also explanations concerning its impact on the relations between people. This knowledge was important in the process of bringing the sinner back to the original state of unity first with other people and, as a result, with God. When discussing the problem of penance, the Pechersk archimandrite thus touched upon not only sacramentology but theology in general. This led him to an anthropological reflection, which, in the scholar’s view, is especially valuable, Я. Буцьора, До проблеми покаяння у трактаті “Мир з Богом чоловіку”: богословский аналіз, [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори…, vol. 3, pp. 154–155. This confirms the conviction of the Italian scholar concerning the affinity between the philosophical thought of Gizel and that of Petro Mohyla, cf. footnote no. 269. For more on the works of the Metropolitan of Kiev in this respect, cf. M. Melnyk, Problematyka antropologiczna w pismach Piotra Mohyły, Olsztyn 2005. 276 В.Н. Перетц, Опыт характеристики общественной и бытовой морали в Украинской литературе XVII в., [in:] Idem, Исследования и материалы по историистаринной Украинской литературы XVI–XVIII веков, Москва–Ленинград 1962, p. 186. 277 Л. Довга, Наука про покуту в українських текстахXVII ст., [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори..., vol. 3, p. 170. Penitential practice was also the subject of the Teaching on the Sacrament of Penance (Наꙋка о Тайнѣ С(вѧ)т(ого) Покаѧнїѧ, Kиевъ 1671),278 sometimes attributed to Gizel. It bears a lot of similarities with Peace with God, but, unlike that treatise, it was not written in Church Slavonic but in the prosta mova – thus it was addressed to a wider circle of readers.279 A detailed analysis of the teaching can be found in a book by the Ukrainian scholar Larysa Dovha.280 In 1685 a work by the well-known theorist and practitioner of the art of preaching, the polemicist Yoanykii Galatovskyi,entitled A Va-riety of Sins (Грѣхи розмаитїи, вократцѣ написанные, дѡ сповѣдника и до исповѣдаючагѡсѧ належатъ, жебы до сповѣди готꙋюч(и)йсѧ Книжкꙋ тꙋю читалъ и видалъ, ꙗкихъ маєтꙿ грѣховъ сповѣдатисѧ и жебы сповѣдникꙿ, тꙋю Книжкꙋ читаючи вѣдалъ, ꙗкихъ єго маєтъ на сповѣди слꙋхати грѣхоⷡ и ѡд нихъ разрѣшити)281 was published in Chernihiv. As the information in the title suggests, it was addressed to penitents and confessors as a textual aid supporting the appropriate course of the sacrament of penance. It opened with prefaces: to “orthodox readers” on the need to cleanse oneself of sin, and to confessors on the properties of the sacrament of penance;282 they were followed by an instruction entitled 278 A modern edition of the book, cf. Наꙋка о Тайнѣ С(вѧ)т(ого) Покаѧнїѧ тоєстъ о правдивой и Сакраменталной исповѣди. Приданы сⷮꙋ к томꙋ и Лѣкарства на грѣхи и Выводы ѡ пожⷮкꙋ частой исповѣди, Киевъ 1671, [reprint in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 1, part 1, Київ–Львів 2012, pp. 477–542. Its author was not the Archimandrite of Pechersk, who probably did not know the Ukrainian language. It may have been compiled on the basis of the analyzed Church Slavonic moral treatise in the circles associated with the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, Л. Довга, Наука про покуту…, p. 193. 279 The scholar compares Gizel’s work with the Teaching on the Sacrament of Penanceand provides a detailed analysis of the content of the latter, cf. Ibidem, Л. Довга, Наука про покуту.., pp. 167–193. 280 Л. Довга, Система цінностей в українській культурі XVII століття, Київ–Львів 2012, pp. 69–101. Cf. also the article cited above. 281 The work was reprinted with other writings by Galatovskyiin: Ключ розуміння, ed. І.П. Чепіга, Київ 1985 (the following quotations come from this particular edition). 282 In it Galatovskyi provides catechetical information: a definition of the sacrament, its matter and form; then he proceeds to discuss penance in greater detail, taking Прикладъ знаменитїй о исповѣди длѧ сповѣдныка и длѧ сповѣдаючогосѧ тꙋтъ напѣсаный (ff. 4–6)and dealing with the fate of the sinners’ souls.283 The main part of the work is devoted to a description of sins.284 Priests were concerned primarily with the so-called “other persons’ sins”, stemming from the condoning of evil as well as “overt” sins which could become a cause of scandal and bad example for the faith-ful. In addition, the part entitled Грѣхи преложоныхъ людей дх҃овныхъ и свѣцкїхъ (ff. 18–19) included a separate description of the offences committed by secular and clerical dignitaries against people subordinated to them.285 The work ended with a casuistic part describing the confessor’s conduct in emergency situations when hearing confessions.286 In conclusion Galatovskyi urged spiritual fathers to be gentle and encouraging with people seeking a reconciliation with God and to keep the seal of confession. Thus it was a manual-like work, analogous to the instructions from the Teaching for Yereis (1617) or articles from into account the fact whether the sinner will be capable of it, in order to pre-vent it from becoming the cause of the sinner’s despair. Cf. Предмова исповѣднікꙋ ѡ нѣкоторихъ власностѧⷯ до покꙋти належачихъ (ff. 2-4), pp. 372–373. 283 Ibidem, pp. 374-375. This part is compiled from the contents of sermons, especially the funeral sermons included in the Key of Understanding collection pub-lished earlier. 284 These were mortal and personal sins, sins against the three theological and evan gelical virtues, sins that cried to heaven for vengeance, sins committed with the five senses, sins against God’s Ten Commandments, against acts of charity and against the Holy Spirit (pp. 375–381). These kinds of sins, known from descrip tions included in Catholic textbooks, had not been defined earlier in the Vilnius Teaching on the Seven Sacraments (ca. 1618) or in the Kiev Nomocanon (1629). In the Orthodox sources they were not distinguished until the second half of the 17th century, when they were included in Gizel’s work (1669) and the Teaching on the Sacrament of Penance (1671), М.А. Корзо, “Мир з Богом чоловіку”…, p. 225, fn. 113. 285 Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Грѣхи розмаитїи..., Чернѣгівъ 1685, pp. 381–383. 286 The cases discussed in it included confession through an interpreter, confession of deaf, dumb or illiterate penitents, as well as situations in which the sinner attempted to hide a grave sin or was overwhelmed by shame, cf. Конецъ грѣховъ показꙋєтъ припадки ѡколо сповѣди, которїи належитъ сповѣдникꙋ вѣдати (ff. 26-29), pp. 385–387. Mohyla’s Trebnyk (1646) with regard to the Eucharist, although small-sized in comparison, running to just over one page. This short guide to popular theology could not have satisfied sophisticated and well-educated readers who were the addressees of Gizel’s work providing a detailed description of penitential practice. It should be stressed, however, that its target was different: the faith-ful and simple clergy, that is a much broader group than in the case of Peace with God. What constituted an undeniable asset of the work was (like in the case of catechisms) its brochure-like, handy format as well as the fact that it contained elementary content relating to the essence of the sacrament and practical advice on how to administer it. A Lecture on God’s Temple (Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой и ѡ церковныхъ речаⷯ, ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой и ѡ Вечерни зꙿ Ст҃го Симеѡна, Архїєпⷭпа Солꙋнскаⷢ и изꙿ иныхъ оучителей церковныⷯ выбраный Іеріѡмъ, дїаконѡмъ и всѣмъ православнымъ до читанѧ пожитечный) by Feodosii Sofonovych, the hegumen of St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery in Kiev was the first printed mystagogical treatise in the Kievan Metropolitanate (if we discount T. Zemka’s preface mentioned above). Writings explaining the liturgy were very popular in Ruthenia and for centuries circulated in manuscript form.287 This “dialogue” in the form of questions and answers was published in Kiev, for the first time probably in 1666, then in 1667 and in 1668 with supplements.288 A few years later the book was published twice (1670, 1674) in a slightly different version (e.g. without the name of the author) by the printing house of the Univ monastery, with the blessing of the local archimandrite, Var-laam Sheptytskyi.289 In the title and preface to the “gracious reader” 287 I discuss this in Chapter Three. 288 The catalogue does not record the 1666 edition; there are references to three sub- sequent editions, cf. Я. Запаско,Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки…, vol. 1, Львів 1981, no. 440, 448, 473. According to the scholar, no copy of the 1666 edition has survived, while the 1667 edition is available today in only one copy. The 1668 edition, available in numerous copies, sometimes has a supplement: Life of St. Vladimir; for more on the subject, cf. Ю. Мицик, Передмова, [in:] Феодосій Софонович, Выклад о Церкві Святій, Київ 2002, p. 7. 289 The Univ version became the basis of two modern editions of the book: Феодосій Софонович, Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой..., Ꙋневъ 1670, [facsimile in:] Феодосій Father Feodosii claimed that when writing his work, he drew on the works of Simeon of Thessalonica as well as other Church teachers.290 Scholars claim that Father Feodosii used these sources creatively and we can – without getting too “far-fetched” – regard him not so much as an editor but author of the compilation.291 The lecture, composed in the prosta mova, comprisedfive parts containing explanations of what the Church was as well as the symbolism of liturgical vestments, proskomide, liturgy and all-night service.292 The final part of the Univ version featured a Church Slavonic Слово къ читателемъ. This second address to the readers in the book begins with a reference to the Gospel of Matthewcriticizing the “blind guides” (14:15) who claimed that the Orthodox did not need teachings and wise books, and that a “chasoslov and a psalter” were sufficient for them. The words may have been addressed to traditionalists like Ivan Vyshenskyi, and others who, in the second half of the 17th century still, continued to deny the need to further educate the Сoфонович, Хроніка з літописців стародавніх, Київ 1992 [Hereafter I will give the original folio number and then the folio number of the fascimile in parentheses]; an edition of the original version with a translation into Ukrainian, Феодосій Софонович, Выклад о Церкві Святій, ed. Ю. Мицик, Київ 2002. 290 “Тыхъ ст҃ыхъ ꙋчителей церковныхъ имена, зꙿ которых сей выкладъ выбранѡ: ст҃ый Симеѡⷩ, митрополиⷮ Солꙋнскїй, С(вѧтий) Їѡаⷩ Златоꙋст(ий), Ст҃ый Германъ, патрїарха Цр҃҃҃ гороⷣ, С(вѧтий) Їѡаⷩ Дамаскинъ, Стый Нилъ Кабасилъ, Стый Амврѡсїй”, Чителникꙋ ласкавый, f. [1v]. Meletii Soloviі noted that in referring to Neilos Kabasilas Sofonovych mistook him for his relative Nicholas Kabasilas, the actual author of the Commentary on the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, cf. М.М. Соловій, Божественна…, p. 125, fn. 76. 291 Н. Красноселъцев, “Толковая служба” и другія сочиненія, относящіяся къ обясненію богослужинія въ Древней Руси до XVIII вѣка. (Бібліографическій обзоръ), “Православный Собесѣдникъ”1878, part 2, p. 39. The originality of the work was also pointed out by Meletii Solovii, who praised it for the clarity of reasoning, transparency and concise composition. In his view, in theological and literary terms the treatise was far superior to Nikon’s Tablet (Скрижалъ дꙋховна), published in Moscow ten years earlier (1659), to which scholars from the Ki- evan Metropolitanate had also made a significant contribution, М.М. Соловій, Божественна…, p. 125. Ѡодеждѣсщ(ff. 2-5v), ой,щозначитъЦерковъ ѠЦерквѣСт҃҃ еннической (ff. 5v-7v), Ѡ проскомидіи (ff. 7v-9v), Ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бжой (ff. 10-21v), Ѡ вечерни всенощной (ff. 22-25). ҃ clergy and the faithful. Part of the Kiev edition of 1668 and the Univ edition featured the Life of St. Vladimir; the book ended with the poem На конецъ книжици сеѧ with the incipit “Всѧкого чина Православний читателю” and a colophon with the printer’s information that the book was a reprint of the Kiev version.293 The work was to broaden priests’ knowledge of the ministry of the altar: help them with preparations for the liturgy and ensure its proper celebration. As the administrator of the Lviv eparchy, Bishop Yosyf Shum-lanskyi undertook a number of reform actions. Evidence of his work seeking to provide a good organization for parish life in the diocese and control over the disciplinary and intellectual life of the clergy as well as morality can be found in the surviving documents, especially theology textbooks. Some of them were printed on the initiative of the bishop himself. They included the bishop’s instructions for the clergy gathered at the synod and special instructions for protopresbyters indicating precisely the scope of their duties (cf. the section Bishops’ teachings for priests). Both were included in two collections prepared with the idea of broadening the knowledge of the clergy and the faithful. The first, A Mirror for a Review and Better Understanding of the Holy Faith (Зерцало до прейзренѧ і латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Сакраментѡⷡ, Десѧтословїѧ Бж҃їѧ, грѣхопаденїй члчⷭескиⷯ, Дх҃овныⷨ и свѣцкиⷨ людемъ приличнѡ) was published in Univ in 1680. Although the title suggests a wide circle of addressees, the publisher Symeon Stavnitskyi mentions in the preface that the bishop’s intention was to give newly ordained priests in particular a book in which they could find 293 This composition in verse is an adaptation of Herasym Smotrytskyi’s poem included in the Ostroh Bible. According to Vladimir Peretts, it may have been written by Symeon Stavnitskyi. The poem was abbreviated and all polemical content topical in the period preceding the Union of Brest was removed from it. As a result, it became primarily a conclusion to the Life of St. Vladimir, which preceded it in this version, В.Н. Перетц, Стихотворная “Похвала кн. Владимиру”, [in:] Idem, Исследования и материалы по истории старинной Украинской литературы XVI–XVIII веков, Москва–Ленинград 1962, pp. 157–159. textual material essential in the acquisition or consolidation of the knowledge they needed in their daily parish ministry.294 The first four parts of the book may have been intended both for the clergy and for the laity, for they feature teachings the thematic scope and composition of which resemble those of catechisms.295 The remaining two parts were added as aids intended solely for the clergy. The fifth part was addressed to those presbyters who had received the bishop’s blessing for the ministry of the confessional. It defined grave sins as well as special situations in which a spiritual father would refuse confession, leaving the decision to absolve the penitents to the bishop.296 The chapter has two parts, each comprising twenty rules.297 It analyses sins which result in the sinners receiving no absolution and being temporarily barred from participating in 294 “[…] ꙗсне превелебный в Бз҃ѣ, архїпастыръ нашъ, въ всегдашномъ попеченїи, о паствѣ своєй, котороє ꙗко в зерцалѣ ѡпаства єго пресвѣтлоⷨ всѣмꙿ єстꙿ видимо исполнѧючи Зерцало сїє короткой наꙋки ѡ артикꙋлахъ вѣри тайнахъ, падежахъ совѣсти нѣкоторыхъ, не оудобъ простымꙿ розсꙋдимыⷯ всѣмъ вобецъ, паче же новопоставленымъ презвѵтеромъ до преизренѧсѧ преⷣставити хотѣлꙿ, на памѧтъ ꙗко маютъ быти зерцалами нескверными житїѧ, и наꙋченїѧ парохїаномъ своимъ, которое за блг҃словенїємъ єго ст҃ителства, на свѣтъ тѵпомъ зꙿ дрꙋкарнѣ Ꙋневской выставити, кꙋ пожиткови посполитомꙋ потрꙋдилемсѧ. Ты за тымъ ласкавый читателю, що вꙿ томъ Зерцалѣ пожитечного ѡбачити можешъ, пастырскомꙋ дарꙋ оусердно бл҃годари и здравствꙋй о Гѣⷣ”, Симеон Ставнѣцкій, Предословїє до чителника, [in:] Зерцало до прейзренѧ…, Ꙋневъ 1680, f. [2]. 295 Часть перваѧ. О вѣрѣ ст҃ой православнокаѳолической пытанїє (ff. 1-6) contains a com- mentary of the twelve articles of faith, an explanation of the Apostles’ Creed; Часть втораѧ ѡ сакраментахъ или тайнахъ впосполитости питаніе (ff. 6v-23) – is a reprint of Kossov’s extremely popular Didaskalia (cf. section Catechism teachings and catechisms), the other two are much shorter and concern, respectively, the Ten Commandments and prayer: Часть третаѧ ѡ десꙗти приказанєх Бж҃іихъ пытанє (ff. 23v-26v ), Часть четвертаѧ ѡ молитвѣ къ Гд҃ꙋ Бг҃ꙋ (ff. 27-29v). According to M.A. Korzo, in its composition and content Yosyf Shumlanskyi’s work is very similar to Petro Mohyla’s catechism, М. Корзо, Украинская…, pp. 393–394. 296 Чaсть пѧтаѧ ѡ разсꙋдⷤеній грѣхопаденій чловеческихъ. До перестороги сщ҃енникомъ и дх҃овным ѿц҃емъ подаєтꙿсѧ абы вѣдали которїє грѣхи къ разрѣщенїю самагѡ власти єпископа належатъ, а зꙿ которыхъ свѧщенници раздрѣшати власть имꙋтъ, (ff. 30-56). 297 The second part of the fifth chapter is preceded with an additional title:Часть втораѧ ѡ пересторозѣ дх҃овныхъ ѿцевъ зꙿ которыхъ разрѣшати и сподоблѧти бжⷭтвенныхъ таинъ кающихсѧ могꙋтъ (ff. 39v-56). the Eucharist. They were usually offences associated with unchastity and anger; some rules were addressed exclusively to presbyters, monks and nuns. Points 9, 14 and 15 dealt with the licentiousness of priests of their wives, point 11 – divination practices punishable by barring from the ministry, temporary suspension. The remining rules describe sanctions for irregularities occurring during the liturgy (e.g. spilling wine on liturgical altar cloths after transubstantiation, improper storage of sacrificial gifts). Such cases had been described earlier in printed works like the Vilnius Teaching for Yereis or Eucharistic articles from Mohyla’s Trebnyk.The final part, after point 20, featured a small supplement containing similar rules and instructions referring to the remaining sacraments.298 The sixth part of the work is the above-mentioned instruction for protopresbyters and the clergy (cf. the section Bishops’ teachings for priests). The whole ends with an exhortation to priests (Наказанїє сщ҃енникомъ) concerning the oath sworn by every priest during the consecration liturgy. Shumlanskyi recommended that its text be learned by heart, for it contained the basic precepts dealing with ap-propriate service and, at the same time, safeguarding priests against spiritual decline (e.g. preservation of faith, obedience to one’s superiors). A failure to observe them could even lead to excommunication, which is why a model sacerdotal oath was given immediately after the instruction, thus facilitating the performance of the task set for the readers.299 298 E.g. baptism administered in emergency situations by lay persons and the need to verify its correctness by a priest before confirmation; proskomide and lack of hot water in the chalice with wine; the sacrament of marriage, mainly problems with ascertaining the degree of kinship and various cases of bigamy: Вꙿ иншихъ зась сакраментахъ потреба вѣдати ѡнаѧ исправленїѧ (ff. 53-56v). 299 “Въ конецъ полагаємъ при сей Книжици присѧгꙋ Сщ҃енническꙋю, да вѣдѧтъ, ꙗко при посщ҃енїю своємъ сію исполниша, понеже многїє сꙋтъ ѿ нихъ, иже вꙿземше санъ сщ҃енства, не токмѡ не помнѧтъ сеѧ, но въ вѣчное забвенїє пꙋстиша ю, и чрезъ сіє, въ кривоприсѧзтво облекоша себе, чесого ради еѯкомꙋнѣци поⷣ падаютъ, тѣмже хотѧщи да оубѣжатъ сицеваго зла, всегда должни сꙋтъ въ памѧти имѣти ю, и ꙗже подобающаѧ имъ исполнѧти. Мы же всегдашнеѧ ради имъ памѧти, покладаємъ формꙋ тоѧ ихъ клѧтвы, или присѧги вꙿ тыє слова” (f. 60v). This was its first text made available to readers; Shumlanskyi con-sidered the oath (like episcopal chirotony or synodal teachings) to be an important formative source, which is why in his next printed textbook he again included the exhortation with the oath formula. The second collection of texts and forms published by the bishop, entitled Metrical Records or a Register (Метрика алꙿбо реестръ, длѧ порѧⷣкꙋ Цр҃҃ кви С(вѧтой) и снаⷣнѣйшо(й) їнформацїє(й), дховныⷨ свѣцкиⷨ, зꙿ тѵпографїи єппⷭко(й) Лвовской, при обители С(вѧтихъ) Велиⷦ Мнⷱика Хв҃а Геѡргіа выдана), was published in 1687 in Lviv, in the printing house he has founded. The book was addressed solely to white clergymen. It comprised four chapters, each of which had a separate title folio. There were also illustrations, logically linked to the content of the var-ious parts, and commentaries in the form of Biblical quotes and brief explanations. The reverse of the folio introducing the entire work featured a representation of baptism in a church with a verse from John at the bottom of the page: “Аще кто не роди(тъ)сѧ Водою и Дх҃ом не може(тъ) внїйти въ Цр҃҃ ство Нбноє”, and the following folio at the top of the page – the announced preface with an indication of its content: Метрика котораѧ що значитъ, длѧ чого, и ꙗкъ давно єстъ в Цр҃҃ квѣ Бжой, тꙋтъ вкоротце ѡписꙋєтсѧ. In explaining the reasons behind the publication of the book, Shumlanskyi referred to the authority of the Bible, arguing that the old practice of keeping metrical records guaranteed that appropriate care would be taken of the parish flock.300 300 “Ктоколꙿвек єсть, ꙗкоже Ааронъ ѿ Бг҃а на станъ сщ҃енства избраⷩный, и вꙿ ризꙋ сщ҃еннꙋю одѣѧнный, должен єси имѣти въ памѧти своєй сн҃ы нового Іил҃ѧ, то єстꙿ, всѣхъ себѣ въ паствꙋ порꙋченныⷯ людїй Христїѧнскиⷯ, и не токмо на ниⷯ очима взирати, но и рамеⷩми своими долженъ єси ихꙿ двигати, то є(сть) попеченїє и старанє ѡ спⷭсенїю иⷯ имѣти. И ꙗкожъ зможешъ о ниⷯ памѧтати, єсли именъ ихꙿ преⷣ очима не бꙋдешꙿ мѣти, мѣйже теды книгꙋ сію Метрикꙋ, вꙿписꙋй вню имена всѣхꙿ в парафїєй твоєй родѧщиⷯсѧ, крⷭтѧщихсѧ и обрꙋчающиⷯсѧ, а такъ бꙋдешъ мѣти готовый Реестръ всѣхъ живыⷯ и мертвыхꙿ, и снадне памѧтати бꙋдешъ кождого Имѧ, и житїє”, Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнскїй, Вамъ Пречⷭтымъ Наместникѡⷨ, алꙿбо Протопопѡⷨ, Чⷭтнымꙿ Іереѡмꙿ, Блг҃оговѣꙿⷩныⷨ Дїаконѡⷨ, и всемꙋ сщ҃енномꙋ дх҃овномꙋ цр҃ковномꙋ клирꙋ Бл҃венїа Бж҃го, ласки, покоѧ и всѧкиⷯ дочасныⷯ и вѣчныⷯ Бл҃гъ, ꙗко православныⷨ вꙿ Дх҃ꙋ Ст҃ом сынѡмъ зычꙋ, [in:] Метрика алꙿбо реестръ…, Лвовъ 1687, f. [4]. Yosyf Shumlanskyi, Metrical Records or a Register, Unev 1680 The bishop referred to the metrical customs described in the prac- tice implemented by Petro Mohyla, who was the first in the Kievan Metropolitanate to call for the introduction of a register of births, baptisms, marriages and deaths during the 1640 Council of Kiev and then included in the Great Trebnyk relevant entries and samples of metrical records.301 Shumlanskyi referred his readers to this authoritative book also in the second part of the work entitled Метрика или втораѧ книга въ сꙋпрꙋжество Вѣнчаⷩныⷯ длѧ снаднѣйшой інформацїи Дх҃овныхꙿ свѣцкихꙿ (ff. [12-16v]), as he regarded it as a source providing a detailed commen-tary on the essence of the sacrament of marriage. This recommendation was accompanied by an obligation to read banns of marriage after the liturgy on Sundays or feast days. To facilitate this, he gave a model announcement of an intended marriage. The second part of the Metrical Recordsalso contains two forms of entries which the priest should add to the parish records immediately after the mar-riage ceremony. This part of the book also features explanations of special cases associated with the sacrament and requiring a bishop’s intervention (e.g. marriages of widowed persons, spouses-to-be coming from different parishes). The third chapter is devoted to feast days, which the faithful should celebrate by refraining from their daily chores. Information about the matter should be disseminated by parish priests: Книга трєтаꙗ вꙿ которой описꙋю(тъ)сѧ оурочистїє ст҃а, которїє должни сщ҃еⷩници в нлⷣю по Бжⷭ Литꙋр(їи) своиⷨ парохїаноⷨ заповѣдати и ѿ робо(т) хранитиⷭ мѣю(тъ), (ff. [17-26]). At the beginning of this part of the book we find aspecial preface addressed to the clergy and dealing with the problem: Предмова до сщ҃енникѡвъ мїрскихъ, ѡ ст҃ахъ (ff. 18-12v unnumbered). Next comes a reference list of feast days in the liturgical year, beginning with September, with a title that again indicates priestly duties: “Ст҃а ꙋрочистіє которїє конечне належитꙿ парохїанѡⷨ ѿ сщ҃енника 301 Ibidem, ff. [6v-7v]. Cf. I. Cкочиляс, Запровадження метричних книг у Київській православній митрополії в другій половині XVII століття, “Генеалогічні за писки Українського геральдичного товариства”, 2001, vol. 2, pp. 77–87. парохїалнагѡ вꙿ недели по слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой оповѣдати наченше ѿ Септеврїа, ажъ до дне ѡстатногѡ Авгꙋста” (ff. 21-26). The “fourth book” (Книга четвертаꙗ вꙿ которой ѡписꙋю(т)сѧ вꙿ кратцѣ порѧдки сщ҃енническїи) contains an extensive instruction (Нравоꙋченїє) addressed to yereis(ff. 28-52v), preached by bishop to the clergy dur-ing synodal meetings. It is worth stressing that both of Shumlanskyi’s works were pub-lished in a small, handy format; they were compendia of basic knowledge – which every priest should have – of the spiritual ministry in a parish. Clergymen were also supported by printed homiliaries. The idea to translate the entire teaching Gospel book “to be understood by simple people” emerged in the late 1560s in Zabłudów, where eventually a collection of sermons in Church Slavonic was published, instead.302 The idea was put into practice only by Meletii Smotrytskyi, who published the Homiliary Gospel in his own translation in Vievis, in 1616.303 The book was to prevent the Orthodox from reading Mikołaj Rej’s and Jakub Wujek’s Protestant and Catholic homiliaries.304 The 302 A concern over possible deviations from the true faith and errors or inaccuracies that could find their way into the Gospel with its translation led to the plan being abandoned, J. Łabyncew, Ł. Szczawińska, W mieście zwanym Zabłudowem, Białystok 1995, p. 34. Vasyl Haraburda reprinted the Zabłudów Gospel in Vilnius in 1580, while the Mamonychs did it in 1595. For more on these editions, see Z. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew, Druki…, pp. 163–165. A revised version of the collection was printed in Gedeon Balaban’s printing house (Krylos 1606). For more on theteaching Gospel books published in 1569–1659, see M. Kuczyńska, PrzepowiadanieSłowa Bożego. Ze studiów nad homiletyką prawosławną w Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Język,literatura i kultura Słowian – dawniej i dziś, ed. B Zieliński, Poznań 2001, pp. 93–99. 303 M. Smotrytskii wrote about language, so important to the understanding of the Word of God, in a dedication to a representative of the Volovych family, though he was clearly addressing his remarks to the preacher, who should know (“помнѣти повинен”), “иж пѧ(т) слѡⷡ вырозꙋмѣныⷨ, а нⷤѣ тмами непонѧтныⷨ ꙗзыком (в наꙋце звлаща до народа мовити пожитеⷱнѣйшаѧ реⷱ єстъ”, Мелетій Смотрицкий, Велможной Паней єй Милости Паней Соколовой Воининой..., [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное..., Євє 1616, f. [4] (21); Cf. also Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 329. 304 Smotrytskyi may have been following the example of Wujek, who wrote his Postilla Catholica(Poznań 1573), intending to create a collection for Catholics that translator approached his work on the collection in a creative man-ner, by, among others, changing the order of the argument from a synthetic to an analytical (an entire parable instead of fragments, fol-lowed by a commentary), which certainly improved the educational value of the homiliary.305 His transformations also affected the style of the work and the text itself. They included adding explanations to the main text, updating the content, and concretizing general moral questions as well as abstract religious concepts.306 There were also small additions to the composition of the Gospel,307 making it the first printed homiliary collection in the Kievan Metropolitanate featuring teachings not linked to the liturgical calendar.308 These teachings were kept by Petro Mohyla in the reprint of the book from 1637.309 Apart from the corrections it was still a traditional collection,310 which did not quite correspond, content-wise, would make them give up reading Rej’s postils, D.A. Frick, Introduction. Meletij Smotryc’kyj’s Ruthenian “Homilary Gospel”…, pp. IX–XI. 305 M. Kuczyńska, Przepowiadanie…, p. 95. 306 A detailed examination of these changes with textual examples, cf. Г. Чуба, “Учительне Євангеліє” 1616 р. у перекладі Мелетія Смотрицького в контексті української гомілетичної літератури,“Київська Академія” 2–3, 2006, pp. 8–13. According to the scholar, the scope of the changes makes it possible to speak not of a translation of the Gospelbut of its creative adaptation, an attempt to compile a new homiletic collection for practical use, Ibidem, p. 12. 307 Ibidem, p. 9. 308 Наꙋка о не отдаваню зла за зло, и любви непрїателей. Читана быти можетꙿ и на иншїй ꙗкїйколвекъ часъ (ff. 307-312v); Наꙋка кождомꙋ часови прислꙋхаючаѧ (ff. 343-348). These are titles of instructions from the table of contents; in the main body of the text itself the title of the second instruction is Наꙋка котораѧ читана быти можетꙿ на кождый часъ, cf. Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, Євє 1616, f. 343; reprinted in: The“Jevanhelije učytelnoje”of Meletij Smotyc’kyj, Cambridge Mass. 1987, p. 543. 309 Cf. Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, Киевъ 1637, pp. 1000–1014 and 1014–1023; the word “прислꙋхаючаѧ” in the title of the second instruction was changed to “прислꙋшаючаѧ”. 310 It was wrongly attributed to Patriarch Kallistos I. The true author may have been John IX Agapetos (12th century) or someone from his entourage, Г. Чуба, Українські Учительні Євангелія, [in:] Рукописна україніка у фондах Львівської Науковoї Бібліотеки ім. В. Стефаника НАН України та проблема створення інформаційного банку даних. Матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції 20–21 вересня 1996 року, Львів 1999, p. 296; cf. also Eadem, to what the readers of the above-mentioned Polish postils were looking for.311 Significant transformations, also affecting the content of the mes-sage, did not occur in the homiletics of the period until the emergence of printed Ruthenian collections, popular in the 17th century: Homiliary Gospel of Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi (Rokhmaniv 1619)312 and Key of Understanding of Yoanykii Galatovskyi (first edition Kiev 1659, subsequent editions Lviv 1663, 1665). As Marzanna Kuczyńska demonstrates in her monograph, both homiliaries met the religious expectations of the faithful and made the preachers aware of the truth that effective ministry required more profound changes, adaptation of the message to the changing historical situation and the spiritual world of their addressees.313 The Rokhmaniv homilary featured reflections on the moral and intellectual formation of priests as well as their duties, which should include teaching314. We will not find in the table of contents separate instructions of disciplinary or ethical nature addressed exclusively to Українські рукописні учительніЄвангелія, Львів 2011, p. 6, fn. 7. The book was translated into Slavonic in Bulgaria in the 14th or 15th century, M. Kuczyńska, Przepowiadanie…, p. 94. The studies refer to the literature dealing with the question of the authorship of the collection. 311 According to the scholar, Smotrytskyi himself was not satisfied with the hom iliary, as evidenced by remarks to be found in his other writings, D.A. Frick, Introduction. Meletij Smotryc’kyj’s Ruthenian “Homilary Gospel”…, p. XIII. 312 Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанꙗ на нлⷣꙗ през рокъ и на празники Гпⷪдкїе и нарочитыⷨ ст҃ымъ оугодникѡⷨ Бж҃їимꙿ, Рохмановъ 1619. (I use the copy available on the website of the Holy Trinity and St. Sergius Lavra: .) 313 M. Kuczyńska, Ruska homiletyka XVII wieku…,pp. 284–285. This Gospel, in the scholar’s view, corresponded to popular hand-written books compiled by Ruthenian priests with the intention of reaching as many of the faithful as possible. The scholar places the collection between an “Orthodox homiliary Gospel, Western postil and a collection of thematic sermons found in both the East and the West”, Ibidem, pp. 25–26, 32. Cf. e.g. Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє вꙿ нⷣлю 16. (по Всѣхъ СтЄѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 288. ),[in:] ⷯы҃ the clergy. Nor was the collection dedicated only to priests.315 Nevertheless, Stavrovetskyi, in dividing his sermon into homiletic, thematic and moral parts, and giving them the form of an instruction, exhortation and warning,316 addressed some of them clearly to priests, mainly teachers, sometimes to sacramental ministers and celebrants. Thus among the many purposes served by the homiliary were also those traditionally fulfilled by bishops’ teachings for yereis.317 Similar content can be found, though not to the same extent, in the sermons and teachings on homiletics theory from Yoanykii Gala tovskyi’s Key of Understanding (1559, 1663, 1665)318 as well as later collections, including those of Lazar Baranovych, Antonii Radyvylovskyi and Symeon Polotskyi.319 A manifestation of the adaptation to the needs of clerical readers in particular was the inclusion in homiliary collections of auxiliary material: teachings and occasional model 315 The preface and the author’s remarks scattered throughout the text suggest that the assumption was for a wide group of readers. The collection was to be used to deepen the religious and spiritual life of the faithful by, among others, individual reading. Cf. the commentary at the end of the instruction entitled A foreword or foregate for those wishing to probe into the treasury of the grace and wisdom of the Lord’s Passion, cf. Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное …, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 89. 316 For more on the additional commentaries, moral instructions and other articles included in the Rokhmaniv collection, cf. С.И. Маслов, Кирилл ТранквилонСтавровецкий и его литературная деятелность, Киев 1984, pp. 89–91. On the complex structure and genre features of the sermons from this collection, cf. M.Kuczyńska, Ruska homiletyka..., pp. 40–53. 317 For more on the topic, cf. А.З. Новак, Традиційні теми повчань для священників у Євангелії Учительному Кирила Транквіліона Ставровецького – континуація і зміна, [in:] Кирило Транквіліон Ставровецький – Проповідник Слова Божого, (“Київське християнство”, vol. 6; “Львівська медієвістика”, vol. 5), ed. Б.Криса, Д. Сироїд, Львів 2017, pp. 125–142. 318 Cf. Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Казанє на Сошествіє С(вѧтого) Дх҃а, [in:] Ключъ Разꙋмѣнїѧ сщ҃енникомъ законнымъ и свѣцкимъ належачый, Киевъ 1659; [reprint in:] К. Біда, Іоанікій Ґалятовський і його «Ключъ Разуміня”, Рим 1975, ff. 114v-122 (reprint pp. 234–251). [hereafter I will give the original folio number and then the page number of the reprint in parentheses]. 319 Such content can be found most likely in Dmytro Tuptalo’s sermons, but they were not printed at the time. sermons, new to printed books. The latter, not associated with the Sunday-feast day cycle, found their way into numerous homilaries. In addition, they were to be found in some trebnyks, constituting an additional element providing an introduction to ritual and sacramen-tal practice in the priestly ministry.320 They were usually described as “words”, “instructions”, “exhortations” or “teachings”.321 In Lazar Baranovych’s collection Fanfares “occasional” sermons are grouped in a separate part of the volume under the title: Прилог лишенныхъ и на различныѧ нꙋжды словъ полезныхъ (ff. 284v-403). This extensive “supplement” with “words for various needs” follows the main part of the collection traditionally devoted to sermons for 320 If we discount the Maundy Thursday sermon, published in Gedeon Balaban’s Trebnyk of 1606, by John Chrysostom, which, however, may have served as an example of a exhortation on the role of fasting (сf. fn. 251), then the first model sermons were included in the Trebnyk published by the Vilnius Holy Spirit Con-fraternity in 1621. These were two compositions for the occasion of marriage (Предмова, пред шлюбомъ вꙿ Малженство встꙋпꙋючим, Дрꙋгаѧ коротшаѧ) and funeral (Казане на Погребе, Дрꙋгое) as well as teachings on the sacrament of the confessional (Наꙋка пред Споведю зъ Словенскаго переложена, Наꙋка по споведи), Требникъ, сиречъ Молитовникъ has survived in copy in the Russian State Library in Moscow [РГБ МК 4°, инв. 3859]. Marriage and funeral sermons written in the prosta mova were included e.g. in the Lviv Trebnyk of 1644 and 1645, and in the Univ Trebnyk of 1685. An impressive collection of “prefaces” and “exhortations” was also included in the Euchologion by Petro Mohyla (1646): Предмова до крещенїѧ, Предмова до Исповѣди, Напомненє ѿ дх҃овногѡ по Исповѣди и по прощенїю, Предмова хотѧчим причаститисѧ Бж҃ественныхъ Таинъ, Предмова до шлюбꙋ, Предмова при шлюбѣ, Казанꙿє погребноє вꙿ посполитости наⷣ оумершим , Cf. Єꙋхологіѡн..., part 1, Киевъ 1646, pp. 900 946. Marek Melnyk’s and Włodzimierz Pilipowicz’s translations of the preface and selected sermons by Mohyla into Polish: Kazanie przed chrztem, Napomnienie po spowiedzi i rozgrzeszeniu, Kazanie do chcących przyjąć Komunię, Kazanie przed ślubem, Kazanie podczas ślubu, Kazanie pogrzebowe wygłoszone nad zmarłym can be found in Appendix, [in:] A. Naumow, Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską wIRzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002, pp. 334–386. These sermons, together with a sermon before confession, and sacramental commentaries have also been pub-lished in: M. Melnyk, W. Pilipowicz, Kazania i komentarze sakramentalno-liturgiczne zTrebnika św. Piotra Mohyły, Olsztyn 2003, pp. 51–182. 321 The titles reflect the Orthodox tradition from manuscript collections, M. Kuczyńska, Ruska homiletyka..., p. 52. Sundays and feast days322. Instructions in this part of the collection, unlike the preceding sermons associated with the liturgical year, are mostly not very sophisticated, Baroque in style; they take the form of a simple moral lecture. In addition to funeral sermons, one sermon in the homiliary was intended for a marriage ceremony and monastic tonsure; other sermons could be used by moralist teachers and sacra-mental ministers.323 A similar section with additional texts, entitled Приложенїє словъ на различныѧ нꙋжды, was included in Symeon Polotskyi’s Spiritual Supper(Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ на праздники Гдⷪскїѧ, Бг҃ородичны и ст҃ыхъ нарочитыхъ изꙿ пищъ слова Бж҃їѧ дꙋшамъ хрⷭстїанъ православныхъ въ насыщенїе дх҃овное, Бж҃їимъ пособїємъ оуготованнаѧ) published in Moscow in 1683. In addition to a large group of funeral sermons and sermons for the dedication of a new church, it featured “words” – not to be found in the collections in question – on Divine Scriptures, pious visit to the church, seven deadly sins and many others.324 The last two homiliaries also featured sermons addressed exclusively to priests. Several additional sermons of auxiliary value to Christian orators can be found at the end of Antonii Radyvylovskyi’s homiliary Garden of the Mother of God (Огородокъ Марїи Бц҃ы. Розмаитыми цвѣтами словесъ на Праздниики Гдⷭкіѧ, Бг҃ородичны, и проⷱ Ст҃ыхъ, Киевъ 1676). They dealt with the sacrament of penance, calamities and dangers 322 Лазар Барановичъ, Трꙋбы на дни нарочитыѧ празⷣникоⷡ Гдⷭскиⷯ, Бг҃ородичныⷯ, Аг҃глскиⷯ, Пррⷪчскихꙿ, Апⷭлскиⷯ, Мч҃еническиⷯ, Ст҃лскихꙿ, Чꙋдотворцоⷡ, Беⷥсреберникоⷡ, Бл҃гочестивагѡ Црѧ҃и Кн҃зей и прѡⷱ., Киевъ 1674, ff. 284–403. 323 Cf. i.a. Слово ѡ покаѧніи (ff. 293v-295v), Слово ѡбщее наⷣ ꙋмершимъ коимъ либо православнымъ (ff. 319v-322),Слово къ исповѣди наставлѧющагѡ въ постъ Рождества Хвⷭа (ff. 322-323), Слово о вѣнчаніи новобрачныхъ (ff. 335v-337), Слово на постриженїє иноковъ (ff. 338-339), Слово кꙿ готовѧщимсѧ къ Ст҃мꙋ Причащенію (ff. 340-342),Слово по Причащеніи (ff. 342v-344), Cлово поꙋчителноє како съ страхомъ жителствовати имамы, (ff. 344v-347). 324 Симеон Полоцкий, Слово ѡ писанїи Бжⷭтвенномъ (ff. 1-7), Поꙋченїє ѡ бл҃гоговѣйномъ стоѧнїи во храмѣ Бж҃іи и слꙋшанїи бжⷭтвенныѧ лїтꙋргіи (ff. 8-15), Слово ѡ седми грѣсѣхъ смертныⷯ (ff. 24-31v) (second numeration). resulting from wars, and hell. The collection ended with an instruction on conjugal life.325 The most numerous group of model sermons in the 17th century was made up of mourning sermons included in the analyzed homiletic and liturgical books. Their popularity rose with the spread of the custom of delivering speeches – secular, but primarily religious in nature – during funeral or mourning services. As these texts were a valuable source used to promote the ideal of good priesthood,326 they, too, contributed to a reform of the Church.327 Epicedia or mourning sermons glorifying the life and pastoral merits of well-known hierarchs as well as model compositions served not only laudatory but also parenetic purposes. The author of the Key of Understanding expressed this in a brief preface to the instruction on how to compose this type of sermons: “Гды оумре(ть) вѣрный и побожный чл҃къ, слꙋшнаѧ погребъ єгѡ казаⷩемъ приѡздобити, хвалити єго побожно житїє и вылѣчати цноты, жебы тоє чꙋючи иншїй люде жили побожне, вꙿ цнотах сѧ кохали, а презꙿ свои цноты могли нб҃а достꙋпити”.328 325 Слово побꙋжаючеє до мл҃твы и постꙋ, часꙋ воєнного небезпеченства (pp. 1075–1082), Слово ѡ скорбехъ (pp. 1083–1089), Слово ѡ исповѣданіи грѣховъ (pp. 1090–1097), Слово ѡ покаѧніи (pp. 1098–1105), Слово первоє ѡ пеклѣ (pp. 1106–1112), Слово второє ѡ пеклѣ (pp. 1112–1119), Слово ѡ станѣ малженскомъ (pp. 1120–1127), [in:] Антоній Радивиловский, Огородокъ Марїи Бц҃ы..., Киевъ 1676. Occasional sermons have also survived in a manuscript version of the Garden of the Mother of God and in Christ’s Wreath; selected texts and edition in: М. Марковскій, Антоній Радивиловскій, южно-русскій проповѣдникъ XVII в., Киев 1894. 326 The ideal of priesthood reconstructed on the basis of 17th-century occasional literature, mainly associated with funerals, cf. A.Z. Nowak, “Filary wytrwałości”, “diamenty stateczności”, “pałace wiary” – barokowe rozważania o cnocie stałości w prawosławnej literaturze okolicznościowej (Rzeczpospolita XVII w.), [in:] Szczelina świa-tła. Ruskie malarstwo ikonowe. Tom poświęcony pamięci Romualda Biskupskiego w rocznicę śmierci, ed. A. Gronek, Kraków 2009, pp. 269–286. 327 A.Z. Nowak, Rola kazań żałobnych w ruskim odrodzeniu cerkiewnym (Rzeczpospolita w XVII w.) [in:] Dialog z Tradycją. Dawna i współczesna kultura funeralna, Krak (forthcoming). 328 Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Наꙋка албо способъ зложенꙗ казанѧ на погрєбѣ, [in:] Ключъ Разꙋмѣнїѧ, Киевъ 1659, f. 246v (498). A personal ideal created a norm for the daily conduct of representatives of various groups, thus also priests or archpriests. It could be fully presented in model texts, as it was not limited by the need to adapt praise to well-known deeds and traits of a public figure. This was essential to the Ruthenian community in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because the offer of 17th-century printing houses did not include works on moral philosophy. There were also few works of the “mirror” or “image” type, so popular already in the 16th century among the Catholics and the Protestants.329 In the 1660s a moral theology textbook did emerge, but, although important, it could not fill this cultural gap (Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ или Покаѧнїє Ст҃оє, Киевъ 1669). Such didactic focus can be found e.g. in the model “word” on a dead priest from Lazar Baranovych’s Fanfares collection (Kiev 1674). It differed in its content from bishops’ instructions only in its in-depth reflection on the idea of vanitas (comparing life to a comedy, games; death to a thief etc.). Apart from these additions intended to set the tone of the situation and the right “mood” for listening to the instruction, it was a moral exhortation concerning the priesthood. Like in synodal teachings or chirotony, it referred to the ideal of the shepherd presented in the second Letter of St. Paul to Timothy (2: 3) and the exhortation to the elders from the letter of St. Peter (1: 5) as well as honorific priestly titles of Biblical origin (eyes, candle, pillar). The list of preferred traits they represented became the basis of praise which simultaneously painted the picture of a role model.330 329 Л. Довга, Соціальна утопія Інокентія Гізеля…, p. 227. 330 This is well-illustrated even by short excerpts: “ Образъ бѣ стадꙋ в нишетѣ, помнѧ оно: пасѣте, єже въ васъ стадо Бж҃іє, не неправедными прибытки. Не бѣ лакомъ, ибо тако былъ бы волкъ паче, неже Пастыръ. Исполни повелѣнїє: подобаєтъ Єпⷭпꙋ быти несребролюбцꙋ. Прїѧтъ ѹбо вѣнецъ должный нищимъ: Блажени нищїи, ꙗко тѣхъ єстъ Цр҃҃ ство Нбⷭноє. […] Образом бѣ стадꙋ въ послꙋшанїи, послꙋшливꙿ бѣ даже до смрти, жеКр҃҃҃҃ тныѧ, носѧ Кртъ по Хрⷭстѣ до смрти, тѣмꙿже Бгъ єго превознесе на прїѧтїє не оувѧдаємагѡ вѣнца славы. Образом бѣ стадꙋ в терпѣнїи гл҃ѧ: Образъ прїймѣте братїє злострастїѧ и долготерпѣнїѧ, в терпѣнїи вашемъ стѧжѣте дш҃ы ваша, за єже терпенїє лежитъ ємꙋ вѣнецъ. Бл҃женъ мꙋжъ, иже претерпитъ искꙋшенїє, зане искꙋшенъ бывъ, пріймет вѣнецъ жизни. Образомъ бѣ стадꙋ в трезвенїи, паслꙋшаше реченна: подобаєтꙿ Moral teachings as well as those featuring content useful to the clergy were also “smuggled” in hagiographic prose.331 This was nothing new for such a kind of writing, which had promoted model Christian life and death since baptism (988). Worthy of note, however, is the fact that in the 17th century clear efforts were made to adapt this type of teaching to society’s current spiritual needs. An example is a work by a Pechersk monk, Atanasii Kalnofoiskii, ΤΕΡΑΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑlubo cuda które były tak w samym świętocudotwornym monastyru pieczerskim kijowskim jako i w obydwu świętych pieczarach, wktórych po woli Bożej błogosławieni ojcowie pieczarscy pożywszy, iciężary ciał swoich złożyli (Kiev 1638). It was published together with a work by the monk Hilarion Denisovich entitled PARERGON cudów świętych obraza przeczystej Bogarodzice w monastyru Kupiatyckim.332 In the Preface to the gracious reader, which featured an explanation of the functional usefulness of the collection to preachers, the author addressed the clergy with his teaching on the ideal of the preaching ministry. He pointed to the duties of those speaking in Orthodox churches, suggesting traits characterizing a good orator (diligence, steadfastness and consistency). He also listed Biblical and hagiographic examples of the ideal teaching ministry.333 Єпⷭпꙋ быти трезвеннꙋ не пїаници […]”, Лазар Барановичъ, Словѡ на погребенїи пастырѧ, [in:] Трꙋбы на дни нарочитыѧ..., Киевъ 1674, ff. 317v-318 (erroneously 319). Other examples, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Posługa duszpasterska w refleksji prawosławnych w XVII w.– wybrane zagadnienia, “Київська Академія” 9, 2011, pp. 66–77; cf. also Eadem, Rola kazań żałobnych…, [in:] Dialog z Tradycją (forthcoming). 331 E.g. the 1635 Paterikon prepared by Sylvester Kossov contains moral teachings addressed mainly to monks and lay persons, cf. Н. Сінкевич,“Патерикон”як морально-дидактичний твір, [in:] Eadem, “Патерикон”Сильвестра Косова: переклад та дослідження пам’ятки, Київ 2013, pp. 97–107. 332 I quote the work after: Seventeenth-Century Writings on the Kievan Caves Monastery, introd. P. Lewin, [Harvard Library of Early Ukrainian Literature], vol. 4, Cambridge Mass. 1987 [hereafter I will give the original page number and then the page number of the reprint in parentheses]. 333 “Co pewnie będzie, gdy to swieszczennik zachowa czego o Oratorze Cerkiewnym Apostoł potrzebuje mówiąc: Przepowiadaj słowo, nalegaj, wczas nie wczas, kar(z), proś ze wszelaką cierpliwością i nauką. A gdy tak jako on Doctor wielki Jan Złotousty niezbożna Eudoxia do oddania winnice Teognistowej żenie wdowie po wiele The fact that the work was to serve as a textual and teaching aid for preachers is also confirmed by other “words” found in it and addressed to clerical readers. For example, the main part of Parergoncudów features an interesting image of the church orator as well as several remarks concerning preferred content of the sermons delivered to the faithful. It was an instruction, in nine points marked on the mar-gins, addressed to preachers who were not prepared for this function, urging them to “be ashamed or learn their office”.334 As Father Hilarion writes in this fairly extensive exhortation, a good orator should be “perfectly wise”, “quiet, humble, pleasant, not quarrelsome”, at the same time valiant, for he has to be prepared for sacrifices or even persecution. In addition, he should be a level-headed man, a servant who loves God and people. It is essential that he should follow theLord, so that the teaching he preaches will be reflected in his daily life. He must be well-versed in the Holy Scriptures and cautious with foreign “postillaries”. In his sermon he should comment on the articles of faith or discuss moral problems and not engage in empty displays of erudition. The ministry of the word should not bring any material gain.335 These are not only instructions useful to priests in their work. The parenesis following “miracle XI” of the ninth chapter contains the Biblical image of the “good shepherd”, who “dusze swoję kładzie za owce swoje, czuje o nich i statecznie trwa w swym urzędzie.”336 In- admonitiach na koniec cerkiewnych przed nią drzwi zamknieniem exhortować, jako Heliasz Prorok święty Achaba i Jezabel, jako Mojżesz Pharaona Króla do dobroci pociągać będzie, pójdzie za tym że wielkim nazowie się wKrólestwie Pańskim iż nauczy i sam uczyni, iż wyjmie tram z oka swego i trzaski zoczu synów swoich. I w napomnieniu tym lubo się kiedy ostrzej postawi żadna w ten czas nie będzie tyrania tylko pobożność dla Boga. Tak ci Piotr Święty przyjemny Panu swemu wypełnił uczynek, gdy Ananiasza i Zaphirę umorzył słowem, tak wybrane naczynie Święty Paweł, gdy Elima Czarnoxiężnika oślepił, tak Phinees bez okrucieństwa zniósł złe z posrzodku Izraela”, Atanazy Kalnofojski, ΤΕΡΑΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑ lubo cuda,..., Kij 1638, k. d2v-d3 (133). 334 Hilarion Denisowicz, PARERGON cudów..., p. 39 (319). 335 Ibidem, pp. 39–40 (319–320). 336 Ibidem, pp. 46–47 (323). struction XIII defines the duties of a “worthy presbyter”, describing the appropriate content of an address to a dying person and admonishing those hierarchs who allow unprepared priests engage in such responsible ministry.337 Thus Denisowicz expected his work to be used by those preaching the Word of God who, looking for material for their sermons, would get a ready-made image of an ideal teacher to be followed as well as other practical advice associated with their ministry. Worthy of note is also the role played by polemical literature. It was used to discuss key elements of the Church reform,338 including the need for a moral and intellectual improvement of the clergy. Authors raised the question of celibacy, education and preparation of priests for their ministry; they denounced the biggest vices and moral shortcomings of Ruthenian priests as well as violation of the discipline of consecrated life. The satire was targeted at those who became priests in an unworthy manner and treated ordination as a way to obtain a profession and a source of income. The writers criticized superstition and ignorance, and pointed to irregularities in the rites and the liturgy.339 The value of their works lay in extensive quotations from canonical literature: canons of the Apostles, Fathers as well as local and ecumenical councils. Some very popular works like Threnos (1610), hand-written Palinodia or the famous discussion between Kasian Sakovych (1642) and Euzebi Pimin (probably with Petro Mohyla and people from his circle) (1644) were creative provocations, encouraged individuals to engage in a debate and then reform actions, thus had positive effects.340 337 Ibidem, pp. 48–49 (324). 338 Many topics relating to the renewal of the Church and the prestige of the Eastern Church are discussed by J. Stradomski, Spory o “wiarę grecką” w dawnej Rzeczypo spolitej, Krak 2003. 339 For more on the topic, cf. P. Nowakowski, Problematyka liturgiczna w między-wyznaniowej polemice po Unii Brzeskiej (1596–1720), Krak 2004. 340 According to Taras Shmanko, the discussion between the authors of Epanor thosis (Krak 1642) and Lithos (Kiev 1644) was directly reflected in changes and additions to Petro Mohyla’s Trebnyk, Т. Шманько, Латинізаціята * * * Effective use of books was also influenced by their composition, well-thought-out and logical arrangement of the material, especially in the case of extensive, complex works. An example of good organ-ization of many varied texts is the above-mentioned edition of the writings of John Chrysostom (including Dialogue on the Priesthood) and other Fathers printed in the Lviv confraternity’s printing house (1614). It was prepared with exceptional care for its functional usefulness to the clergy: a transparent and logical composition of the textual material and illustrations, presence of additional instructions or explanatory comments (e.g. in the form of prefaces to the various parts, poem and letter of dedication, afterword, notes on the margins) as well as elements facilitating reading in the form of explanations of difficult words, list of topics tackled in the various sections etc.341 Impressive subject and name indexes (Оглавленїе изрѧднѣйших вещей) were included e.g. in the above-mentioned Kiev editions of John Chrysostom’s homilies and the Kiev editions of Nomocanons.342 The purpose of these additions was explained to the readers in the prefaces: “Оудобнѣйшаго же ради ѡбрѣтенїа вещей зде положеныⷯ, cословїє по бꙋквѣ, сирѣчъ реестръ на конци положисѧ, воньже часто вникающе, можете оудобъ обрѣсти и навыкнꙋти.”343 The reading of the Mohylan (1629) and окциденталізація: прояви і наслідки, [in:] Pro Oriente. Берестейска унія(1596)в історії історіографії: спроба підсумку, ed. Й. Марте, О. Турій, Львів 2008,pp. 342–346. Another example, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Materiały niekonieczne…., [in:] Omiejsce książki…, pp. 165–166. 341 Cf. A.Z. Nowak, Bracka oferta…, p. 181–210. 342 Cf. Съчисленіє по бꙋкварꙋ вещей вꙿ сей Книжици ѡбрѣтаємыхъ. Внемже число, первоє оубѡ страницы знаменꙋєтъ. Второє же правила ꙋказꙋєтъ, оудобнѣйшагѡ ради изꙿобрѣтенїѧ, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 161 (178). Сf. also Сочисленіє по бꙋкварꙋ вещей вꙿ сей Книжици ѡбрѣтаємыхъ. Внемже число, первоє ꙋбѡ страницы знаменꙋєтъ. Второє же правила ѣдеже нѣсꙋть строки ꙋказꙋєтъ, оудобнѣйшагѡ ради изꙿѡбрѣтенїѧ, [in:] Номоканонъ сирѣчъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Верховныхъ Апⷭлъ, Ст҃ыхъ Веⷧ Вселенскиⷯ Седми Соборѡⷡ, и Помѣстыхъ, Киевъ 1624, pp. 161–74. 343 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Преѡсщ҃еныⷨ Архїепⷭпѡⷨ, и Митрополітѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезныⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, Прпⷣбнѣйшиⷨ Архїмаⷩдритѡⷨ (Номоканонъ сирѣчъ Законоправилникъ, Киевъ 1624), [in:] Lviv (1646) editions of the book was facilitated by the inclusion of separate indexes: of names as well as ecumenical and local councils, referred to in the work under the title Твѡрцы и събѡры, иже въ сей Книзѣ Номоканѡнъ приводѧтсѧ и въспоминаютсѧ. Even such a brief overview of printed works supporting religious reforms shows that between the second half of the 16th century and the end of the 17th century the number of books that could assist in the renewal of the priesthood increased significantly. An important element of the reform through books was editions of the works of the Church Fathers, which began to appear already in the 16th century. In Ruthenian land the quickest response to the need for a change came from homiletic literature. The turn of the 17th century saw the emergence of primarily short works, mainly paratextual, like prefaces, afterwords, additional instructions concerning sacramentology, liturgy, homiletics, moral theology and pastoral theology. They were incorporated into larg-er religious, primarily liturgical, books and collections. It was not until the second half of the 17th century that then emerged the first extensive manuals, textbooks and treatises dealing with the various elements of the priestly ministry. Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли..., p. 108; cf. also Петръ Могила, Преосщ҃енныⷨ Архіепⷭпѡⷨ, Митрополитѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезнѣйшиⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, и всѣмъ Дх҃овникѡмъ ѿ Бг҃а Властїю Архїереѵскою ѡсщ҃еннымъ (Преⷣсловїє на Номоканѡнъ), [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…., Киевъ 1629, p. 14(15). “О поставленіи епископовъ и свѧщенниковъ достойныхъ къ свѧщенъствꙋ” – On Candidates to the Clerical State Testimonies retained in the Apostolic tradition, writings by the Church Fathers, ecumenical decrees and those of local bishop’s syn- ods, show that already in the first centuries of christianity, a subject of Christian teaching was the matter of properly selecting candidates to the priesthood.1 Władysław Kania, a scholar on the literary heritage These issues were present in, among others, Didaskalia, Apostolic Canons, and the works of St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus), St. Gregory the Gre-at, St. John Climacus and others. Excerpts from patristic texts on the subject of the priesthood, cf. Kapłani pierwszych wieków. Antologia tekstów patrystycznych, ed. L. Padovese, Krak 2011. Reports on the topic cf. A. Baron, Modele biskupa propagowane w Antiochii w czasach Jana Chryzostoma (Refleksja nad drugą księgą “Konstytucji apostolskich” na tle kanonów synodu antiocheńskiego z 341 r.), [in:] Czasy Jana Chryzostoma i jego pasterska pedagogia, ed. N. Widok, Opole 2008, pp. 11–37; P. Libera, Posługiwanie pasterskie jako amoris officium według św. Augustyna, “Dobry Pasterz” 1993, no. 13; A. Eckmann, Osobowość dobrego katechety w ujęciu św. Augustyna, “Vox Patrum” 10, 1990, vol. 18, pp. 113–120; L. Stręk-Jodłowa, Ideał kapłana według św. Efrema, “Vox Patrum” 7, 1987, vol. 12–13, pp. 405-410; D. Zagski, Akomodacje modelu doskonalenia w odniesieniu do poszczególnych stanów i grup wiernych, [in:] Ai σωτηρίας όδοί. Model doskonalenia chrześcijańskiego wświetle ekshortacji pastoralnych Grzegorza z Nazjanzu,Toruń 2007, pp. 190–198; W. Kania, Ideał kapłana według Jana Chryzostoma, “Ateneum Kapłańskie” 1947, vol. 46, pp. 105–130; Idem, Ideał mówcy Kościelnego według św. Jana Chryzostoma, “Ateneum Kapłańskie” 1947, vol. 47, pp. 113–130, 225–240, 329–339; Idem, Zasady of the spiritual and moral works of John Chrysostom (ca. 350–407), notes that great priests were converting entire nations, and with the priesthood downfall came depressing times for the Church and entire nations.2 Mentioned Church Father expressed this truth in Dialogue on the Priesthood, one of the most famous Christian books concerning the ideal spiritual ministry: Ѿткѫдꙋ ли инѫдꙋ непщѹєши рц҃и ми, толикимꙿ въ Црквахъ раж҃датисѧ смꙋщенїамъ. Азъ оубо, ни ѿ кѫдꙋ инюдꙋ мню, развѣ ѿ же єже избиранїаⷨ и поставленїамъ настоѧтелей простѣ, и ꙗкоже прилѫчисѧ бывати. Главѣ бо зело здравѣйшей быти подобаєтъ, да ꙗже ѿ прочїаго телесе ѿ долꙋ възсылаємыѧ въ скѹры злыѧ расправлѧти и тыѧжде ꙗкоже требѣ оустроивати възможетꙿ. Єгда же глава та ѡ себѣ сама болѣзнѫющи бѫде(тъ) и недꙋготвѡрни ѡны прираженїа ѿразити немогѫщи, то сама паче надъ имъже єстъ немощнѣйша оустроєваєтъсѧ и прѡчее съ собою припогꙋблѧєтъ тѣло.3 wymowy chrześcijańskiej uśw. Jana Chryzostoma, “Currenda” 1947, 9, pp. 447–454; Idem, Ideał kapłana według Ojców Kościoła, “Currenda”, 1948, 97, pp. 168–183; S. Sojka, Intelektualno-duchowa formacja kapłanów według zasad św. Grzegorza Wielkiego, “Vox Patrum” 13–15, 1993–1995, vol. 24–29, pp. 203–208; Митрополитъ Діонисій, Пасторологія святого Іоанна Лѣствичника, “EΛΠΙΣ” 1927, 3, pp. 23–32; W. Myszor, Przygotowanie do kapłaństwa w IV i V wieku w Kościele Wschodnim, “Vox Patrum” 13–15, 1993–1995, vol. 24–29, pp. 261–266; A. Maciejewski, Ideał kapłaństwa u Ojców Kościoła, “Ateneum Kapłańskie” 1979, vol. 92, pp. 239–251; И.П. Соколовъ,Ученіе римско–католической церкви о таинствѣ священства. Историко-догматическій очеркъ, С.-Петербургъ 1907, pp. 9–27; J. Żelazny, Biskup Ojcem. Zarys eklezjologii syryjskiej na podstawie “Konstytucji Apostolskich”, Krak 2006. Vox Patrum magazine no. 13–15 (1993–1995, vol. 24-29), also includes other articles on the priesthood (among others in the thoughts of St. Am-brose and St. John of Damascus) as well as an article describing valuable papers concerning the topic of priesthood. Cf. E. Stanula Patrystyczna literatura okapłaństwie. Przegląd bibliograficzny (pp. 49–58). 2 W. Kania, Ideał kapłana według Jana Chryzostoma, p. 109. 3[Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ(Лвовъ 1614), p. 68; Patrologia graeca, edit. J.-P. Migne, vol. 48, Parisiis 1862, col. 623–692; cf. also St. John Chrysostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, transl. W. Kania, ed. M. Starowieyski, Krak 1992, p. 80. It is worth to emphasize that the citation comes from the translation of Dialogue on the Priesthoodby Havryil Dorofieievych (circa 1575 - post 1624) from the beginning of the 17th century. The piece was published in 1614 as a typography belonging to an Orthodox brotherhood mainly gathering lay people who used the possibilities of distribution by print as an opportunity to initiate a religious revival in the Eastern Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Continuance of this revival was apparent in the development of education, when in the 16th century, the trilingual collegium in Ostrog4 and the brotherhood schools5 were founded. The spiritual, religious and in consequence cultural revival of Kiev Metropolitanate was depending on the course this reform. Mending of the priestly ethos, eventually also the goal of reformers in clerical circles, was conditioned by the method of candidate selection to this state. First and foremost was the need to restore the abandoned electoral procedures in order to effectively chose candidates by assessing their intellectual potential, moral formation and the level of their substantive preparation for ministry. This area required correcting at least two mutually conditioned el-ements. The first was related with the need to ordain to the priesthood those who had a vocation to this ministry and were characterized by rectitude, spiritual maturity and adequate knowledge. The second matter was to responsibly select devout and educated bishops. This second factor was much more important because it conditioned the first one. It was the bishop and at the same time the consecrator who was obliged to supervise the recruitment process among candidates for the clerical state. He was to control their morality and knowledge and then teach, judge and take care of his just ordained priests. This vladykawas responsible for the level of the clergy’s preparation for priestly ministry. Being the “head of the body” in a diocese, as expressed in the above-mentioned Dialogue on the Priesthood, he 4 Я. Ісаєвич, “Lycaeum trilingue”: Концепція тримовної школиу Європі вXVI ст., [in:] Острозька давнина, ed. I. Mицько, Львів 1995, pp. 8–12.5 I. Isaievych, Voluntary Brotherhood Confraternities of Laymen in Early Modern Ukraine, Edmonton-Toronto 2006, pp. 141–189 (first edit. Kiev 1966). had to be “healthy” in order to be able to “remove harmful elements” and lead the Church or the “organism” into an equilibrium. Rules for the proper selection of candidates to the episcopacy appeared in the canonical books in Kievan Rus’ after the adoption of Christianity. The first regulations were setting the rules for electing a bishop: the number of hierarchs who were to elect a bishop and the conditions that the candidate had to fulfill; in addition, they prohibited paying for anointing, also included other points related to the examination procedure. 28th chapter in the work entitled Prochironfound in Novel (no. 137, chapters 2 and 3) by Emperor Justinian I (527– 565).6 It was not a popular article in Greek legal sources, but for Slavs who were creating new Church structures, it was very important. Therefore, in addition to numerous excerpts from this article, it was also entirely incorporated into the Slavonic nomocanon in the 10th century and both of these together reached Kievan Rus’.7 Here, this article was widespread in the so-called EphremKormchaia first, which was transcribed in Novgorod by the monk Ephrem during the time of Yaroslav the Wise (Mudryi), but it remained in the same version from the beginning of the 12th century and later variations of this book also depended on the source Ruthenian version in the 13th century.8 The description of the rite ordination first appeared in the kormchaia books distributed on the territories of northwestern and eastern Rus’ in the 13th and 16th centuries. In Southern lands, it appeared a bit later, not yet present in versions based on the Volhynian protographs from 1286.9 Pertinent regulations regarding the election for clergy 6 Я.Н. Щапов, Источники Кормчей, [in:] Idem, Византийское и южнославянское..., p. 77. 7 Ibidem, p. 78. Cf. texts in Prochirion (ch. 2–4): О поставленіи єпⷭпъ и мниⷯ, О єпп҃ѣхъ in edition of Ephrem Kormchaia, mainly according to the Solovietska version (15th–16th cent.) cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, ed. В.Н.Бенешевич, Я.Н. Щапов, София 1987, pp. 55–56, 64–65.8 Я.Н. Щапов,Русская редакция кормчей XIII в., [in:] Idem, Византийское июжно славянское…, p. 169. 9 Ibidem, p. 185. were also found in the legal codes from the Kiev Metropolitanate in the 16th-17th centuries.10 It is worth pointing out, however, that the nomocanons and the later kormchaia books are not the only sources that contain norms important for ordination. Hierarchs made efforts to ensure that the rules of choosing both a bishop as well as a priest found in the manu-scripts of the legal and canonical books be more widely available and practically applied, an indication of which was appearance of special articles also in chynovnyks – Orthodox manuscripts containing a de-scription of priestly ordination in Ruthenian lands 17th century.11 It was the order: Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство і ставити у їерейскый, и дїаконъскый чинъ12 (Regulation on how to select suitable candidates for spiritual offices and ordaining 10 An example concerning the selection of bishops and priests can be found in the article: Закона градꙿскаго главы различны въ четырѣхъ десѧтехъ гранехъ [...], from the kormchaia book that appeared in Constantinov on Lviv’s territories at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, cf. National Library (Poland) 12694 III, p. 319. A description of the archive can be found in: J. Stradomski, Rękopiśmienne cyrylickie kodeksy prawa kanonicznego w zbiorach polskich (charakterystyka kodykologiczna itekstologia zabytków (paper to be published). 11 Neither the Uniates nor the Orthodox published them in the 17th century, cf. P. Nowakowski, Pierwsze pontyfikały obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego (XVII/XVIII w.) jako przykład łączenia wschodniej i zachodniej tradycji liturgicznej w Cerkwi Greckokatolickiej, [in:] Harmonijne współistnienie kultury Wschodu i Zachodu na Ukrainie, ed. W. Mokry, Kraków 2000, p. 108; about the printed pontificales in the 18th century Idem, Pontyfikał Vat. Slav. 44 z końca XVII wieku – świadek historii Unii brzeskiej w diecezji przemyskiej, [in:] Piśmiennictwo cerkiewnosłowiańskie i sztuka cerkiewna w kulturze Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i Korony Polskiej (Krakowsko-Wi- leńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 6), ed. M. Kuczyńska, W. Stępniak-Minczewa, J. Stradomski, Krak 2011, pp. 179–180. 12 Text of ukazfrom ponitificale known as Архіератиконъ, written for Bishop KyrylTerletskyi ca. 1585–1594 in: О. Лотоцький, Український Архієратикон, “EΛΠΙΣ”VI, 1932, vol. 1–2, pp. 137–143; А.С. Петрушевичъ, Архіератиконъ кіевскоймитрополіи съ половыни XIV столѣтія, по списку съ конца 16 столѣтія, Лвовъ1901, pp. 4–8. A description of the ustav cf. Ф. Титов, Поставленіе во діакона исвященника и избраніе епископа въ древней Западнорусской Церкви, или Кiевской митрополiи въ XIV–XVI в.в., “Труды Киевской Духовной Академии” 1902, no.5, pp. 134–140. Cf. А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій и хиротоній..., pp. 192–195. them to the priestly or deaconate ministries) and the provisions entitled Оуставъ како достоит избирати єпⷭкопа13 (Regulation concerning the proper election of a bishop). Both instructions concerning the procedures for selecting worthy candidates to the clerical state, according to Atanasii Neselovskyi, were not explicitly taken from Greek liturgical books but were written in southern Ruthenia. Evidence of this is the presence of these articles in some of the kormchaia books,14 in chynovnyks and archpriests’ liturgiarions in this territory, and above all in the vocabulary present in the oldest versions of these records.15 The Regulation (Ustav)was found among others in Sluzhebnyk and trebnykwritten for Petro Mohyla (c. 1596–1647), preserved in the Saint Sophia’s Cathedral library16 under the heading: Устав рукоположенїа Cт҃ илскаго сирѣч како подобаєт ст҃҃ лю избирати достойных на сщенство и ставити на клирицкїй и дїаконскїй і иєрейскїй санъ.17 The order of the liturgy for 13 For example, the text of the ustavreprinted in: О. Лотоцький, Український…, pp. 155–158; a abridged version of EuchologionIllirico 15, [in:] М. Марусин, Чини Святительських Служб в Київському Евхологіоні з початку XVI ст., Рим 1966, pp. 31–32, description of the regulation Ф. Титов, Поставленіе во діакона исвященника и избраніе епископа..., pp. 140–145. 14 Cf. Устав бываємый на поставление епископаin chapter 106 of Kormchaia from the 15th cent. (the Tarnovski from Dzikov collection) an unusual composition but dependent on the Serbian version, until recently to be found in collection of Jagiellonian Library sygn. 71/1952, cf. Я.Н. Щапов, Восточнославянские июжнославянские рукописные книги в собраниях Польской Народной Республики, part 1: Рукописи собраний Варшавы и Кракова (№№ 1–93), Москва 1976, no. 89. About this archive cf. J. Stradomski, Pierwiastek południowosłowiański wXV-wiecznych zabytkach prawnych Cerkwi prawosławnej w zbiorach rękopisów Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, [in:] The Orthodox Church in the Balkans and Poland. Connections and Common Tradition, ed. by A. Mironowicz, U. Pawluczuk, W. Walczak, Białystok 2007, pp. 197–210.15 А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., p. 194, footnote 50. 16 This Bishop sluzhebnyk known as Sluzhebnykand Trebnyk by Ivan Boiarskyi from the copier’s surname was written for the metropolitan ca. 1632, cf. Н. Петровъ, Краткое обозрѣніє рукописей Кіево-Софійской библіотеки, Кіевъ 1901, p. 14. 17 The Ustav is found on pages 263-265, the digital version of the archives used to be available on the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine web site, cf. (8.03.2016). diaconate and presbyterate ordinations and Episcopal consecration contained in the chynovnyks were enriched by the mentioned nor-mative documents in the 15th century.18 In the next century in Kiev Metropolitanate, it was already very popular and appeared before the description of the liturgical part of an ordination. Some of the issues present in the regulations appeared in questions concerning the predispositions of a selected candidate and were addressed to the participants of the nomination. They were also the subject of the ordination teachings preached by the consecrator to the elect just before the episcopal ordination.19 For the third time, the elect himself once again reminded the bishop about these principles in the form of a pledge to obey them formulating it into an expression of faith and oaths, which were obligatory elements in the order of consecration.20 In the case of the presbyterate, the instructions were given to the neopresbyter after the ordination but before his departure to the parish. Initially handwritten, later printed during 17th century, these teachings as well as the oath were supposed to become obligatory reading material for priests during the entire period of parish ministry.21 Yosyf Shumlanskyi (1643–1708) wrote about this as a reminder in his bishop’s teaching (sic!) published in 1687, and at his initiative, the model oath was made available twice in print: […] кождомꙋ, не тилько ново, але издавна посвѧщенномꙋ презвитерꙋ и дїаконꙋ, конечне потреба на свой клѧтвенный ѡбѣтъ, на свою присѧгꙋ, пред Божественнымъ престолом выконаннꙋю памѧтати. Да койждо въ немъ же званъ, въ томъ и да пребываетъ, длѧ того ꙗко въ першой книжицѣ, 18 According to Mykhailo Vavryk, the regulation concerning the selection of candidates to the diaconate and priesthood, already present in 15th-century chy novnyks, appeared less often in the 17th century, М. Ваврик, Цінний пам’ятник обрядовости..., p. 446. 19 А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., pp. 357–359. 20 The text of the oath is from the 15th century manuscript Euchologion (Illirico 15), cf. М. Марусин, Чини Святительських..., pp. 35–37. 21 Bishop Innokentii Vynnytskyi of Przemyśl recommended that priests frequently read chirotony instructions and proceedings according to the truths contained therein, cf. Іннокентій Винницкій, Нравооученіє іереемъ подобаетъ…, p. 88. Зерцало названной, так и в сей теперѣшней Метрицѣ названной, при концꙋ єй выписꙋєтъсѧ порѧдне присѧга свѧщенническаѧ, которꙋю, абы так ново, ꙗко издавна посвѧщенніи свѧщенници и дїакѡны, читаючи собѣ ꙗко найчастѣй, не запоминали того, що Богꙋ и намъ, пастыреви, съ клѧтвою ѡбѣщали.22 For candidates to the clerical state (mainly those coming from Church ministry, deacons or monks), the opportunity to get to know the requirements set for priests and bishops could simply be attending a consecration liturgy. The oaths as well as the prayers of ordination and those associated with such symbolic rituals as granting the liturgical vestments, diskos or liturgiarion contained the truths about authority, and above all, the great responsibility of a bishop or priest before God for the community entrusted to him. Understanding the proper meaning of this message was simpler due to the fact that these activities were accompanied by brief instructions specific to South Ruthenian land,23 obliging the consecrated person to fulfill the duties prescribed in these prayers.24 The first ordinances printed in Kiev Metropolitanate containing disciplinary standards along with the ethical and intellectual requirements for the clergy were incorporated in a very summarized version into the so-called small nomocanons in the seventeenth century. They were placed in the Kievan editions of 1629 and those in Lviv from 1646, in sections marked on the running head as thematic parts on priestly activities and the sacraments (О сщ҃еннодѣйствїи и о таинаⷯ), 22 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), pp. 227–228. 23 Prayer formulas in the form of teachings addressed directly to the ordained bishop were accompanied by dressing in robes and granting the insignia of authority. According to the researcher, short instructions appeared in the presbyterate and bishop’s ordinances under the influence of Catholic liturgical books, for example the teaching accompanying the giving of the miter was directly borrowed from the pontificale, А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій ..., p. 370. 24 On the topic of these obligations based on the order of granting Episcopal ordination cf. A.Z. Nowak, Symbole władzy i odpowiedzialności biskupiej w kulturze duchowej metropolii kijowskiej do początku XVIII w., [in:] Symbole władzy. Władza symboli, ed. M. Dyras, B. Suchoń-Chmiel, T. Kwoka, Kraków 2014, pp. 117–133. priests (О сщ҃еницехъ) and chirotony given in exchange for material benefits (О хіротоній на мздѣ бываемѣй).25 “На свѧщенический степен по правилохъ свѧтыхъ отецъ да восходѧтъ, а не по своихъ волѧхъ” – On the Order of Selecting Candidates to the Episcopacy Following the procedures specified in the ordinances was to guarantee the right decision when choosing a bishop. Candidates should be proposed by the bishops of the college together with other elected representatives of the kliros (collective of the administrative and judicial body of the corporations of priests) who know these men’s morality and readiness. From among the three selected contenders, whose names were given to the metropolitan, the hierarchy chose one for the vacant bishopric. In this order the procedures were presented in historical manuscripts, even in the days when this method of carrying out the election procedure was outdated and replaced in the 16th cen-tury by the universal right of electing bishops by their lay patrons.26 It is worth to mention that patriarch’s role in electing bishops was reduced to a minimum.27 Some scholars are inclined to argue that this was a form of showing silent disapproval of the Polish-Lithuanian 25 This material was incorporated into the articles: Събранїє ѿ различных Правилъ, ѡ єже каѧ съгрѣшенїа возбранѧю(тъ) быти сщ҃енникꙋ. И внима(й) семꙋ съ опасенїємꙿ, ѡ дрꙋже!; Различныѧ главизны, събраныѧ ѿ инагѡ номоканѡна, ѡ тайнахъ Ст҃ыхъ; Ѡ рꙋкоположеніи, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 83– 88, 101–111, 112–129 (100–105, 118–128, 129–146). In Nomokanonfrom 1646, cf. Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, ff. 41–62. 26 Canon law declared that the election of a bishop by lay superiors was invalid, cf. canon 3 of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), S. Senyk, The History of the Church in Ukraine, vol. 2: 1300 – to the Union of Brest (Orientalia Christiana Ana-lecta, 289), Roma 2011, pp. 162–164. 27 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, p. 111; S. Senyk, The History…, vol. 2, pp. 177–179; M. Melnyk, Kościół prawosławny w I Rzeczypospolitej (2. połowa XVI w.). 2. Duchowieństwo prawosławne, [in:] Preekumenizm i konfesionalizm prawosławnych dążeń zjednoczeniowych w I Rzeczypospolitej (1590–1596), Olsztyn 2013, pp. 67–77. Commonwealth’s custom of “granting” (investiture)28. This was all the more so because it negatively affected the hierarchical structures, including the Church’s religious, spiritual and cultural life. As Borys Gudziak noted, this system made that the most cunning contenders who lacked the elementary knowledge, skills or qualities necessary to fulfill pastoral duties were assigned bishop’s post, sometimes also the status of metropolitan.29 Not to mention a lack of sense of responsibility for the Church, which in the 16th century faced many new challenges and threats.30 The reaction to the Protestant movement, the Catholic reform, and over time also to the Union in Brest, was the mobilization and initi ation of restoration efforts initially started in secular circles (patrons such as Hryhorii Khodkevych, Konstantyn Ostrogskyi,31 Teodor Skumin-Tyshkevych and Orthodox brotherhoods). Next, the clergy also joined the crusade organized, among others, for the reconstruction of the ethos and the formation of the priest, as reflected by the councils of the 1590s.32 Therefore, in the sixteenth and seventeenth century writings, es-pecially in polemical texts and moral teachings, all those who sought spiritual ministry positions without the proper knowledge of the sanctity of life were categorically condemned. These people treated 28 М. Ваврик, Цінний пам’ятник…, pp. 448–449. 29 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, p. 107, for more on this topic cf. Ibidem, pp. 103– 124. 30 B. Gudziak, Wyzwanie rzucone przez chrześcijański Zachód, [in:] Ibidem, pp. 125– 140. 31 These powerful Orthodox patrons in Volhyn also included Aleksander Czarto ryski, Konstanty Wiśniowiecki, Roman Sanguszko, cf. A. Naumow, Tradycja kijowska w prawosławiu polskim, [in:] Prawosławie.Światło wiary i zdrój doświadczenia, ed. K. Leśniewski, J. Leśniewska, Lublin 1999, pp. 461–462. 32 Cf. B. Gudziak, Patriarcha Jeremiasz, hierarchia kijowska i reforma kościelna, [in:] Idem, Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 275–297; Б.Н. Флоря, Епископы, православная знать и братства...., pp. 95–116; М. Димид, Cиноди Київської Церкви в період підготовки та укладення унії з римським престолом, [in:] Єпископ Київської Церкви (1589–1891), Львів 2000, pp. 61–104. such posts instrumentally33 as being lucrative sources of income and misguided use of power. The habit of accepting a bishopric as regu- lar occupation, “for nobility” or “for the sake of benefit and profit,” was condemned by the authors of the Vilnius Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, refusing to call these so-called “mercenary bishops” clergymen: […] сꙋть нѣкоторые, которые ничого в сщ҃енꙿстве неꙋпатрꙋють, едно зыⷭкꙋ и пожыткꙋ, ꙗко посполите всѣ инꙿшïи люди в кожⷣомъ подлоⷨ ремесле. А дрꙋгиⷯ заⷭ вабитꙿ до того станꙋ пожадливость достоиⷩства, такïе дѣлатели самыⷯ себе шꙋкають, и не сꙋть пастырми але наеⷨниками, не входѧⷮ двеⷬми але преⷥ плотъ.34 About similar behavior of those contemporary bishops wrote candidate to the Volodymyr-Brest episcopacy Adam (Ipatii) Potii (1541–1613) calling them “thieves and robbers.” In a letter to Prince Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł in 1593, he pondered over the problem of pastoral responsibility in the context of his own vocation to this office: […] zgoła widząc wielką niegodność moję na ten Urząd, barzo-bym rad tego był prazen, prosząc pana Boga, aby kogo godniejszego na to miejsce obrał Sobie sam. A iż snać niemało ich tam bieżało po to do dworu mając spore mieszki, na co teraz nieliada respect mają, ja im tego nie zajzrze, choć(i)abym też mógł, jeśli nie u siebie, tedy uprzijaciela dostać, alie takim sposobem postępując nie wszedłbym 33 The author of the polemical work Apokrisis wrote about this sin, quoting John Chrysostom’s 43rd homily commenting on the Gospel of Matthew: “którykolwiek z episkopów pragnąć będzie naczalstwa na ziemi, znajdzie zawstydzenie w niebie; a nie będzie policzonym między sługami Chrystusa Pana, który o naczalstwie będzie traktował”, Marcin Broniewski [Christophor Philalet],AΠOKPIΣIΣabo odpowiedź na książki o synodzie brzeskim 1596, imieniem ludzi starożytnej religiej greckiej…,Wilno 1597; [in:] RIB 7, p. 1459. 34 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 140. The motive of a bad mer-cenary priest is present in many moral teachings, cf. Наꙋка на памѧть Ст҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, Єве 1616, f. 236 (pp. 435–436); the same teaching cf. Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное..., Киевъ 1637, p. 811. This motif was particularly of-ten present in the teachings of Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi, cf. i.e. Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє на памꙗть Ст҃ыхъ Ощⷠе Єрархѡмъ, Пастыремъ и Оучт҃лемъ Вселенꙿскымꙿ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное..., Рохмановъ 1619, part 2, ff. 18–22. do owczarni Crystosowej jako dobry pasterz, alie jako złodziej i rozbójnik wlazłbym dziurą, czego mię Panie Boże racz uchować […].35 The abuses and pathologies pointed out in the above mentioned accounts did not escape the attention of the famous moralist Ivan Vyshenskyi (at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries). He was an austere monk and traditionalist who called to the faithful and the clergy for not only to reject the unworthy bishops, but also all the factors that made it possible for those claimants to obtain such responsible offices. Therefore, he encouraged rebellion and strong resistance to the will of the promoters who nominated the inadequate candidate, even if it be the king or the pope himself: На священический степен по правилох святых отец да восходят, а не по своихволях, похоти плотскоє ради, имѣния и панства сан да въсхищают. И всякого такого, которий сам наскакуєт, не приймуйте и от короля данного без вашего избранияизженѣте и проклонѣте: не в папежа бо вы крестилися и не в королеву власт, да вам даєт волки и злодѣи, разбойники и антихристовы таинники.36 The necessity to express their protest against the ruler’s decision to choose an inadequate person for a clerical state was laid down in the legal documents of the Vilnius Council of 1509, which were popular-ized at the beginning of the 17th century. In the section Опоставленіи достойныхъ у священъство (On Ordaining those Worthy of the Priesthood), the Metropolitan of Kiev, Yosyf Soltan (1450–1521), advised the 35 Hipacy Pociej, Oświeconemu Xiążęciu jego M. Panu Mikołajowi Crzysztophowi Radziwiłowi, Xiążęciu z Ołyki i na Nieświeżu, Wojewodzie Trockiemu, panu mojemu Miłościwemu do rąk własnych; the letter is kept in the archives of the Czartoryski Museum in Krakow, [ed. in:] Б. Барвінський, Два листи митр. Іпатія А. Потія (Analecta Ordinis p. Basilii Magni, vol. 2), ed. I. Nazarko, Romae 1956, p. 466. In the sixteenth century, the bishops of Przemyśl and Chełm with some exceptions (Antonii Radyvylovskyi, Arsenii Brylinskyi, Mykhailo Kopystenskyi) mainly dealt with secular matters, forgetting about their eparchies, cf. Л. Соневицький, Український Єпископат Перемиської і Холмської Єпархій в XV–XVI ст., Рим 1955, pp. 64–65. 36 Иван Вишенский, Порада, како да ся очистит церков Христова, [in:] Иван Вишенский, Сочинения, ed. И.П. Еремин, Москва-Ленинград 1955, p. 24. bishops and the future metropolitan to stop an ordination in the event of an improper pretender, and to explain to his promoters the reasons for his rejection from being consecrated: О поставленіи епископовъ и священниковъ достойныхъ къ священъству, съ обысканіемъ винъ, по свѣдительству и по порученію отца духовного. Аще будетъ чисть отъ всѣхъ винъ недостойныхъ, такого намъ и по насъ будучимъ епископомъ ставити у епископы и въ всякій степень священства а недостойныхъ никакоже не ставити. Аще и господаръ присылати будетъ за недостойнымъ, намъ всѣмъ зъ митрополітомъ до господаря пойти и недостоинъство того объявити и никакоже дръзнути имамы его поставити.37 For various reasons, this working model was not applied in the sixteenth century. Generally due to indifference for moral and intel-lectual values of candidates for the clergy by the hierarchs elected through lay model. Even if the metropolitan was aware of a canonical impediment in a candidate for ordination, he generally followed the king’s advice. This happened with Mykhailo Kopystenskyi (? –1610), a Bishop of Przemyśl who had a wife and was forbidden to ordain by the patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II Tranos (1530–1595). It is significant that the Metropolitan of Kiev at the time, Mykhailo Rahoza (1540–1599), consecrated him against the prohibition of the highest superior in the Church, because he did not dare oppose the will of the lay promoter.38 In the above-quoted “exhortation for Orthodox Christians,” Ivan Vyshenskyi (ca. 1550 – ca. 1610) called for fair and communal elections of bishops and all priests, conducted with the participation of the faithful and the clergy, and only later were they to be recognized by the powerful laity and king. He was convinced that this was the only way to point out God-fearing and Orthodox candidates. That is why he advised starting the electoral process by checking the life and wisdom of a future minister and community prayer to God for mak-ing a good decision. This was the only way that the chosen contender 37 Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, col. 9–10. 38 Л. Соневицький, Український Єпископат…, p. 47. could be accepted by a lay patron like a king. For transgressing this law, they should expect quick punishment from Heaven: Прето вы пастыря собѣ такого избирайте; прежде назнаменайте нѣколико особ жития и разума свѣдителствованных, яко сут благоговѣйны и правовѣрны, таж узаконѣте собѣ день и пост и сътворѣте бдѣние, съвокупишися в церков, и молитеся Богу, да вамъ даст и открыет пастыра, его же жребием от сих реченых искушайте. Бог же милостивый моления вашего не презрит, вам пастыра даст и объявит, которого приемши за пастыра тогда свѣтскую власт (се єст короля, да вам того подаст) ищѣте, которого еслине схочет вам подати и не послухает вас, узритеего скоро конца оглогнувша и онѣмѣвша: зане поставлен суд прав судити, а не своее вѣры прелесть фолкговати. Толко вы к Богу истинно ся обратѣте: все тое вам Бог чудотворне устроит. Сих проклятых владык никакож не приймуйте и молѣтеся, да отгнани будут, аще ли же власт свѣтская не хощет, узаконѣте собѣ день молитвъный по всѣх градѣх и помолѣтеся Богу.39 “Кто єпископства хощетъ, добре дѣла желаєтъ” – On Striving for the Episcopacy The law of investiture was conducive to those who pursued the episcopacy with goals other than the will to honestly minister in the Church (we will write about simony below). The problem of the in-tentions of those who received the bishopric was the subject of reflection in the oldest Christian sources. The Apostle Paul in his First Letter to Timothy expressed the truth that “whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task” (3: 1), and he described requirements for candidates for priesthood in the section entitled “Qualities of Ministers” (3: 1–13). Thus, he showed that the will to accept the priesthood is not a sufficient condition for being admitted to ordination. The Fathers of the Church and other teachers in various epochs cited this biblical passage as the starting point for reflecting on candidates who were sincerely engaged in Иван Вишенский, Порада, како да ся очистит церков Христова…, p. 24. their mission and not those who were waiting for honours, glory or power.40 According to the interpretative guidelines of seventeenth-century teachers, this message from the letter of St. Paul was to address both those who desired the epicosopacy and the priesthood. That is why this verse was cited in the first words of the synodal instructions for clergy by Yosyf Shumlanskyi, Lviv’s Eparchy administrator: “Павелъ, пишꙋчи до своегѡ возлюбленнаго въ Дꙋхꙋ Свѧтомъ чада Тимоѳеѧ, єпископа ефесскагѡ, в першом посланїи своємъ, в третей главѣ, на початкꙋ такъ мовит: Чадо Тѵмоѳее, вѣрнѡ словѡ, аще кто єпископства хощетъ, добре дѣла желаєтъ.”41 Apostolic rules for those applying for priesthood were also men-tioned by Ivan Vyshenskyi in Short note on latin mistakes42 and Dmytro 40 On the commentaries for this passage of the apostolic letter in the writings of Origen, Augustine, Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas, cf. J. Salij, “Kto dąży do biskupstwa, dobrego zadania pragnie” (1 Tm 3, 1) w interpretacji św. Tomasza z Akwinu, [in:] “W tym, który umacnia” – Księga pamiątkowa ku czci J.E. Ks. Bp. Prof zw. EdwardaOzorowskiego z okazji 25-lecia sakry biskupiej, 40-lecia kapłaństwa i 30-lecia pracy w AWSDw Białymstoku, Białystok 2004, pp. 81–87. 41 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа... (Лвовъ 1687), p. 225. 42 “Се, мною, постраждут не от Бога званный духовенства, епископи и прочии священници, иже духовный сан по страсти восхищают, но ниже что ест имя духу знают и со скверною одеждою, се ест неочищенноюсовѣстию, на брак тайное вечерѣ жертвоватиБогу в дусѣ въсходят, они же плотски живут имудрствуют. Аще бо, рече, кой епископству или священству сам от себе, ане от Бога зван суще желает, добру дѣлу желает, - рече божественный Павел, – но подобаетъ, рече, ему того дѣла плоды в себѣ изобразити, се же ест непорочну, трезвену, цѣло мудрену, благоговѣйну, честну, страннолюбиву, учителну, не пианици, не бийци, не сварливу, не мшелоимцу, но кротку, не завистливу, не сребролюбцу, единой женѣ мужу, своего дома добрѣ правящу и прочая быти. Нынѣже сопротивно творят, дѣло епископства вси любят, плодов же дѣлных ни единого от сих не показуют, но и сопротивню во всем сия добродѣтелныя злобою попирают, на брак священства, идеже точию званнии от Бога, чистии и от Духа Святаго посвященнии в чертог царскаго покоища входити обыкоша, сии же ни званнии, ни одежды брачное имуще, сами о собѣ входят, да имѣнми кладѣют, а не Духа Святаго радости и женихова веселия да ся сподобят. И како не ужасаешися дому владыки, егда приидет съглядати возлежащих и обрящется ниже званна, Tuptalo in the Word on Pastoral Service, stating that their first motive should be to love ministry that yields spiritual fruits as well as the readiness to make sacrifices for the work of salvation and not to seek glory and wealth: Дѣла желаєтъ, аще кто дѣла желаєтъ, а не власти, трꙋда а не гордыни, попеченїѧ, а не напыщенїѧ, таковоє желанїє похвалѧєтъ апостолъ, ибо санъ ст҃ительскїй ѿ Гдⷭа на земли оучиненъ єсть не ради оупокоєнїѧ и прохлады, но да множайшїє трꙋды ст҃итель подꙿємлетъ ѡ всѣхъ спасенїи пекꙋщисѧ, не собранїѧ ради богатствъ, но да питаєтъ алчꙋщыѧ, одѣваєтъ наготствꙋющыѧ, имѣнїѧ бо церковнаѧ сꙋть имѣнїѧ нищихъ.43 It is worth emphasizing that already at the beginning of the 17th century, during the Orthodox renewal, publishers offered a translation of the commentary on the ideal clerical personality as described in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy. One of the oldest, most valuable sources of these explanations was the aforementioned work by St. John Chrysostom and other Church Fathers made available by the Lviv Brotherhood in 1614. It included St. Isidore of Pelusium’s letter (ca. 360–435)44 to Palladius concerning the appropriate candidates for the episcopacy and priesthood.45 Isidore began the message by expressing concern that many people misinterpreted the apostolic words about commendable episcopal aspirations, understanding them as an incentive addressed to all re-gardless of moral predispositions and skills. Therefore, with all his ниже имуща одѣяние брачно?”, [Иван Вишенский], Иоанна Мниха извѣщение краткое о латинских прелестех, о заблуждении от пути истиннаго и болезнех смертоноснаго мудрования, [in:] Сочинения..., p. 116. 43 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Слово ѡ пастырствѣ дх҃овныхъ пастырей, p. 360. 44 St. Isidore wrote about 3000 letters, 2000 of which have survived (PG 78, 177– 1645). Over 60 concerned St. Paul’s writings, which he explained according to the exegetic rules of the School of Antioch, applying the historical-literal method, cf. J. Pałucki, Izydor z Peluzjum, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 7, ed. S. Wielgus, Lublin 1997, pp. 618–619. 45 [Ісідѡр Пілоусїотъ], Иже въ ст҃ыⷯ ѡц҃а нашего Ісідѡра Пілоѵсїѡта, къ Паладїоѵ Дїаконоѵ: ѡ еже, како добра дѣла хощеⷮ, аще кто епⷭптва или сщ҃енъства желае(тъ), [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ…, Лвовъ 1614, ff. [26-28v]. strength he emphasized that: “не бо всѣмъ възможно естъ за таковоє ꙗтисѧ началство, єже и царства высочайшее естꙿ [...].”46 The author of the commentary by mentioning the virtues pointed out in the apostolic letter and the conditions of proper preparation for the clerical state, especially the episcopacy, was condemning sinners who desire the sacraments not for “hardship, struggle, poverty, anxiety and vigi-lance” but for being “drunk from lust for power”: Что ѹбо рече бжⷭтвенный сей мѫжъ, мнѡгоочитый ѹмъ, иже началство сіе непорочнѣ ѹправивый, аще кто єпⷭпства желаєтъ, не рече, кождо єпⷭпств(а) да желаєтъ, не заповѣда, ниже повелѣлъ єстъ, ниже законоположивъ, но понеже вѣдѧше мнѡгихъ любоначалїємъ пїанъствѹющихъ, и добродѣтели оубо не желающихъ, за начальство же ємлющихъсѧ. И єпіскопства ѹбо не трѹдовъ, и потѡвъ и бѣдъ, попеченїй же, и бдѣній, ѿнюдъ не съзръцающихъ, на 47 того бо выю въсѧ начальствѹємыхъ пѡтребы възлѡженны сѹтъ. In the further part of the message, a detailed list of a clergyman’s duties to fulfill towards the hungry, thirsty, poor, persecuted and sin-ners is presented.48 St. Isidore pointed out that a bishop’s ministry in the Church requires dedication and courage, it brings suffering, and sometimes even martyrdom and death. For this reason, he warned those who accepted the sacred office for their own glory and gain, without being ready to make such a great sacrifice, not only to be denied this dignity, but also that they would be punished on the Day of Judgment. Азъ єпⷭпства дѣло пречюднѣ похвалѧю. Бжⷭтвъно бо єстъ. Вожделѣніа ꙗже на него ѿнюдъ не хвалю, бѣдно бо єстъ, не глаголю, добрѣ творитъ, не 46 Ibidem, f. [26]. 47 Ibidem, f. [27]. 48 “Которїи же сѫтъ сіи: на сщ҃енъство производимыхъ, или оуже и сщ҃енъствоующихъ искоуства, алчющихъ пищы, жаждꙋщыхъ напоенїа, нагихъ ѡдѣѧнїѧ, обидимыхъ поможенїа. Сиротъства плачꙋщихъсѧ щадѣнїє, вдѡвъ застꙋпленїє, противꙋ ѡбидѧщиⷯ ѿмщенїа. Законопрестѹпнѣ начальствовати покꙋшающихъсѧ, обличенїѧ, недꙋгоующихъ, исцѣленіа, съблажнѧющихъсѧ въ напастехъ, исправленїа, сѫщиⷯ въ юзылищахъ, ѿрѣшеніа, и иже въ злоключенїахъ, оутѣшенїа, въ грѣсехъ пребывающыⷯ, оуцѣломꙋдренїа. А понеже рекꙋ сіа всѧ, и мнѡго сихъ большаа, ꙗже да не всѧ исчитаа продлъжоу слово, нинѣ оставиⷯ, єпⷭства имоущаго подобїє”, Ibidem, f. [27r-v]. бо подобаєтъ раченїє сіє ни же и зело благоискꙋснымъ въ дш҃и питати, но всею силою вонъ изринѹти. Зри Апⷭла (искѹсна сѫща въ подвизѣ таковомъ, и тмами пѡты облїаєм(ꙋ) и въ ранахъ, и ослѡбленїахъ, и навѣтахъ, и смр҃ тѧхꙿ въсегда обращающасѧ, да ни єдинъ ѿ оувѣренныхъ ємоу, по єликѹ на немъ бысть, погибнетъ) како иже ѡ началствѣ тщащихъсѧ, аки неискоусныхъ подвиговъ или боренїй сихъ, и къ самой токмо чести взирающихъ, страха и боѧзни исполнѧєтꙿ и токмо не главою покиваѧ въпїєтъ, аще кто епіскопства желаєтъ, да вꙿзираєтъ на троуды, да оусмотрѧєтъ аще противꙋ симъ довлѣти възможетъ, да зритъ бѣды (противꙋ немꙋ бо, невидимїй и видимїи мнѡжицею оплъчаю(тъ) сѧ врази) и нетокмо ѡ чести да помышлѧєтъ, да зритъ смерти, а не наслажденіа. Да съзерцаєтъ навѣты и попеченїа, а не къ разболѣнїю и ѿрадѣ ѡчи обращаєтъ. Оно да вѣсть, ꙗко аще кто на Прⷭтолъ съй приведенъ бѫде(тъ) сего ради рѫкополагаєтъсѧ, ꙗко законно страдати хощетъ, а не ꙗко о пищи и наслажденїѧ безбѣднѣ оупражнѧтисѧ имѣѧ. Иже бо честь сію самꙋ токмо оудръжавъ, инаѧже всѧ епіскопствꙋ належащаа оправданїа презрѣвъ, ничтоже сіѧ быти разꙋмѣвъ, то оубо здѣ бесчисленнымъ подълежати бѫдет оглаголанїѧⷨ, мнѡжицею же и извръженъ ѿ таковаго достоинства, таможе тмами въпїєнъ бѫде(тъ) 49 предъ не оумытнымъ Сѫдїєю на страшнⷨм ономъ сѫдищи. In the second letter of St. Isidore to Eustache contained in the Lviv edition, we can find praise and a recommendation for the writings on the discussed topic composed by his master and teacher, John Chrysostom.50 Both of Isidore’s letters were used in this edition as a kind of introduction to this Church Father’s selected works, which are included in the later part of this volume, namely the famous Dialogue on the Priesthood, in which the issue discussed received a broader explanation. John Chrysostom’s admonitions about the dangerous spiritual lust for ecclesiastical office concluded the third part of the treaty on priesthood. Candidates for the clerical state should be free from this vice because it incites dangerous passions and wrong feelings, encouraging them to obtain the episcopate at all costs, using means such as lying, bribery or even violence: Ibidem, f. [27v-28]. ыхъОцИжевъст҃[in:] , ТогождекъЕвꙿстафію], ІсідѡрПілоусїотъ[ ҃ Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщенъствѣ …, Лвовъ 1614, f. [28v-29]. ҃ а нашего Іѡанна Многа бо сѫтъ [...] ꙗже сщ҃енникꙋ имѣти подобаєтъ [...]. ѿ въсюдꙋ ємоу въжделѣнїа вещи чистꙋ имѣти подобаєтъ дш҃ю, ꙗко аще пристрастнѣ къ семоу обрѣтатисѧ бѫдетъ начальствꙋ. Єгда же бѫде(тъ) на немъ крѣпчайшїй въздвизаєтъ пламень, и дръжавнѣ ѧтъ бывъ ѡ єже извѣстно имѣти сіє, тмами претръпѣваєтъ злаѧ, любо и ласкательнꙋ ꙗвитисѧ требѣ бѫдетъ, любо и порабощенно что и недостойно подъѧти, любо и пѣнѧзѣ ижⷣити многыѧ. А ꙗко оубо оубійствъ въ Цр҃ квахъ наплънишѧ нѣцый 51 и градѡмъ спроврещисѧ сътвориша ѡ семъ борющесѧ началствѣ. The desire for episcopal honours, accompanied by the quest for authority and power, brings serious spiritual danger upon the con-tender. Therefore, in the opinion of John Chrysostom, one should be-ware of such feelings, and when they arise, root them out and destroy them before they sprout so that they do not become a serious obstacle in striving for consecration: Люто бо въ истиннꙋ люто, єже сеѧ желати чести. И не съпротивлѧсѧ бл҃женномꙋ Павлоѵ гл҃ю, но и зело съгласѹѧ сѧ съ онаго гл҃ы. Что онъ рече: Аще кто єпⷭпъствꙋ хощетъ, добрꙋ дѣлꙋ желаєтъ. Азъ же не дѣлꙋ, но господьства и могѫтꙿства желати рекохъ быти люто. И сіє мню, ꙗко подобаєтъ желанїє въсѧкимъ тщанїємъ ѿ дша҃ изриноути и ни же изъ начала попꙋстити оудръжанѣй той быти ѿ него, да въсѧ съ свободою лѣть ємоу бѫдетъ творити.52 As can be noticed from the aforementioned examples, these valu able and timeless warnings and advices from the Letter to Timothy were popularized due to the availability on the publishing market the patristic texts which commented on the Letters. In the 17th century in Kiev Metropolitanate, the number of Ruthenian teachings increased, which the Church authority was eager to refer to when explaining the biblical truths. For example, Petro Mohyla in the preface to the culminating work of his liturgical reform Euchologioncited the words of the Letter of St. Paul to his disciple, including its interpretation by John Chrysostom, 51 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ (Лвовъ 1614), pp. 68–69. 52 Ibidem, pp. 69–70. which according to him defined the good intentions required for becoming a bishop, which meant having no desire for sovereignty and domination but having a striving need for love filled service: “Хризостомъ С(вѧтый) пишꙋчи на перше посланїє Апⷭла Павла до Тімоⷴ таⷦ мовитꙿ: Єпископства не длѧ продкованѧ и панованѧ, але любве ради добраго строєнїѧ желати належи(тъ).”53 The Metropolitan made this comment a part of the deliberations on the moral qualities and dignity of the bishop’s office. With all his might, he emphasized that it was not due to the privilege of honours of the episcopacy, but rather was the result of “work and burden” (“годность єстꙿ працею и тѧжаромъ”) encumbered on the shoulders of the earthly “cherub.”54 It is worth remind ing that in the first part of this important Orthodox book, there was also a separate treatise on episcopal authority.55 The subject of attaining the episcopacy in a rightful or reprehensibleway could not be missing in the first printed guidebook on pastoral theology (1669). In the section on the sins of the clerical state (Грѣхи дꙋховнаго сана), a set of questions addressed to the bishop was included concerning the intentions of the one to be elected for the office of archbishop. Perhaps it was a set of aids to help in their examination 53 Петръ Могила, Пренайвелебнѣйшимꙿ и Бг҃олюбезнѣйшиⷨ ихꙿ Милостѧⷨ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемъ и в Дх҃ꙋ Ст҃омъ Братїѧмъ, Епⷭпомъ православнымъ Церкви Рѡссійской, Преподобнымꙿ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемꙿ Архімандритѡмꙿ, Превелебнымꙿ Игꙋменомꙿ, Велебнымъ Іеромонахѡмъ, Перечестнымъ Протопопоⷨ, Честнымꙿ Іереомꙿ, и всемꙋ весполꙿ клирꙋ церковномꙋ православномꙋ бл҃гословенства Бж҃ого, ласки, покоѧ, и всѣхъ дочасныⷯ и вѣчныхъ добръ оупрійме зычитъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., Киевъ 1646, f. [3 v]. 54 Mohyla also cited other biblical metaphors for a bishop (light, eye, salt) and com-mented on these: “Въ всѣⷯ тыⷯ єднаⷦ преемѣненцїѧхꙿ и титꙋлахꙿ преложоныⷯ не єстꙿ щегꙋлнаѧ годноⷭ(тъ) и чеⷭ(тъ) ꙋфꙋндованаѧ, але до ѡныⷯ єдиноꙋтробнѣ привѧзана єстꙿ працовитаѧ повинностꙿ, и старанє о спⷭнїи дꙋшъ, собѣ впаствꙋ дх҃овнꙋю повѣреныхꙿ”, Ibidem, f. [2v]. 55 Cf. [Петръ Могила], Наказаніє ѡ власти Архїереѡмъ ѿ Ха҃ Бг҃а єже вѧзати и рѣшати данной, юже и предивнымꙿ ꙗвственныⷨ чꙋдомъ извѣстꙋетъ: и ꙗко сіе чꙋдо єстъ знаменїе извѣстное истинныѧ Цр҃кве, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., part 1, Киевъ 1646, pp. 787–825. Mo-hyla wrote about this dignity and responsibility in many prefaces to the books published in Lavra, more on this subject cf. С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Кіевъ 1898, pp. 470–473; more on this topic cf. M. Melnyk, Godność i tożsamość sakramentalna stanu kapłańskiego, [in:] Idem, Problematyka antropologiczna…, pp. 210–220. of conscience. Most certainly, however, it was a valuable source of information in the same way as the rules contained in the nomocanons that regulated the conditions that the elect should fulfill to pursue this position. The alleged author of the textbook, Kiev-Pechersk Archimandrite Innokentii Gizel (1600–1683) like many other teachers who referred to the First Letter to Timothy (1: 3), condemned those who pursued the office out of evil intentions. By precisely pointing out themotives that might have been the basis of this attempt, he clearly stated that their impulses are usually the seven deadly sins and conduct contradictory to the ecclesiastical commandments. If a candidate attempted to obtain a position for conceited glory, then the source of this sin was pride and love of power. If the reasons were wealth and income, then it could have its origins in greed. When these motives gave rise to the desire to enrich relatives, it was sinful to love temporal affairs and place them above the love of the Orthodox Church andGod Himself. As Archimandrite concludes, the only legitimate reason for embracing the episcopacy should be the good of the Church: Въ первыхъ єпⷭкопы или коилибо архїерее долъжни испытовати вꙿ совѣсти своєй грѣховъ таковыⷯ: Аще сами єпⷭпства хотѣша, съ намѣренїємꙿ злымъ, ꙗко же, ради самаго приѡбрѣтенїѧ чтⷭи и власти превосходѧщеѧ иныхъ, вꙿ чесомъ начало всѧкаⷢ(о) грѣха єⷭ(ть) гордынѧ и властолюбїє. Или ради приѡбрѣтенїѧ богатства изъ приходовъ Цр҃ ковныхъ, вꙿ чесомꙿ коренъ всѣхъ злыхꙿ сребролюбїє єстꙿ. Или ради обогащенїѧ своихъ срѡдниковъ, вꙿ чесомꙿ съ не малымъ грѣхомъ преⷣпочитаєтꙿсѧ любовъ ко плоти и крови, паче любве къЦр҃҃ кви и къ самомꙋ Бгꙋ. Токмо бо съ намѣренїємъ добрымъ, ради добра Цр҃ кве да бы чиннѡе строенїе ѿ добраго пастыра имѣла. Аще хто єпⷭкопства хощетъ, добра дѣла желаєтъ по Апⷭтолꙋ [1 Tim3].56 “Мнози ѿ стыхъ бѣгахꙋ пастырскагѡ сана” – Responsibilities and Dangers of the Bishop’s Office The episcopal office placed burden of duties on the shoulders of hierarchs as well as a serious responsibility for the souls entrusted Иннокентій Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ…, Киевъ 1669, p. 382 (212). to them57. He was obliged, among others, to guard the deposit of the faith, repel the attacks of enemies, and unite the community of the Church about his person; he was accountable for the court and pun-ishment, including the most severe. Only the hierarch had the right to ordain priests, consecrate churches, antimensions or chrism oil.58 Gregory the Theologian described the bishop’s office as great and royal, “although it brings more hardship than pleasure.”59 On 57 In the part of his funeral sermon entitled Żniwo w polu cerkwie Bożej o dostojeństwie pasterstwa Tarassy Prokopovych wrote: “miedzy wszystkiemi urzędami świeckimi i duchownemi nie masz cięższego nad episkopski”,Żniwo cnót i chwały wiecznej Jaśnie Przewielebnego w Bogu Jego Mości Arseniego Żeliborskiego Episcopa Lwowskiego, Lw 1665, f. [15v-16]. 58 Innocent Gizel, among others, wrote about the responsibilities of a bishop: “Болшими іереами, сꙋть Єпⷭкопы или Архїерее, иже не токмо сами могꙋтъ Тѣло и Кровь Хв҃ꙋ осщати, и грѣхи отпꙋщати, но и прочїихъ меншихъ іереовъ рꙋкополагати, на ѡсщенїє ҃҃тогожде Тѣла Хв҃а и Крове, и на ѿпꙋщенїє грѣхѡвъ, такожде и иннаѧ Ꙋправленїѧ не преслꙋшающаѧ къ Іереомъ Меншимъ, но къ строенїю цр҃ ковномꙋ Боⷧшемꙋ и народнѣйшемꙋ, могꙋтъ совершати: ꙗко же ос҃҃ щати Цркви и антімисы, таже и хризма или мѵро, налагати анаѳемы, и ѿ нихъ раⷥрѣшати, искоренѧти єреси, и разширѧти православїє”, Иннокентій Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ…, Киевъ 1669, p. 136 (90). More on this topic cf. Чинъ блгⷭвенїѧ новыѧ цр҃кве, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., Киевъ 1646, part 2, pp. 73–74. These replies were most likely inspired by the works of Dionysius the Areopagite in On Hierarchy in the Church (cf. Pseudo-Dionizy Areopagita, Pisma teologiczne, transl. M. Dzielska, Krak 2005, p. 188) and Simeon of Thessalonica in On God’s Temple (cf. Symeon z Tessaloniki, O świątyni Bożej, transl. A. Maciejewska, Krak 2007, p. 47). 59 Grzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowa11. Doswegoojca, którynakłoniłgododzieleniaznimtroskioKościółwNazjanzos, [in:] ŚwiętyGrzegorzzNazjanzu. Mowywybrane, Warszawa 1967, p. 160. St. Augustine in his letterto Valerius, the Bishop of Hippo wrote: “if in the officeof bishop or presbyter or deacon the orders of the Captain of our Salvation be observed, there is no work in this life more difficult, toilsome, and hazardous, especially in our days, but none at the same time more blessed in the sight of God“, St. Augustin, ToMyLordBishopValerius, MostBlessedandVenerable, MyFatherMostWarmlyCherishedwithTrueLoveintheSightoftheLord, Augustine, Presbyter, SendsGreetingintheLord (AD391), [in:] ASelectLibraryoftheNiceneandPost-NiceneFathersofTheChrystianChurch,Edited by P. Schaff, vol. 1: TheconfessionsandlettersofSt. Augustin, withaSketchofHisLifeandWork, Transl. by J.G. Cunningham, Buffalo1886; (11.04.2017), (11.04.2017). Cf. Św. Augustyn, Listy, transl. W. Eborowicz, Pelplin 1991, p. 175. 60 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ (Лвовъ 1614), p. 69. 61 Сf. О. Лотоцький, Український Архієратикон, p. 169; cf. also Чинъ избранія ипоставленія въ епископы, [in:] RIB 6, col. 437–464; 20th century version of tchyncf. Молитва 1-я при хиротоніи епископа, [in:] А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій... (Приложенія), no. 17, pp. IX–X. that even greater persuasive power was attributed to the stories of the famous Holy Fathers cited by 17th century teachers, documenting their spiritual ministry experiences. The testimonies of their inner di-lemmas and spiritual tribulations accompanying the priests or bishop elects was particularly appealing to the consciences of future bishops and priests. These would arouse doubts in recipients-candidates about their readiness to accept pastoral burdens and honourable dig nities, beneficial in the case of such a responsible task. St. John Chrysostom’s Dialogue on the Priesthood was the source of description of such experience, entirely formed as a fictitious conversation between John and the priest Basil, urging him to accept ordination.62 The author of the work, expressing his concerns associated with taking on the office (well known to him from personal experiences), at the same time described the requirements, threats and magnitude of responsibilities that fell upon the shoulders of those who became shepherds of souls. As St. John noticed, the dangers of spiritual service even caused St. Paul to tremble, though “no one loved Christ more, no one showed greater zeal, no one received more grace”. Nevertheless, the Apostle trembled at the thought of his role as a spiritual leader and the fate the sheep entrusted to his care: Никтѡже паче Павла Ха҃ люблѧше, никтоже болшеѧ ѿ Ба҃ сподобисѧ блгⷣти, но обаче по тѡликихъ преимоуществахъ боитꙿсѧ єше и трепещетъ ѡ семъ начальствѣ и ѡ начальствѹємыⷯ ѿ него. Бою бо сѧ, рече да нікаго ꙗко же змїѧ Єѵоу прелꙿсти коварствомъ своимъ тако растлитꙿ разꙋмѣнїа ваша ѿ простоты, ꙗже вꙿ Ха҃. 63 62 Dialogue in prose with the participation of historical figures in antiquity be- longed to the favorite forms of story-telling, especially philosophical, perhaps that is why researchers made a fiasco of trying to establish the identity of Basil. They also failed to explain whether Chrysostom wrote this work before or after being ordained as priest or bishops, M. Starowieyski, Wstęp. Dialog o kapłaństwie, [in:] Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, pp. 22–23. 63 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ (Лвовъ 1614), p. 62; cf. also Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, p. 77. Ascetic and hagiographic writings, but also confessions and other writings describing spiritual experiences, have preserved the memories of famous escapes from the priesthood and the episcopacy. Among those who doubted their own readiness for this office were such famous saints as Gregory the Theologian,64 John Chrysostom,65 Augustine66 or Gregory Dialogist.67 Dmytro Tuptalo in the Word on Pastoral Service convinced his audience by teaching them that among the saints, there were many and numerous escapes from ordination, and most importantly, they originated from a mature concern for the spiritual welfare of the faithful: “мнози ѿ ст҃ыхъ бѣгахꙋ пастырскагѡ сана, недовольныхъ себе и неискꙋсныхъ сꙋдѧще быти къ ношенію таковыѧ тѧготы, и боѧще сѧ грознагѡ ѡ дꙋшахъ людскихъ истѧзанїѧ.”68 As an example, the Metropolitan cited the story of a well-known holy monk, the theologian and poet Ephrem the Syrian, who tried to 64 W. Kania, Ideał kapłana według Ojców Kościoła, pp. 175–178; the bishop’s ordina tion was received only at the request of Basil and his father, Gregory the Elder, when they explained to him how much the Church needed him. In speeches 9and 10, Gregory of Nazianzus explains why he surrendered to the will of his loved ones, but when he speaks of ordination, he returns to the the shock he felt as bishop and the fear of lacking the ability to perform that dignity, thus expressing his pastoral care, J.M. Szymusiak, Grzegorz Teolog. U źródeł chrześcijańskiej myśli IV wieku, Poznań 1965, pp. 145–147. 65 John Chrysostom probably knew the work of Gregory the Theologian concern ing the spiritual dilemma of the future priest, cf. M. Starowieyski, Wstęp. Dialog o kapłaństwie, [in:] Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, p. 22. According to another scholar, Chrysostom’s On the Priesthood contains many points that match the earlier work Apology to Escape by Gregory of Nazianzus. He was also tricked and forced to accept the priesthood and as a sign of rebellion he left for some time to lead a secluded life, cf. J.N.D. Kelly, Złote usta. Jan Chryzostom – asceta, kaznodzieja, biskup, Bydgoszcz 2001, p. 94. 66 St. Augustin confessed in a letter (21) to Valerius, Bishop of Hippo: “I was con-strained as a just correction for my sins (for I know not what else to think) to ac-cept the second place at the helm, when as yet I knew not how to handle an oar,” St. Augustin, ToMyLordBishopValerius….; cf. also Św. Augustyn, Listy, p. 175. 67 Gregory the Great in the Book of Pastoral Rule also talked about escaping even be-fore Papal elections, cf. W. Kania, Ideał kapłana według Ojców Kościoła, pp. 168–183. 68 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Слово ѡ пастырствѣ дх҃овныхъ пастырей, p. 359. avoid ministry since he thought he was not capable of doing it and pretended to be insane: Ст҃ый Єфремъ Сѵрїнъ въ Єдесѣ, єгда хотѧщꙋ людїє похитити єго на єпіскопство и нехотѧща, онъ то оувѣдавъ, сотворисѧ юродъ, и бѣгаше по торжищꙋ, влачащи за собою свою одеждꙋ аки ѡбезꙋмленный, и похищающи продаемыѧ хлѣбы и овощїѧ ꙗдаше, то видѧще людїе, мнѣша єго быти неистова, а онъ бѣжавъ из града, крыѧщесѧ, дондеже инъ поставленъ бысть єпіскопъ на то мѣсто, на неже хотѧхꙋ єго.69 The second example from the “word” to pastors came from The Lausaicon,70 already popular in medieval times, in which Palladius told the secular dignitary Lausos the history of Ammonius the monk ready to mutilate himself to persuade those proposing his episco-pal candidature to abandon such intentions: “Аммѡнїй Єгипетскїй премꙋдрый на прїѧтїе єпіскопства влекомый, оухо себѣ лѣвое оурѣза, єще же хотѧще и ѧзыкъ себѣ ѿрѣзати, аще бы не оставили єго нꙋдѧщїи ко єпіскопствꙋ.”71 The story for Lausos was also referred to by Varlaam Golenkovskyi in the Second Dialogue on Priestly Dignity, and also other stories related to the ordination of monks: Anthony the Great, Pachomius, Benedict, Mark and John the Silent (the Hesychast), who humbly rejected the ministry and fled to solitary places or mutilated their bodies so that others would consider them unworthy of the office: […] многїє ѿ многихъ ст҃ыⷯ оугоⷣникѡⷡ Бж҃їиⷯ бѣжахꙋ сщ҃енства, толь ради превеликаⷢ(о) єгѡ достоинства, ꙗкоже ст҃ый Антонїй Великїй, Ст҃ый Пахомїй, Ст҃ый Венедіктъ. Нѣцїй же ѿ єпⷭкоповꙿ во глꙋбокїє дебри и пꙋстынѣ оудалѧхꙋсѧ да незнаєми бꙋдꙋть, ꙗкоже Іоаⷩ Молчаливый. Повѣствꙋєтжесѧ ѡ Ст҃омъ Маркꙋ, да небꙋдетъ поставленъ Іереемъ, перстъ себѣ ѿрѣза. 69 Ibidem. 70 Some of the stories in this collection were already known in Kievan Rus’ in the 11th century, and the complete work was preserved in 15th and 16th century copies, L. Nodzyńska, Opracowanie, [in:] Pateryk Kijowsko-Pieczerski czyli opowieści o świętych ojcach w pieczarach kijowskich położonych, Wrocław 1993, p. 36. 71 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Слово ѡ пастырствѣ дх҃овныхъ пастырей, pp. 359– 360. Прпⷣобный же Аммонъ оушесѧ, да не ѡст҃итꙿсѧ во єпⷭпа. Сїѧ же творѧхꙋ, толꙿ 72 великїѧ чести недостойными себе быти мнѧщи. Similar testimonies arising from the mature understanding of the importance and essence of this mission can be found in every era.73 For example, Ipatii Potii wrote about his fears concerning the episco pate: “ja (…) nie śmiem się tak wielkiej rzeczy ważyć na się przijąć, czując do siebie wielkie niedostatki i zgoła nie myszlie o tem, chibaby mie pan Bóg do tego prawie gwałtem potargnął i to nie tak skoro, jako drudzy biegają za tym.”74 A very interesting description of the issue was preserved in the documents of the Beatification of Yozafat Kuntsevych (1580–1623). It was about appointing him as Bishop of Polotsk, which the future saint did not want to accept. According to the report by Metropolitan Yosyf Velamin Rutskyi (1574–1637), the nominee “fell to the ground, begged and implored them to remove this burden from him.” However, seeing the metropolitan’s irrecon cilable attitude and fearing sin, he asked his spiritual fathers whether escaping from the episcopate would not harm his monk’s dignity.75 Therefore, an important condition for accepting the episcopacy and also the priesthood was to have a sincere intention to work in the 72 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 2 о достоинствѣ и чести сщ҃еннической вꙿ обществѣ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)…, part 1, Киевъ 1714, f. 10. 73 For example, Bishop Jona Glezna agreed to become the Kiev Metropolitan circa 1490 after long and forceful talks, О. Лотоцький,Українськi джерела…, Варшава 1931, p. 192. 74 Hipacy Pociej, Oświeconemu Xiążęciu jego M. Panu Mikołajowi Crzysztophowi Radziwiłowi…, p. 467. Cf. also Potii’s words after assuming the episcopacy: “Bom siedział w radzie pańskiej czas nie mały, a iście nie za piecem, ale mało nie wpośrzodku wszystkiej ławice senatorskiej, z której mię nikt inszy, ale twójże pan, za wolą Bożą, ruszył i usiłowaniem swoim – Bóg widzi! – nad wolą moję na tej stolicy biskupiej posadził, na której teraz częściej przepłakiwam patrząc na teraźniejsze czasy i na złość a upór swojejże miłej Rusi”, Odpis na list niejakiego kleryka Ostrozkiego bezimiennego, który pisał do władyki Włodzimierskiego iBrzeskiego (na który list jego sam mu Jego Mość Ociec władyka odpisuje), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 19: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 3, Петербургъ 1903, col. 1118 [further RIB 19].75 For the text of this relation cf. М.М. Соловій, А.Г. Великий, Святий Йосафат Кунцевич, його життя і доба, Торонто 1967, pp. 132–133. Lord’s pasture, and this should be accompanied by humility, knowledge on the subject of the ministry’s essentials, the tasks that a spiritual person faces and the awareness that they will require courage, perseverance and spiritual fortitude. “Где которій зъ васъ епископство отъ вышнего званіѧ, дарованіѧ и освѧщеніѧ и отъ всенародного избраніѧ гласа въспріѧлъ?” – Requirements for Candidates to the Episcopacy The normalization and implementation of the electoral system and at the same time disseminating knowledge about the requirements for future bishops (such as on celibacy), which they should meet prior to taking on such a responsible office, was an indispensable element of the spiritual and religious renewal. As can be seen from the examples given above, many timeless, valuable advices on the subject could be found by reformers in the oldest Christian works. In the light of patristic sources, one of the necessary conditions for preparing well for the priesthood and the episcopacy was to maintain a proper order on the path to ordination. This excluded unfair and hasty acquisition of an office. It was understood as a process of gradual, inner maturing and gaining experience leading to the candidate attaining a proper spiritual level permittingthem to properly receive priestly ordination or episcopal consecration. This order was described, among others, by Gregory the Theo-logian (329–390) based on the example of the life of Basil the Great (330–379) in one of the most famous funeral speeches popularized in medieval Ruthenian collections of words and teachings.76 It pointed out that God recognized Basil as worthy of this honour in a specific order and in accordance with the law of spiritual progress. He argued The speech can be found e.g. in a 14th-century collection of the Church Fathers’ writings, cf. Кириличнірукописні…, Львів2007, no. 19. About this speech cf. M. Constas, GregorytheTheologian, Oration43: FuneralOrationonBasiltheGreat, . that sailors do a similar thing by first entrusting the future steersman with the paddle, and only later allow him to take the stern: I approve the nautical custom, which first gives the oar to the future steersman, and afterward leads him to the stern, and entrusts him with the command, and seats him at the helm, only after a long course of striking the sea and observing the winds. As is the case again in military affairs: private, captain, general. This order is the best and most advantageous for their subordinates. Church Father from Nazianzus wrote about St. Basil, in a similar tone: For he first read to the people the sacred books, while already able to expound them, nor did he deem himself worthy of this rank in the sanctuary, and thus proceeded to praise the Lord in the seat of the Presbyters, and next in that of the Bishops, attaining the office neither by stealth nor by violence, instead of seeking for the honor, being sought for by it, and receiving it not as a human favor, but as from God and divine.77 This seventeenth-century parenetics fought to keep these prin ciples by promoting a gradual advance to the office, preceded by spiritual growth and substantive preparation. The praises of priests in ceremonial literature were also focused on defending this proper order and became increasingly popular in the seventeenth century. This model was promoted by the Kievan intellectual Symeon Polotskyi (ca. 1629–1680) in one of his exemplary mourning sermons posthumously published in Moscow as the Spiritual Supper collection (1683). In the “word” for the occasion of the burial of the archbishop, while describing the deceased dignitary’s intellectual values and spiritual qualities, especially the steadfast faith he showed them as aresult of his life and deeds before receiving the bishop’s office. GregoryNazianzen the Theologian, FuneralOrationonSt BasiltheGreat(OrationXLIII), complete, transl. by Ch. Browne and J. Swallow. Cf. GregoryTheologianBilingualAnthology, Resources Online and in Print: (31.03.2017); translation into Polish, cf. Grzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowa43. NacześćBazylego, biskupaCezareiKapadockiej, [in:] ŚwiętyGrzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowy..., pp. 492–493. Liturgiarion, Kiev 1629 His preparation for responsible ministry included growing up in a pious, orthodox family, time for being rooted in faith, and obtaining an education; no less important was the path to becoming a bishop: evolutionary by following subsequent priestly degrees in the hierarchy: […] онъ ꙗкѡ столпъ непозыблемый, твердо пребываше въ вѣрѣ православнѣй, родисѧ ѿ бл҃гочестивꙋ родителю, воспитанъ во православїи, и доволнѡ книжномꙋ наꙋчивсѧ искꙋствꙋ. Посвѧтисѧ чиннѡ по степенемъ во ст҃ый санъ іерейскїй, еже прочыѧ люди оутвержати во православнѣй вѣрѣ хрⷭтїанстей, и еже свѣтилникꙋ быти ємꙋ въ нощи невѣдѣнїѧ сꙋщымъ […].78 This issue raised by the Church teachers in the first centuries after Christ was also the subject of Gregory the Theologian’s reflections in praise of Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria (295–373).79 Presenting a negative viewpoint by describing the sins and bad deeds which the protagonist of this eulogy avoided in his personal life, the Cappadocian Father pointed to the bad role models of conduct and distortion of established order on the way to the priesthood. The yesterday-today antithesis shows the lack of appropriate temporal distance that was necessary between the secular lifestyle of the contender, who was in the state of sinking into sin, and the moment of receiving episcopal consecration. The lack of this stage of development and maturation 78 Симеон Полоцкий, Слово на погребенїи архїереа, [in:] Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ..., part 2, Москва 1683, f. 174. 79 “Thus brought up and trained, as even now those should be who are to preside over the people, and take the direction of the mighty body of Christ, according to the will and foreknowledge of God, which lays long before the foundations of great deeds, he was invested with this important ministry, and made one of those who draw near to the GodWho draws near to us, and deemed worthy of the holy officeand rank, and, after passing through the entire series of orders, he was (to make my story short) entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world: nor can I say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of virtue, or to be the fountain and life of the Church”, GregoryNazianzen the Theologian, OntheGreatAthanasius, BishopofAlexandria (OrationXXI), Complete, Transl. Ch. Browne, J. Swallow, cf. (31.03.2017); in Polish cf. Grzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowa21. PochwałaWielkiegoAtanazego, biskupaAleksandrii, [in:] ŚwiętyGrzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowy…, p. 229. required for exercising the office undermined this postulated evolution in the process of attaining the episcopacy. This led to an obvious “violation of the faith” by candidates who obtained the episcopacy in a hurry and thus unworthily.80 Over a thousand years later, Ivan Vyshenskyi’s voice could be heard coming from Athos and was very reminiscent of the criticisms of the fourth century Christians, a testimony to the timelessness of certain ecclesial problems, and perhaps about the sources of inspiration for the moralist from Sudova Vyshnia. The life and customs of the clergy, including the conduct of bishops, were the subject of his severe criticism. His works, known mainly from manuscript circuits, messages and dialogues,81 displayed a vision of the moral down- fall of hierarchs, which typified his presented apocalyptic vision of a“Latska zemlia” plagued by the attacks of the Ruler of Hell, wishing 80 “The duties of his officehe discharged in the same spirit as that in which he had been preferred to it. For he did not at once, after taking possession of his throne, like men who have unexpectedly seized upon some sovereignty or inheritance, grow insolent from intoxication. This is the conduct of illegitimate and intrusive priests, who are unworthy of their vocation; whose preparation for the priesthood has cost them nothing, who have endured no inconvenience for the sake of virtue, who only begin to study religion when appointed to teach it, and undertake the cleansing of others before being cleansed themselves; yesterday sacrilegious, to-day sacerdotal; yesterday excluded from the sanctuary, to-day its officiants; proficientin vice, novices in piety; the product of the favour of man, not of the grace of the Spirit; who, having run through the whole gamut of violence, at last tyrannize over even piety; who, instead of gaining credit for their officeby their character, need for their character the credit of their office, thus subverting the due relation between them; who ought to offermore sacrificesfor themselves than for the ignorances of the people; who inevitably fall into one of two errors, either, from their own need of indulgence, being excessively indulgent, and so even teaching, instead of checking, vice, or cloaking their own sins under the harshness of their rule. Both these extremes he avoided”, (31.03.2017). Cf. also Grzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowa21. PochwałaWielkiegoAtanazego, biskupaAleksandrii, [in:] ŚwiętyGrzegorzz Nazjanzu, Mowy…, p. 230. 81 One of Ivan Vyshenskyi’s messages (Message of the Athonites) was published as part of the Knyzhycia (Книжиця) in Ostrog in 1598, М. Грушевський, Історія української літератури, vol. 5, part 2, Київ 1995, p. 98. to destroy the Ruthenian faith and the sacred Church Slavonic language.82 The great extent of the episcopate’s corruption was certainly exaggerated in his writings.83 Nevertheless, the irregularities that existed, to some extent, were the result of the widespread habit that he pointed out for laymen to be made bishops, who not only did not have for example the diaconate duty as a prior experience to their priesthood, but also and what even worse represented a professions which, according to church law, was an impediment to ordination. In the Message to the Orthodox Pastors who are Apostatizing the monk from Sudova Vyshnia uses the topos ubi sunt?and posed bitter questions about the mentioned elements of a bishop’s formation. By using simi-lar ploys (the yesterday-today antithesis) and lexical resources found in Gregory the Theologian’s speeches, he wrote about the “violation” of fundamental principles and values during candidates’ election for this office, and at the same time, situated this negative phenomena in the realities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries: Не днесь ли каштeляны, дворяны, жолнѣрми, воины, кровопролійцами, прокураторми, курцыаны, корчмарами, купцами, медвѣдниками – а утро попами, а поутру бискупами,а по утру утрешнем арцибискупами починили ся єсте? Како вы можете истину глаголати, о школѣ истину учащей не слыхавши? […] Покажѣте ми, о бискупи, где которій зъ васъ иноческаго житія степень, къ Христу идуховному разуму скорбнымъ путемъ ведушій, самъ собою пролѣзъ, – безъ которого искуса (законъ мовитъ) епископъ быти не можетъ? 82 T. Hodana, Sodoma i królestwo babilońskie. Rzeczpospolita w pismach Iwana Wiszeńskiego, [in:] Od Kijowa do Rzymu. Z dziejów stosunków Rzeczypospolitej ze Stolicą Apostolską i Ukrainą, ed. M.R. Drozdowski, W. Walczak, K. Wiszowata-Walczak, Białystok 2012, pp. 1057–1067. cf. also M. Kuczyńska, “Herezja werbalna” – wokół sporów o prawdę języka objawienia, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 3: Język naszej modlitwy – dawniej i dziś, 2012, pp. 115–118. 83 According to Hryhorii Hrabovych, it is possible to discern in Vyshenskyi anti-hierarchical tendencies, especially in the third chapter of the Knyzhycia, Г. Грабович, Авторство й авторитет у ІванаВишенського: діалектика відсутності, [in:] До історії української літератури, Київ 1997, pp. 260–277. Тотъ законъ єсте попрали и в нивечь обернули! А то чему? Для того ижъ не толко искуса иноческого не знаєте, але ни того самого голого имени: што єсть инокъ? Не слыхали єсте. И якъ перво въ мирскомъ стану, такъ и нынѣ рекомо въ духовномъ, албо и двояко горше, а мирскими єсте и мирско живете и мудруєте! Где которій зъ васъ діаконскій степень многолѣтним искусомъ священнодѣйства слyжебного по законѣ прошолъ? – Тому и сами признаєте, ижъ ся отъ васъ кгвалтъ сталъ. Въ котромъ (діаконстві) забавы не толко не чинилиєсте, але не знаю – епископствомъ єсли не попередили єсте єго? Где которій зъ васъ священство по закону узаконенному постиглъ? – Тоє и сами признаєте, ижъ отъ васъ зк(г)валчено єсть! Где которій зъ васъ епископство отъ вышнего званія, дарованія и освященія и отъ всенародного избранія гласа въспріялъ? Тоє исами признати мусите, яко зкгвалтили єсте!84 Similar allegations against the origins of the hierarchs were made by Meletii Smotrytskyi (1577–1633) in Threnos: “jedni z karczem drudzy z dworu, owi z żołnierstwa, a niektórzy z poborów krom żadnego obrania i krom wszelkiego dobrego świadectwa złota i srebra powodemdo domu się Bożego wdarli. Przeto też nie dziw, że sromotnie z niego jako niegodni powypadali i apostatami się prawdy Bożej, a wydawcami trzody im powierzonej stali.”85 Both polemists writing about bishops, former courtiers and officials as stewards, writers, or soldiers took digs at specific hierarchs. These words especially were targeting those representatives of the Ruthenian Episcopate who joined the union in Brest,86 although 84 Иван Вишенский, Велможным их Милостям АрцибискупуМихайлу и бискупом Потѣю, Кирилу, Леонтию, Деонисию и Григорку совышше памят покаяния страх геены и будущаго суда низпослатися от Всевидящаго Ока Троичнаго Божества, Отца и Сына и Святого Духа, Иоан мних з Вишнѣ от Святоє Афонксое Горы усердно вам зычит (Писаніє к утекшим от православноє вѣры епископом), [in:] Иван Вишенский, Сочинения…, pp. 61–62. This fragment with commen-tary cf. М. Грушевський, Історія української літератури, vol. 5, part 2, Київ 1995, p. 139. 85 Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣ to jest Lament..., f. 13 (29). 86 For example, the officesof the secretary to Prince MikołajRadziwiłł “the Black”, assize clerk and judge, tax collector, senator and castellan of Brest were held thorough verification of lifestyles of the claimants to this office was abandoned earlier as a result of the status of the Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian state. The life and customs of both the Orthodox and the Catholic Episcopates in times before the Tridentine Reformation were marked by numerous irregularities.87 Reformers of both denominations struggled with these long after the initiation of the Council renewal program in the Catholic Church88 and the Orthodox Church’s revival in Kiev Met-ropolitanate. Apart from praiseworthy exceptions, those selected from outside of the church, the sixteenth-century hierarchs were primarily concerned with entertainment, hunting and the pursuit of wealth or means of wasting it.89 In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, this wasassociated with abusing patronage laws, since the Orthodox bishops were nominated by lords or the king, who often rewarded their of-ficials or other favorite people with positions.90 Sometimes “lay” by one of the initiators of the Union of Brest, bishop and then Metropolitan of Kiev Adam Ipatii Potii, cf. J. Dzięgielewski’s biographical note in InternetowyPolskiSłownikBiograficzny, (7.03.2017); original version from PSB, vol. 17, 1982-1983; cf. also І. Назарко, Київськіігалицькімитрополити. Біографічнінариси(1590–1960), Рим1962, pp. 7–9; M. Ozorowski, HipacegoPociejapodstawyunickiejteologiipozytywno-polemicznej, Warszawa 2012, pp. 17–19. 87 J. Delumeau, Niedostatki przedtrydenckiego duchowieństwa, [in:] Idem, Reformy chrześcijaństwa w XVI i XVII w., vol. 2, Warszawa 1986, pp. 198–206; J. Fijałek, Życie i obyczaje kleru w Polsce średniowiecznej, Krak 2002. 88 J. Delumeau, Typologianowegoksiędza, [in:] Idem, Reformy…, pp. 230–234. On the problems with the resistance of the Catholic clergy to the reforms as seen in the Diocese of Vilnius, cf. e.g. W. Pawlikowska-Butterwick, ProblemyzwdrażaniemreformytrydenckiejwbiskupstwiewileńskimwXVIwieku, “Rocznik Lituanistyczny” 1, 2015, pp. 19–36, . 89 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 126–127. On the pursuit by the Catholic clergy of secular courtly and chivalric customs and pastimes, cf. R. Bubczyk, Gry wszachy i kości jako rozrywki duchowieństwaw średniowiecznej Polsce, “Annales Uni versitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska” LVIII, sectio F: Historia, 2003, pp. 25–33. 90 On the problems stemming from the patronage laws, cf. e.g. Б.Н. Флоря, Вопрос об“отношенияхпатроната” у восточных славян в XIV–XVI вв., [in:] Idem, Исследования по истории Церкви.Древнерусское и славянское средневековье: Сборник, bishops who were only nominees fought using military measures for the episcopacy,91 and after successful conquest they often delayed accepting a monk’s tonsures, still living with their wives and children and primarily being concerned with family affairs.92 As Borys Gudziaknoted, the battle for office and the ecclesial beneficiaries was equally ruthless and pathetic among both Catholics and Orthodox.93 Ivan Vyshenskyi’s indignation expressed in the above quoted message to the bishops was therefore correct. In the sixteenth century, this office was often undertaken by lay people,94 proposed by patrons and nominated by the king.95 According to preserved bishops’ cer- tificates, paradoxically, the offices were also given to distinguished servicemen as a reward for faithful service,96 often in advance since Москва 2007,pp. 82–95. On the life of Bishopsof Chełm and Przemyśl in the fifteenth–seventeenth centuries, cf. Л. Соневицький, Український Єпископат…, pp. 53–73. 91 Examples of such fights, cf. Ibidem, pp. 46–47. 92 In the fifteenth century such situations were rare in the Bishoprics of Przemyśl and Chełm; in the seventeenth century the scholar noted more such cases, Ibidem, pp. 39–40. S. Senyk, Unworthy hierarchy, [in:] The History…, vol. 2, pp. 186– 192. 93 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, p. 125. The custom of giving bishoprics as rewards, common in Europe at the time, was not unique to the Eastern Church, cf. S. Senyk, The History…, vol. 2, pp. 176–177. 94 An example can be a document concerning problems with a lay appointee to the Bishopric of Lutsk, Jan Borzobohaty Krasieński (sixteenth century), who delayed his ordination while performing episcopal duties, cf. Архивъ ЮгоЗападной Россіи,издаваемый Временною Комиссіею для разбора древнихъ актовъ, Высочайше учрежденную при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и Волынскомъ ГенералъГубернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 1: Акты, относящіеся къ исторіи православной церкви въ Югозападной Россіи, Кіевъ 1859, no. 8, pp. 29–30. 95 Borys Gudziak has written about this, giving examples of abuses and pointing to studies of the subject, cf. B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 106–109. 96 Soldiers being made bishops and archimandrites were mentioned by members of the Lviv confraternity in a complaint addressed to the Metropolitan of Kiev Onesyfor Divochka, cf. Proceres terrarum haliciensis, leopoliensis, premisliensis etc. Fideigraecae conqueruntur coram metropolita kiovensi de misero statu ecclesiae ruthenae rogantque atque monent eum, ut ecclesiam sibi commissam iuxta canones ss. patrum et iustitiam regat (Varsavia 14 februarii), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis the bishop’s post was not yet vacated,97 despite the lack of substantive and spiritual preparation. Proof of such violations of ecclesiastical law are preserved in the well-known Orthodox Palinodia by Father Zakharia Kopystenskyi (?–1627). The future archimandrite of Pechersk Monastery regretted that such bishops, and sometimes the Kievan metropolitans, sat on the thrones and cathedrals coming not from the monasteries but from “ordinary earthly households” or abandoning “soldier’s craft”: Пало абовѣмъ на нихъ поганбенье и зелживость, и пришли въ такую нечулость, акобы живы не были, прето ижъ повинности своєй пастырской досить не чинячи, о собѣ и о повѣреныхъ паствѣ своєй овечкахъ, поки мѣли часъ, чути не хотѣли. Отколь пришло было же южъ негодность осѣдала епископскіи столицы и митрополитанскіи, але тоє, што имъ самимъ ку ганбѣ и сромотѣ, ба и ку грѣхови быти могло, которыи не зъ монастиревъ добре въ безженномъ любо въ законничомъ животѣ выцвѣчени бивши на нихъ ся всажали, якъ тое церквоныи уставы мѣти хотятъ, але заразъ отъ господарствъ суетнихъ и земледѣлствъ, або зъ варстату ремесла жолнерского, въ нагороду заслугъ своихъ, а надъ то – неуки и простаки великіи въ писмѣ святомъ небѣглій, до того анѣ пробацій не скоштовавши.98 As noted by Kazimierz Chodynicki, this widespread in the sixteenth century behaviour described above was a sign of the total disregard for the principles established and approved by document on canonical law, the result of the work of the Vilnius synod of 1509 convened by Metropolitan Yosyf Soltan.99 Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, vol. 1, no. LXXV. Examples of such appointments, cf.Л. Соневицький, Український Єпископат…, pp. 36, 43. 97 The custom of appointing a new bishop while his predecessor was still alive originated in the sixteenth century and caused dynasties of bishops to emerge, Ibidem, p. 48. 98 Захаріа Копыстенский, Палінодія или книга обороны католической святой апостолской Всходней Церкви […], [in:] RIB 4, col. 1056–1057. 99 K. Chodynicki, Kościół prawosławny a Rzeczpospolita Polska. Zarys historyczny 1370–1632, Warszawa 1934 (reprint Białystok 2005), p. 135. It was no coincidence that this valuable source of disciplinary and organizational records was rediscovered after more than one hun-dred years by secular reformers of the Orthodox Church associated with the brotherhood and distributed in Lviv in 1614.100 Yosyf II in the above mentioned rules condemned the still present custom of investiture of episcopacy for unproven candidates without the synod’s and the Kiev metropolitan’s approval, sometimes while the predecessor was still alive. This was a serious problem, especially since this prac-tice was often accompanied by sacrilegious simony or buying clerical offices (we will mention simony below).101 By criticizing the nominations of unworthy bishops, then moralists documented the state of the Ruthenian Church. They pointed to the organizational and disciplinary elements of its functioning, which required intervention and change. Since these conditioned the religious and spiritual renewal in a Metropolitanate, it is worth drawing attention to the universal and ethical dimensions of the undertaken issues. Ecclesiastical legislation clearly defined the customs and profes-sions practicing which restricted or denied access to the ordained ministry. The existing disciplinary regulations were included in the kormchaia books, mainly in church canons, but also in the Ruthenian rules and hierarchical teachings for priests continually distributed among the clergy since the Middle Ages. Those pointed out that both the candidate and the representative of the clerical state were disqualified by homicide,102 bloodshed, violence against humans103 and animals 100 The document was referred to in the eighteenth century by the Uniates, as they introduced the ban on the priestly office being exercised by a widowed presby-ter. An abbreviated version of the synodal rules was added to the “Golden Book” of the Lviv eparchy, cf. І. Скочиляс, Галицька(Львівська)…, p. 381. 101 Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, col. 8-9. 102 “Сщ҃енникъ же низлагаетъсѧ, ꙗково любо оубійство сътворивъ, по Шестьдесѧть шестомꙋ правилꙋ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, и по пѧ(ть)десѧтꙿ пѧтомꙋ правилꙋ Великагѡ Василїа”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 30 (47). 103 “Єпіскопъ, или Свѧщенникъ, или Діаконъ, аще бїєтъ вѣрна, или невѣрна, да извержетсѧ, по двадесѧтꙿ седмомꙋ правилꙋ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ. Такожⷣе аще поднесъ мечъ, оувѧзнитъ кого”, Ibidem, p. 29 (46). (e.g. hunting that was mentioned in some records)104 and all ties to trade and money or indecent customs (mercantilism, tavern-keeping, usury, jiggery-pokery).105 These synod teachings were printed for the first time in the seventeenth century,106 and their principles were also referred to by moralists during those times.107 In the case of a candidate to the episcopacy who performed state functions or duties within the framework of his secular dignity, it was important to completely break ties with the past. This act expressed his sincere intention to perform only spiritual and administrative ministry within the assigned duties in the eparchy. As we read in the canonical legislations, bishops should not officiate and deal with other secular matters under penalty of removing their ecclesiastical dignity.108 In the preface to his Sluzhebnik in 1646, Lviv’s vladykaArsenii Zheliborskyi ordered the lower clergy to focus on religious matters and “not get mixed up in the secular.” According to the bishop, this was a necessary condition for responsible ministry. Nothing should 104 “Сщ҃енникъ ловец, да престанетъ, аще же ни да ѿлꙋчитъсѧ ѿ Литꙋргїи мцⷭей шесть, и да творитъ на всѧкъ дн҃ь Поклонѡвъ Двѣстѣ”, Ibidem, p. 122 (139). 105 For example, a bishop’s instruction to the clergy banned participation in scuffles, hunting or slaughter: “А своима роукама никогоже не оудари, ни лововъ твори, ни закалай животнаго брашна”, Святительское поученіе новопоставленному священнику, [in:] RIB 6, no. 7, col. 104. Cf. also Правило Кюрила..., col. 90–91. Поꙋченїє новосщ ҃ щенномꙋ, [in:] Номоканонъ си єсть Законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, ff. 79–83;енномꙋ іерееви (Лвовъ 1642), pp. 207–208; Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧ Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст ҃ 107 Kyryl Stavrovetskyi juxtaposed these professions, as inappropriate for Chris-tians, with the dignity of the priesthood, cf. e.g. “[...] аще кто достоинъ бы былъ презвитеꙿрского сана, и оучителемъ быти и свѣтилникомъ вꙿ домꙋ Бж҃емъ, маючи вымовꙋ краснꙋю, и остротꙋ оума, а онъ станесѧ мира сеⷢ(о) рабъ, бꙋде торжꙿникомъ, шинꙿкаремъ, пѧницею, костырею, лихваремъ, воиномъ, чл҃кооубїйцею, кровопролиⷡцею, токовый не Бг҃ѫ рабъ но дїаволꙋ. Таковый по истинꙿнѣ закопавъ талантъ Га҃ своего, вꙿ землю темнꙋю зловиⷣного срⷣца соего”, Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, ff. 2v-3. в нлⷣю 16 (по Всѣхъ Сты), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, Рохмановъ 1619, part 1, f. 288. On ⷯ҃ the moral teachings for the clergy in Stavrovetskyi’s Homiliary Gospel, cf. А.З. Новак, Традиційні теми повчань для священників…, pp. 125–142. 108 Cf. 81st Apostolic Canon and 3rd Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. distract the attention of a priest focused on the proper fulfillment of his duties towards the entrusted flock, especially since the eternal life of the faithful depended on their liturgical, sacramental and educational ministry in a parish: Дꙋховныесь, немѣшайсѧ вꙿ справы свѣцкїѣ тобѣ неналежныѣ. Лечъ во званїй, вꙿ немже званъ еси пребывай. Чꙋй околѡ ѡвчарнѣ Хрⷭтовыхъ Овецъ, Пренайдорожшею Кровїю Сн҃а Бж҃огѡ кꙋпленыхъ и ѡмытыхъ, абы жаднаѧ зꙿ нихъ ꙗкѡ ѿ волка драпѣжного порвана и пожарта не была, такъ и голодомъ беⷥ дꙋшѡкормноѣ збавенноѣ Єѵⷢлскоѣ Наꙋки, и беⷥ частого а годного поживанѧ Пречⷭтыхъ и Животворѧщихъ Тѣла и Крве Хрⷭтовыхъ Таинъ, выхꙋжона и оуморена не зостала. Абы, мовлю, немощнѣшїй братъ не погиблъ въ твоемъ разꙋмѣ. Крве абовѣмъ єгѡ ѿ рꙋкъ твоѣхъ взыщꙋтъ, из неключимымъ рабомъ, не оусогꙋбившимъ Талантꙋ, до темности зевнꙋтрноѣ ѡсꙋдѧтꙿ.109 Synodal canons did not prohibit military service (which was normal for the nobility in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth)110 before receiving ordination, although the above cited works seem to imply that it was detrimental for the candidate111. Therefore, with 109 Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цр҃кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ, Превелебнымꙿ Архимандрітѡмъ, Игꙋменомъ, Велебнымъ Протопопѡмъ, Сщ҃енникѡⷨ, Дїаконѡⷨ, и всемꙋ осщенномꙋ Клирови, Возлюбленнымъ сослꙋжителемъ ҃и Братїй, Блⷭⷭвенства ѿ Ха҃ Ба҃҃твахъ моихъ Архїерейскиⷯ, оупрійме зычꙋ, [in:] , при млЛеітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1646, ff.2v-3. 110 This was discussed e.g. by a preacher: “[…] u nas w Polszcze, ponieważ jest pobudka do żniwa [war], z wielu miar sama ją nam nastręcza natura. Polakeś, sameć imię każe koś [fight], szlachciceś same urodzenie każe, koś”. Tarassy Prokopowicz, Żniwo cnót i chwały…, Lwów 1665, f. [9v]. In the fifteenth century Orthodox bishops were noblemen; in the following century townsmen were ordained as well, Л. Соневицький, Український Єпископат…, pp. 21–28. In the Uniate Church in the seventeenth century noblemen were ordained bishops, L.Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego w Polsce, [in:] Kościół w Polsce, vol. 2: Wieki XVI–XVIII, ed. J. Kłoczowski, Kraków 1970, pp. 885–886.111 The author of a panegyric in honour of Arsenii Zheliborskyi felt obliged to justify the reason why he praised the bishop’s military service: “To już ktoś myśli itakaż Duchownej osoby, zwłaszcza wysoce Przełożonej powinna bydź zaleta, od krwie rozlewania i nie barziejże to hanbi niż zdobi ludzie Bogu poświęcone. Tak jest, ale kiedy już sa poświęcone, tu zaś jeszcze o Arseniem nie tylko oAndrzeju, nie mówie ja jeszcze o episkopie tylko o Żeliborskim. Ktoż tego nie zna, że the intention of renewing the clergy’s formation process, Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople visited the Kiev Metropolitanate and prohibited the ordination of candidates active in military service.112 Although in the seventeenth century the issue of selecting clergy from among trustworthy candidates was stabilized, yet many of the famous bishops and even the Ruthenian metropolitans were involved in war expeditions before getting a monk’s tonsure. For example, Ipatii Potii fought in the campaign against Moscow in 1578–1579,113 and Petro Mohyla was a knight in the ranks of the Polish army under the command of hetman Jan Karol Chodkiewicz at Khotyn (1621).114 In the seventeenth century, military service was also performed by the rulers of Przemyśl, Antonii, Innokentii and Yurii Vynnytskyi.115 What’s more, even though the canons forbade clergymen, especially bishops, to accept secular service such as in the military under penalty of excommunication,116 such situations occurred in Kiev Met-ropolitanate. There were famous military expeditions by the Bishop of Lviv, Yosyf Shumlanskyi, the captain of the armored regiment and com-panion of the future King Jan III Sobieski. His biography is particular ly interesting because, not only before taking the sacred office in 1667 but also as the Bishop of Lviv, he participated in numerous fights, mostly against the Ottomans. In 1676, he commanded the armored regiment at the battle of Zhuravno, and in 1683 he was wounded in kanony cerkiewne na każdego duchownego wolają: obróc miecz twój do pochwy, nawet i pochwy mu odpasując tak to pewne, jak i ona nie omylna, że Lewitowie, zniosszy na rozkazanie Mojzeszowe część nie małą wojska, nic się przez to nie zmazali, owszemniby olejkiem świętym, tak sobie krwią ręce na wieczną służbę Bogu poświęcili”, Tarassy Prokopowicz, Żniwo cnót…, Lw 1665, f. [11v]. 112 A. Borkowski, Patriarchaty Wschodu w dziejach Rzeczypospolitej (1583–1601), Białystok 2014, p. 147. 113 B. Gudziak, Kryzysi reforma…., p. 307; J. Dzięgielewski, AdamHipacyPociej, [in:] InternetowyPolskiSłownikBiograficzny, (7.03.2017). 114 А. Жуковський, Петро Могила й питання єдности церков, Київ 1997, pp. 48–49.115 Л. Соневицький, Український Єпископат…, pp. 37, 51. 116 Cf. 83rd Apostolic Canon and 7th Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Chalce don. the first combat engagement initiated as a part of the military expedition to Vienna. In addition, he was a participant in the defense of Lviv in 1695 and being the commander of a clergy detachment, he effectively countered the Tatar offensive on St. George’s Cathedral. Two years before his death, in 1706 near Kalisz, he fought in the ranks of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth against Sweden. In addition to these war expeditions, he also conducted very intense diplomatic activities, mediating negotiations between the king, the Cossacks, Moscow and the Ottomans.117 It must be admitted, however, that de- spite such considerable involvement in the political and military life, he was a good administrator in his diocese and worthily continued the religious reforms of Petro Mohyla.118 This was a unique testimony of the bishop’s active military service. The above examples show that the practice of ordaining nominees with a military past was widespread and did not raise much opposi-tion,119 especially in the case of well educated candidates and already accustomed to the life in monasteries. 117 This military-diplomatic dimension of Yosyf Shumlanskyi’s life is described by Т. Чухліб, Львівський єпископ Йосиф Шумлянський – військовий діяч та дипломат Корони Польської (60-ті роки XVII – початок XVIII ст.), “Україна: культурна спадщина, національна свідомість, державність”, 21, 2012, pp. 787–801. 118 P. Wawrzeniuk, Shumliansky and the legacy of Petro Mohyla, [in:] Confession-al Civilising in Ukraine. The Bishop Iosyf Shumliansky and the Introduction of Re-forms in the Diocese of Lviv 1668–1708, Sertns hskola 2005, pp. 61–63; cf. also І. Скочиляс, Культурно-релігійне оновлення за архиєрейства Йосифа (Шумлянського) (остання третина XVII – початок XVIII ст.), [in:] Idem, Галицька (Львівська) єпархія ХІІ–ХVIII ст…, pp. 573–607. 119 Doubts concerning the appointment to the Bishopric of Przemyśl of Innokentii Vynnytskyi – a young hussar of the royal guards – were expressed by the papal nuncio, who was afraid that a sudden replacement of the military profession with service in the Church would exclude worthy spiritual ministry. Apparently the nuncio was won over by King Jan III Sobieski who cited, among others, the case of Yosyf Shumlanskyi, a good bishop and a soldier at the same time, cf. Б.І. Балик, Інокентій Іван Винницький, єпископ перемиський, самбірський, сяніцький (1680–1700), Рим 1978, p. 64. The critique was primarily aimed at lay people who obtained the episcopacy outside the canonical key and continued the old customs at the expense of their office. Therefore, the problem wasnot so much the military service itself or any secular ministry, which required activities prohibited by canonical law (e.g. killing), but what happened to a future arch-pastor after his resignation. This order consisted in gradually attaining this dignity by redirecting attentionfrom purely earthly and material things to spiritual matters. This orderwas extremely important in places where the episcopal consecration preceded a secular life and the pursuit of professions requiring conduct distant or even contradictory to the ethos of the priesthood. “Покажѣте ми, о бискꙋпи, где которій зъ васъ иноческаго житіѧ степень, къ Христꙋ и дꙋховномꙋ разꙋмꙋ скорбнымъ пꙋтемъ ведꙋшій, самъ собою пролѣзъ” – The Bishop Monk At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, the problem arose of departing from the good old principle that a future bishop should be sought from among the monastic circles (cf. the above Palinodia citation). This was customary in the Eastern Church mainly after the times of iconoclasm, when the authority of monks increased significantly,120 although the bishop’s obligation to remain celibate was established many centuries earlier and set in canons 12 and 48 of the QuinisextumCouncil.121 The memory of these legal provisions was renewed in the last decades of the sixteenth century by Patriarch Jeremias II, who ordered that bishops be chosen from among monks, hegumens and archimandrites: “[…] подобаєтъ ти творити и на 120 G. Ryś, Celibat, Krak 2002, pp. 76–77. According to another scholar, this be- came a common practice in the fourteenth century, cf. Kallistos Ware, Kościół prawosławny, transl. W. Misijuk, Białystok 2002, p. 323. 121 G. Ryś, Celibat, p. 75. Texts of the canons in the Ephrem Kormachaia, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Санктпетербургъ 1906, pp. 151–152, 177; cf. A. Znosko, Kanony Kościoła Prawo-sławnego, Hajnka 2000, pp. 73, 88–89. како хиротоничай человѣкъ недостойныхъ, или втору имущихъ жену, но священноіноковъ и игуменовъ и архімандритовъ. Тако и не инако твори и дабы Божія благодать была съ святынею ти.”122 Probably due to the care placed on this stage of spiritual preparation for ordination, Ivan Vyshenskyi began to raise questions ad-dressed to the bishops that were full of accusations about their lack of internal readiness to hold this office. The moralist believed that monastic tonsure is the antidote to the widespread moral corruption among the Ruthenian episcopate: “Покажѣте ми, о бискупи, где которій зъ васъ иноческаго житія степень, къ Христу и духовному разуму скорбнымъ путемъ ведушій, самъ собою пролѣзъ - безъ которого искуса, законъ мовитъ, Епископъ быти не можетъ?”123 In the seventeenth century, the ideal priest and monk image was promoted by one of the first Orthodox reformers in Kiev Metropol-itanate, the teacher and homilist Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi (? –1646), monk and future (after entering the union) Archimandrite of Yeletskyi Monastery in Chernihiv. His teachings in The Nativity of Saint John’s Predecessor in the second part of the Homiliary Gospel were dominated by texts dedicated to the Lord’s saints, where he praised the desert and the monastery as the best formation schools for future bishops, priests and preachers. The fruits of life in chastity, abstinence, fasting and vigilance were cited by moralists were examples of the ideal bishop’s ministry, such as Basil the Great, Ephrem the Syrian or John Chrysostom: Ꙗсно бо сїа зримо на Іоаннѣ ст҃омъ, ꙗко великъ славою възрасте въ пꙋстыни [...] И сего ради ѡныи древнїи хрⷭтїане, сн҃овъ своихъ въ юности сꙋщихъ, и исторгноуⷡши ихъ ѿ злобы мирꙿской, посылахꙋ ихъ на пꙋстыню, на мѣста безꙿмлъвныи и мирныи, въ манастырѣ, идеже ѡни оудобнѣ наоучишасѧ вѣрѣ ст҃ой и таинъ блг҃очестїа, и страхꙋ Бж҃їю, прилежной мл҃твѣ, 122 1591 года м. мая. Грамота патріарха Іереміи Кіевскому митрополиту, [in:] Архивъ Юго-Западной Россіи, издаваемый Коммиссіею для разбора древнихъ актовъ, сосотоящей при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и Волынскомъ ГенералъГубернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 10: Акты, относяшіеся къ исторіи Галицко-русской православной церкви (1423–1714 г.г.), Кіевъ 1904, no. CLXXVII, p. 444. Cf. also A. Borkowski, Patriarchaty Wschodu…, pp. 143, 147. 123 Іван Вишенский, Велможным их Милостям…, p. 61. постꙋ възꙿдръжанїю, чистотѣ, бодрости и велицѣми възрастали в разꙋмѣ дх҃овноⷨ. И єгда было потреба ꙗкового Іоанна сирѣчъ доброго проповѣдꙿника слова Бж҃его казнодѣи, єпⷭпа богобойного и презвитера чꙋйного, пастырѧ доброго, тогда тамо єго абїє обрѣтахꙋ в таковом оучилищи. И ѿ толѣ имѣла цр҃҃ ковъ бжїа лѣпотꙋ красоты своєй и оутѣшенїе немало въ ѡныи времена. Ѿ ѡного оубо оучилища вышеⷣ Василїе Велікїй Бг҃о дх҃овный мꙋжъ и Григорїе бодрое око зрѧщее въ глꙋбинꙋ таинъ бж҃іихъ, и Єфремъ бг҃огл҃ивый ꙗзыкъ, 124 Іоаннъ Златоѹстый и прочїи свѣтилꙿницы вꙿсеѧ вселенныа. Trankvylion did not postulate the principle of choosing bishops exclusively from the “black clergy,” but saw the lack of a deep spiritual life and moral imperfection among the Ruthenian episcopacy. The state was especially blatant in comparison to the ideal priesthood among the holy monks and bishops. Praise for the monastic school of pastors imitating the Church Fathers also resounded in the occasional literature. For example, in the funeral sermon attributed to Sylvester Kossov (? –1647) dedicated in memory of Yosyf Bobrykovych (? –1635), he emphasize the spiritual power of the tempered by a disciplined life bishop who as ayoung man, left his family home and went “na puszczę w której rośli sercołomni Chryzostomowie, subtelni Damascenowie, Bogomyślni Nazjanzenowie, wyszedł do monastera, gdzie wiele nawałności od nieprzyjaciół dusznych ucierpiał.”125 124 Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє на Pжⷣтво Cт҃го Іоаⷩна, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part 2, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 130v. 125 [Sylwester Kossow], Cherubin przy akcie pogrzebowym przewielebnego w Bogu OjcaJego M. Jozepha Bobrykowicza, Wilno 1635, f. 9 v. The authorship of the sermon is attributed to Bishop Sylvester, cf. K. Estraicher, no. 144805, ; cf. A. Mironowicz, Sylwester Kossow…, pp. 17–18. The monastic chastity of the bish-op was also described by Antonii Radyvylovskyi in an anniversary sermon after Petro Mohyla’s death found in a manuscript version of the collection Garden of the Mother of God: “Же кохавсѧ вꙿ чистости Ст ҃ мнѣ не потреба сами мнѣ посвѣдчите ласки ваши. Посвѣдчитъ сповѣдникъ же ꙗко сталъ ой Памѧти Петръ Могила, свѣдковъ Інокомъ аⷤ до найвышшого Архієрєйского станꙋ постꙋпꙋючи пошлюблєнꙋю Бг ҃ заховалъ. Залѣцаєтъ чистость коⷤдого Інока коⷤдого навет члка, але найбарзей Архіереѧ. ҃ ови чистоⷭ ыймовѧчипотребаабыдшВыразиⷧтозначенеЗлатоꙋстыйСт҃ ҃ солнечны была чистѣйшаѧ, ежели Іерейскаѧ, тоⷮ далеко Архіерейскаѧ, до которыхъ речено: а Іерейскаѧ наⷣ промени Therefore, it seems that the attempt of remedying the situation was the fact that episcopacy of restored in 1620 but not legalized until 1632 hierarchy in Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and fully reconstructed by the aspirations of the patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophanes, only ordained those who came from monastic circles.126 Petro Mohyla was also concerned for the formation bishops, manifested by his struggling to keep Ivan Popil out of the repatriated college of bishops of the Commonwealth. He was a contender who, as pointed out in the metropolitan’s document, sat on this high office without even being a clergyman, and instead of a monk’s tonsure, he had a wife.127 In the Uniate Church, the vladykas also had to be monks, something already established at the first general chapter in 1617. Yosyf Velamin Rutskyi assigned the monastic formation of a bishop and his proper attitude towards the order in the constitutions for the clergy, containing a separate section with rules for bishops (Regulae Episcopo- образъ бꙋди вѣрнымъ (1 Тим 4). Всѧкій конецъ поѧсъ желѣзный носилъ на тѣлѣ своемъ, єсли не втотъ, абы ѡноє чистое заховалъ ѡблюбенцꙋ своемꙋ Хрⷭстꙋ веⷣлꙋг ѡвого напомненѧ Апⷭлского, ѡбрꙋчихꙿ васъ єдиномꙋ мꙋжꙋ Дѣвꙋ Чистꙋ преⷣставити ХвРадивиловский, Слово 2 на Рочины преѡⷭщеⷩнаго ѿца Пеⷮра Могили, [in:] М.Марковскій,Антоній Радивиловскій, южно-русскій проповѣдник XVII в., Киев 1894, p. 8. 126 On the circumstances of the hierarchs’ ordination, cf. e.g. Н. Яковенко, Нарис історії середньовічної та ранньомодерної України, видання трете, перероблене та розширене, Київ 2006, pp. 239–242. The rule was also in force for a long time in the Uniate Church, in which the Basilians had exclusive rights when it came to promotion in the hierarchy, which with time began to displease the secular clergy, S. Litak, Kościół unicki obrządku greckiego na styku kultur w XVI–XVIII wieku, [in:] Belarus – Lithuania – Poland – Ukraine, ed. J. Kłoczowski, J. Pelenski, Lub-lin-Rzym 1994, p. 265; L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego…, p. 889. 127 “Іван Попѣль не толко моцнымъ архіереемъ, жаднымъпрезвитеремъ, и жаднымъ клирикомъ церковнымъ, анѣ теж законникомъ не будучи, посвященія жадного наинизшихъ простыхъ лапковъ немаючи, а и што надто […] з малжонкою своею […] живучи […]”, Грамота митрополита Петра Могилы къ перемышльским гражданамъ съ увѣшаніемъ не признавать своимъ епископомъ Іоанна Поппеля, какъ незаконно вступившаго на кафедру (1634 г. Іюля 9), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила иего сподвижники, vol. 1, Приложенія, Кіевъ 1883, no. CXIV, p. 556. ҃ и”, Антоній rum).128 According to this document, they should be chosen only from among the Basilian Fathers. However, in accord with the Eastern Church’s legislation, a man who was celibate for some time (e.g. a widower) or who separated from his spouse by mutual consent could become a bishop if both spouses intended to enter monasteries.129 The participants of the bishop’s election should guard this regulation. A lot of attention was devoted to the subject of the bishop’s ministry in the translations published by the Lviv Brotherhood in 1614, primarily on St. John Chrysostom’s Dialogue on the Priesthood. This Church Father who ordained monks to the priesthood recognized both the good aspects of the proclamation of religious candidates and certain dangers resulting from the contrast between the vocations of “black” and “white” clergymen. A monk, according to his con-victions, as a representative of true Christianity, should have a mild temperament, inner strength and deep spirituality. It is important, however, to choose a future bishop who, while possessing the above characteristics, will be able to become a member of the community they are to lead. At a monastery and in the desert, it is difficult to acquire some of the organizational and social skills required for the office of bishop, who is to become the administrator of the diocese.130 St. John wrote that monks struggle greatly, but their work is easier than that of priests. Their main focus is on their spiritual lives and 128 This part of Metropolitan Rutskyi’s rules featured chapters entitled: “What is essential to a Bishop given his monastic condition, especially the vow of obedience”, “What a Bishop is bound to do by the vow of poverty and chastity”, “What should bind a Bishop to his order”, M. Szegda, Działalność prawno-organizacyjna metropolity Józefa IV Welamina Rutskiego (1613–1637), Warszawa 1967, pp. 155–160; L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego…, pp. 886–887. 129 Canon 48 of the Council of Trullo: “Въсходѧщааго на єппⷭьскоє намѣстиє жена по обьщюоумоу съвѣщанию своєго моужа прѣже съчетана соущи, по поставлєнни епископьства соущааго на нємь къ манастырь да вънидеть далече епископлѧ обитѣли съзьданоу и отъ промышлениꙗ епископлѧ да въсприємлєть аще ли достойна ꙗвитьсѧ на слоужьбьный да възведена боудеть санъ”, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 177; cf. also A. Znosko, Kanony…, pp. 88–89. 130 Cf. M. Starowieyski, Jan Chryzostom i monastycyzm w okresie młodości, [in:] Czasy Jana Chryzostoma…, p. 54, cf. also J.N.D. Kelly, Złote usta…, p. 95. mainly perform corporeal works (fasting and practicing penance). On the other hand, those who remained among the faithful required not so much physical strength as inner spiritual strength so they could maintain virtuous in particularly difficult conditions. The scale of differences among the representatives of these two states can be com-pared to the levels represented by a peasant and a king: Великъ естъ зело мнішескый подвигъ и многъ троудъ. Но аще кто сщ҃енъствоу добрѣ оуправлѧємомꙋ, ꙗже ѿ онюдꙋ трꙋды противꙋ положилъ бы, толико обрѧщетъ различїє, єлико простца и царѧ посредъство. Тамо бо аще и троудъ мнѡгъ, но общеє дш҃и и тѣла сподвизанїє, паче же (ꙗкоже єстъ рещи) троудъ сицевый оустроєнїємъ тѣла исправлѧєтъсѧ. […] зде же самыѧ токмо чⷭтнѣйшїа дш҃а хꙋдожество єстъ и ничтоже ѿ благомощества телеснаго къ себѣ требоуєтъ, да покажетъ свою єй добродѣтель.131 The meaning of the word episkoposin Greek indicates someone who is a visiting guardian, who watches over things not only from the outside but also knows them well from the inside. Monks and bishops, according to John Chrysostom, are like the steersmen on ships. The first one stays outside, anchored in a safe port and does not prove his proficiency, while the other shows that he is a perfect guide, especially when he safely pilots the ship during a storm: Иже ѹбо внѹтръ пристанищъ на кѡрмилѣхъ сѣдѧй, не ѹ хꙋдожества опасноє даєтъ искоуство. Посредѣ же пꙋчины въ обꙋреванїи могоущаго спасти корабль никтоже єстъ иже бы не реклъ кръмчїю изрѧдна быти. Тѣмъже ни же Мніхꙋ зело и съ излишествомъ чюдитисѧ намъ было бы, ꙗко пребываай о себѣ, не смꙋщаєтъсѧ ниже съгрѣшаєтъ мнѡгаа и великаа съгрѣщеннѧ. Ниже бо иматъ чешющаа и подвизающаа єго дш҃ю. Но аще кто въ всѧ нарѡды себе вꙿдавъ и мнѡгихъ носити грѣхи понꙋжденъ бывъ и пребывъ не преклоненъ и твръдъ, ꙗкоже вꙿ тишинѣ въ обꙋреванїи дш҃ю оуправлѧѧ, съй по правдѣ похвалѧємъ и чюдимъ быти ѿ въсѣхъ достойнъ 132 былъ бы. Доволнѣ бо своєго мѫжества искоуство показа. 131 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстагокъ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ (Лвовъ 1614), p. 178. 132 Ibidem, p. 180. Chrysostom believed that a solitary life does not prepare some-one in an appropriate way to ministry among people. A monk can be defenseless against the attacks of hostile people as well as against the words of flatterers and devotees. This was all the more reason to ordain with caution and after the candidate gained appropriate experience.133 As we can see, the fact of having a monk’s tonsure was not con- sidered sufficient for becoming a candidate for the episcopacy. It was necessary to have additional predispositions because not having them was a great spiritual danger to anyone who hastily decided to become an ordained priest or bishop. Many teachers warned others against this kind of danger. Sometimes, as the moralists argued, these decisions were the result of misunderstood interpretations of the words that St. Paul the Apostle addressed to his disciple: “Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3: 1).134 “Подобаєтъ ємꙋ [єпископꙋ] быти безъ порока” – St. Paul’s Moral Catalogue As mentioned above, many teachings for priests since the earli-est times contained not only single verses, but also extensive passages from St. Paul’s pastoral letters to his disciples Timothy135 and 133 Ibidem, pp. 180–183. 134 (03.06.2017). 135 “The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the officeof bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own house-hold well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffedup with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them firstbe tested; then, if they prove Titus.136 These letters allowed them “to recreate the catalog of ethicalrequirements” for those who were to become the successors of the apostles.137 These included the compilations of virtues extremely popular in Christian literature and absolutely essential in their mor-al teaching. The requirements for becoming a bishop included in the letter to Titus were quoted and commented, among others, by Meletii Smotrytskyi138 and Dmytro Tuptalo.139 Yet the description of themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus (1 Tim 3: 1–13)”, NewRevisedStandardVersionBible, Publisher: National Council of the Churches of Christ 1989 [further NRSV], (11.04.2017); cf. also BibliaTysiąclecia, p 1348. 136 St. Paul ordered that a man to be ordained presbyter was to be only someone: “who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. “ (1 Tit 1: 6); “For a bishop, as God’s steward, mustbe blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. He must have a firm grasp of the word that istrustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it” (1 Tit 1: 7–9), New Re-vised Standard Version Bible (11.04.2017); cf. also Biblia Tysiąclecia, p. 1356. 137 K. Romaniuk, A. Jankowski, Kapłaństwo w Piśmie Świętym Nowego Testamentu, Krak 1994, p. 273. On this subject cf. especially the subchapter Kwalifikacje moralne prawdziwego apostoła, Ibidem, pp. 273–297. 138 “Przetom cię Tite zostawił w Krecie, abyś czego jeszcze nie dostawa poprawił i postanowił kapłany po miastach jakom i ja tobie przykazał. Jeśli kto jest bez nagany, mąż jednej żony, syny wierne mający, nie obwinione ani poddane zbytkowi. Abowiem biskup ma być bez przygany, jako szafarz Boży, nie pyszny, nie gniewliwy, nie opiły, nie bijący, nie chciwy zysku szkaradnego, ale wdzięcznie goście przyjmujący, dobrotliwy, trzeźwy, sprawiedliwy, święty, powściągliwy, który by się trzymał wiernych słów, które są wedle nauki, iżby mógł napominać przez zdrową naukę i przekonać tych którzy się sprzeciwiają” (Tit 1: 5–9), Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament …, Wilno 1610, f. 14 (30). 139 “Аки нѣкоє пребогатоє сокровище въ оустахъ пастрыревыхъ должно быти хранимо оучителскагѡ разꙋма и смысла дарованїє. Да бꙋдетъ премꙋдръ ко оученїю, къ the formation of the clergy in the First Letter of St. Paul to Timothy was a key point, bearing the title Qualifications of Spiritual Ministers(1 Tim 3: 1–13)140. The list of requirements for the bishop and the priest contained in it was broader and probably constituted the basis of the model used to verify the merits of the candidates as well as those already ordained or consecrated. The fact that verses 2–13 (with the exception of verse 11 on the ministry of women) were printed in the most important books for priests is proof of the pop-ularity of the Pauline model. In the seventeenth-century Kievan and Lviv liturgiarions, this letter was isolated from the main text and always found on a separate sheet, before the liturgical part of the sluzhebniks, probably reminding the celebrants of the need to cleanse their consciences and control their own readiness to perform ministry at the altar (see the chapter A Priest’s Preparation for the Liturgy). Sometimes it was encircled by a decorative frame, just like other decrees and important information contained in the liturgical books. It was invariably accompanied by information that this is a model not only binding for the bishop, but also for every priest: “Аще кто Єпⷭпствꙋ хоще(тъ), (сирѣⷱ сщ҃енствꙋ) добрꙋ дѣлꙋ желаєтꙿ.”141 Bishop Shumlanskyi also preserved this comment when referring to the biblical “catalog of decent behaviors “ in the synodal teaching for the clergy.142 наставленїю, ко оувѣщанїю, ко обличенїю непокоривихъ, ꙗкоже и апⷭль о єпⷭкпѣ, єже и ѡ всѧкомъ іереи разꙋмѣти єсть, глаголетъ: Да силенъ бꙋдетъ и оутѣшати во здравомъ оученїи, и противлѧющыѧсѧ обличати. Не имый же Дх҃а премꙋдрости и смысла, не сокровиществꙋѧй во оустахъ своихъ разꙋма, нѣсть достоинъ пастырскагѡ сана”, Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Слово ѡ пастырствѣ дх҃овныхъ пастырей, p. 350. 140 (3.06.2017). 141 Сf.Леітꙋргїарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1629, p. 104 (first pagination); Леітꙋргіарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1666, f. 80v; Леітꙋргіарїоⷩ си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1681, f. 92v; Леітꙋргіарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1691, f. 51v. 142 This is how Biskup Yosyf Shumlanskyi described the addressees of the role model for priests from St. Paul’s First Letter to Timothy: “Пречестнїи ѿцеве наместники, честнїи іереи, благоговѣннїє дїакѡни, намъ ѡ Христѣ возлюбленнїи братїа, и благопослꙋшнїи въ Дꙋхꙋ Свꙗтом чада. Але ꙗкїє персѡны, и ꙗкимъ способомъ, альбо порѧдкомъ, ꙗкѡ до станꙋ архїєрейскагѡ, такъ ієрейскагѡ и діаконскагѡ, промоватисѧ и встꙋповати маютъ, а Thanks to the quote being placed in liturgical positions indispensable in the ministry, the propagated model of the priesthood was able to by reach most of the targeted audience. Therefore, the ethical requirements conveyed by the Apostle Paul to the disciples Timothy and Titus have also become part of other important books dedicated to the clergy. The pastoral letters were cited, among others, by Lviv’s Bishop Yosyf Shumlanskyi in the aforementioned exhortation to priests and Pechersk Archimandrite Innoketii Gizel in the textbook on moral theology: [...] подобаєтъ ємꙋ [єпископꙋ] быти Подобаєтъ же єпископꙋ (сирѣчъ безъ порока, сице: трезвеннꙋ, не свѧщеникꙋ) быти непорочнꙋ, єдинїѧ пїанїци, не бійци, не сварливꙋ, не себѣ жени мꙋжꙋ, трезвеннꙋ, цѣломꙋдрꙋ, ꙋгаждающꙋ, не дерзкꙋ, не напраснивꙋ, благоговѣйнꙋ, честнꙋ, страннолюбивꙋ, не гнѣвливꙋ, но кроткꙋ, не завистливꙋ, оучительнꙋ, не пїаници, не бїйци, не не сребролюбцꙋ, не скверностѧжателнꙋ сварливꙋ, не мшелоимцꙋ, но кроткꙋ, не [...].143 завистливꙋ, не сребролюбцꙋ […].144 143 144 According to Yosyf Shumlanskyi’s commentary, anyone who oversteps these norms of behavior is not only unworthy of the priesthood or the episcopacy, but should be excommunicated: “Таѧ апостольскаѧ наꙋка освꙗщеннагѡ сана людемъ поневажъ такъ єсть благопотребна, ꙗко аще бы кто ѿ освѧщенныхъ пренебреглъ ѡ ней, не токмо іерейскагѡ сана и достоинства былъ бы не достоинъ, но и проклѧтію подпадалъ вѣчномꙋ.”145 Ivan Vyshenskyi used a fragment of the Letter to Timothy and for-mulated an accusation against contemporary bishops who, according to him, were far from the ideal precisely outlined in it: Розглядѣте ж свой образ в том зерцалѣ, панове бискупи, не вас ли то Павел по поставленѣх Духом Святым епископѣх,сказал. Не вы ли то влѣзли, не вы ли то волци тяжци, не вы ли то не щадите встꙋпивши и ѡсвꙗщъшесѧ, ꙗкѡ въ томъ ѡсвꙗщенномъ чинꙋ, альбо станꙋ, должни сꙋтъ жити. Той же апостолъ свꙗтїй Павелъ достатечнꙋю и выразнꙋю подаєтъ на то свою наꙋкꙋ […]”, Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 225. 143 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ…, Киевъ 1669, p. 389 (216). 144 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 225. 145 Ibidem. Liturgiarion, Kiev 1629 стада! А єсли бысте розумѣли от Духа Святого поставлены быти, покажѣте ми тые плоды, ко поставленю приготованые, которых Павел изобразил, к Тимофею тыми словы мовячи: “Подoбаєт, – рече, – того степеня епископского прагнучому, первое быти непорочну, таже едной женѣ мужу, трезвену, цѣломудру, благоговѣнну, чесну, страннолюбиву, учителну, не пияници, не бийци, не сварливу, не мшелоимцу, но кротку, независтливу, не сребролюбцю, своего дому добрѣ правящу, чада имуще впослушании со всякою чистотою; аще бо кто своего дому не умѣєт правити, како о церкви божии прилежати возможет; – не новокрещену, да не разгордѣвся, в грѣх впадет и в свѣть диаволю. Подобаєт же ему и свѣдителство добро имѣти от внѣшних, да не в поношение впадет и в сѣть неприязнену”.146 The Letters to Timothy and Titus are also often referred to in polemical literature in connection with discussions on the topic of celibacy (below we will write more on this topic). Greek dignitaries mentioned it to the Orthodox in their letters sent to the faithful and clergy in Kiev Metropolitanate.147 “Симоніи алъбо свѧтокꙋпства ꙗко въ посвещеню свещенниковъ, такъ и дійствованю таинъ ѿ свещенниковъ аби не било” – Simony and Abusing Authority The fact that the rules of election set in canon law were no longer functioning in Kiev Metropolitanate, favored abuse in the nomination process for clergymen’s offices. Among the crimes committed in con-nection with taking the episcopal office, accepting the priesthood and administering the other sacraments, Ruthenian moralists mentioned 146 Іван Вишенский, Велможным их Милостям…, p. 76. 147 Cf. e.g. Посланіе Мелетія ко всѣмъ вообще православнымъ русскимъ польской державы (въ которомъ онъ восхваляєтъ ихъ твердость въ православіи, а затѣмъ даеть отвѣты и изъясненія на нѣкоторые сдѣланые ему изъ Руси вопросы, какъ-то: о патріаршихъ титулахъ, устройствѣ патріаршаго клира, значеніи братствъ, а правѣ мірянъ проповѣдывать въ церкви, ставропигіахъ и проч. (июля 1597 г.), [in:] И.И. Малышевський, Александрійскій патриархъ Мелетій Пигасъ и его участіе в дѣлах русской церкви, vol. 2, Киeв 1872, p. 64. simony and the ordination of unworthy pretenders under constraint of the powerful and influential as the most common. Issues related to the proper ordination of clergymen were regulated by oath, which, according to Mykhailo Vavryk, constituted an important part of the ordination rite of a bishop. These oaths were prepared by the nominee himself, but based on a certain model sa-cred by tradition148 and declared along with the profession of faith directly before the liturgical rite of ordination. At the beginning, the elect proclaimed the act of preparing a written version of the vow himself (point 1) and recited the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (point 2). Next, he announced that he accepted the teachings of the councils and the canons (point 3), upholding the Church’s unity and hierarchical order (point 4) and promised to take care of the sheepfold entrusted to him (point 5).149 Over time, this basic text included what was required by Emperor Justinian’s legislations (482–565), a statement that the appointed bishop would not give anyone (nor promise to hand over after his ordination) any material benefits in return for the appointed office. Simeon of Thessalonica in the 14th and 15th centuries, who quoted this formula as one of the elements of the bishop’s oath, placed it even before the above-mentioned fifth paragraph about care over the spiritual fold. A statement about the absence of any gratification for being nominated was also found in the Slavic version of this text.150 The oath in the Euchologion, the so-called 148 Scholars have not established when exactly an oath was introduced into the ordi nation rite. The custom of oath taking with the profession of faith (oral and written) was know already in Emperor Justinian’s times (483–565), cf. А.Неселовскій,Чины хиротесій..., pp. 239–240; on the subject cf. also М.Марусин, Чини Святительських.., p. 45. According to M. Vavryk the oath was introduced by ecumenical and local councils, and had different versions over the centuries. One of the formulas, commonly used in the Byzantine Church, was attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas Mouzalon (1147–1151), cf. М. Ваврик, До історії єпископськоїприсяги в XV–XVI вв., [in:] Miscellanea in Honorem Cardinalis Isidori (1463–1963), Roma 1963, pp. 363–364. 149 М. Ваврик, До історії єпископськоїприсяги…, p. 364. 150 M. Vavryk cites oaths from the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries featuring a formula of non-payment for ordination from the Kievan Metropolitanate, southern Slavic regions and Moscow, Ibidem, pp. 367–370. Slavonicum 15from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries belonging to Kiev’s metropolitans reads: Паки обіщеваюся, яко нісмь не дал ні что за іскушеніє за ту церков, ні єсмь обіщался кому что дати ради сіє діло, нікому не дати, разві обичноє і уставичноє святия церкве історов і олобзаю, і за сіє апостольскоє і отчеє преданіє, но і биша іспитанія нова, от треблаженнаго царя Палеолога, кир Андроніка на сіє освященноє діляніє іно ізвісно от святия Божія Церкве і обіщаюся сохранити сіє преданіє, к сему ісповідаю єлика імут преданія, митрополич стол да сохраним непоколибно, о всей области моєй, аще ли сотворю что таково без повелінія і без грамоти, господинаі владики моєго преосвященнаго митрополита київськаго і всеяPусі, іли преступлю что єдино от сих всіх написаних зді, лишен буду сана своєго без всякого слова.151 Appropriate legal provisions stigmatizing simony were found in nomocanon manuscripts.152 Initially, these were primarily Apostolic, Church Father, ecumenical and local council canons and the ordinances of secular legislators, which in time were accompanied by Byzantine legal experts.153 The local books on the election of the clergy in Kiev Metropolitanate, in which this canonical literature was quoted extensively, were also included in the localy written kormchaia books. They were adapted to the needs and realities of the life of the Ruthenian Church. The documents of the synod in Volodymyr on the Kliazma river in 1273 prepared by Metropolitan Kyryl II(III) already witnessed the fight against these “timeless” irregularities in the nomination methods. They were based on the legal provisions contained in the Serbian Kormchaia version, which the Metropolitan made available for use in 151 М. Марусин, Чини Святительських..., pp. 36–37. Cf. also the text in another language edition, М. Ваврик, До історії єпископської присяги..., pp. 369–370. 152 The question of payment for ordination occupied a separate chapter in the first title (the so-called “титель”, then “грань”) of a collection of fourteen titles. Gifts for the clergy from the faithful were also mentioned in title six (4th Apostolic Canon), Я.Н. Щапов, Византийское и южнославянское…, p. 51. 153 Ibidem, p. 52. the local Church.154 In the first and most extensive of the nine rules, the hierarch discussed the issue concerning the recruitment and selection of candidates to become priests and deacons in terms of their clerical formation. He highlighted the abuses in this field, among which was the problem of fees paid for religious ordination. After bringing up the verses from the Bible and canonical sources relevant to the topic, he addressed the clergy with the teaching about the importance of ap-plying the truths contained in them and the prohibition of paying for ordination under the penalty of depriving the recipient of his dignity and excommunicating mediators in helping them obtain it: Оуже прочеє, братиє, слышимъ вси и не преслоушаємъся правилъ божествьныхъ, да не когда отпадемъ, яко не златомъ, ни сребромъ искоуплени быхомъ от соуєтнаго жития, нъ драгою кровью Агньца Божия непорочна, прѣчиста Христа. Такоже и насъ наоучиша моужи священии, мы же послѣдъствоуємъ евангельскымь и апостольскымъ и отечьськымъ заповѣдемъ, вѣроуємъ и глаголемъ, прочеє от сего времени аще кто явиться от святого нашего сбора, или игоумена въ игоуменьство, ємля от него что, свящая на мьздѣ, рекомоє “осошноє”, или постризая мирськаго попа на мьздѣ въ игоуменьство, или попа поставляєть къ церкви, ємля оу него что, да боудуть извержени, ходотайствоующии же да боудоуть прокляти.155 The same rule of Kyryl II(III) also included an ordinance on ad-missible fees for granting a consecration. The Metropolitan, according to the tradition and customs of the Greek Emperors (e.g. Justinian I in the novel 123) assumed that certain fixed fees may be paid for ordination.156 Not everyone, however, was willing to accept the obligation to make a payment. Therefore, in the fourteenth century, the first part of the rule was accepted, while the other part was negatively judged as worthy of rejection.157 According to Yaroslav Shchapov, this was 154 Н. Щапов, Византийское и южнославянское…, pp. 181–184. 155 Правило Кюрила..., col. 88–89. 156 Ibidem, col. 92. 157 In the fourteenth century a treatise entitled Vlasfymiia(Власфимія) was written and featured the following comment on the rule: “[…] въ немже ересь Симона probably the reason why some of the books from the Ukrainian ter-ritories, for example the version the Volodymyr kormchaia book, did not contain this synodal document at all. In some of the fourteenth and fifteenth-century versions of the Ephrem Kormachaia, supplemented by Ruthenian canonical material, the rules did appear but without the first controversial rule.158 According to Vavryk, the fifteenth century kormchaia omitted this entry due to the dissemination of the novel by emperor Andronicus II the Elder, a statement against simony (“stavlennia na mzdi”) from 1295.159 At the same time, the rules of Kyryl II(III) were known throughout the entire metropolitanate area, simply due to the fact that this record was also written into other manuscripts. An example is the Kievan Metropolitanate’s Euchologion Slavonicum 15, which contained a lot of organizational and disciplinary material, including the complete text of the synodal document being discussed.160 By introducing the ban on simony, the Metropolitan primarily based his order on the most important sources of legal canons in moral education. The first Волхва и Антонина еретика въ законъ введена. Се правило въ началѣ право, а въ концѣ проклято”, quoted after the commentary: А. Павловъ,Опредѣленія владимірскаго собора 1274 г., [in:] RIB 6, col. 83–84; on these rules cf. also Опредѣленія Владимірскаго собора 1274 года, “Православный собесѣдникъ” 1863, 3, pp. 229–230; Я.Н. Щапов, Рецепция кормчей в феодальных княжествах конца XIII-XIV в., [in:] Idem, Византийское и южнославянскоe…, p. 210. 158 Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Я.Н. Щапов, vol. 2, София 1987, pp. 182–185. For more on the subject, cf. Я.Н.Щапов, Рецепция кормчей…[in:] Византийское и южнославянскоe…, pp. 181, 210. Elsewhere, e.g. in Novgorod, Kyryl’s last two rules, seventh and eighth, were omitted, cf. A. Pavlov’s commentary on the text of the rules, Правило Кюрила…, col. 99–100. 159 М. Ваврик, Цінний пам’ятник…, p. 458. 160 Ibidem. Father Ignacy Kulczyńskitranslated into Latin Kyryl II(III)’s rules and other Ruthenian legal documents included in the Euchologionand published them in Rome in 1733 as a part of the AppendixadSpecimen, Ibidem, p. 399. The work is available in the Digital Jagiellonian Library in the version from the third edition: SpecimenecclesiaeRuthenicaeaboriginesusceptaefideiadnostrausquetempora[...]Appendix, Parisii 1859, (7.04.2017). of these was the 29th Apostolic Canon, resembling the biblical story of Simon the Magician, who intended to pay the Apostles for the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8: 18-20) and the canons of the ecumenical councils: the second in Chalcedon and the twentieth in Trullo. Приде бо въ слуохы наша, яко нѣции от братия нашея дрьзнуша продати священый санъ, и причитати къ церквамъ, ивзимати от нихъ нѣкыя ‘оурокы’ глаголемыя. И забыша правилареченаго святыхъ Апостолъ и преподобныхъ Отець нашихъ. Да слышать ясно вси: “поставлены на мьздѣ да извержеться, и поставлии єго” - правилосе єсть святыхъ Апослолъ 29. Пакы ищетъ правила 6вселеньскаго сбора иже въ Костянтинѣ градѣ въ Троулѣ полатнѣмъ – правило 22, сбора иже въ Халкидонѣ правило 2: “Аще кто коупить и продаєтъ поставлениє, и аще ключаря церковнаго поставить на мьздѣ, въ своємъ степени бѣдоу прииметъ, рекше да извержеться и ходотайствующии о таковѣмъ поставлении, аще суть причетници, от своєго степени извергоуться, аще ли мирьстии человѣци, или мниси, да боудоутъ прокляти”. Никтоже благодати Божия не продаєтъ, тоуне бо, рече, приясте, тоуне же и дадите. Видиши, како негодова Петръ на Симона волхва, рече бо, сребро твоє да боудетъ съ тобою въ пагоубоу, яко благодать Божію надѣєшися богатьствомь стяжати.161 In the synodal rules, Kyryl II(III) also referred to the history of Gehazi in the Second Book of Kings (5,25–27). Comparing simony to the heresy of the pneumatomachians gives us the impression that he used the popular in kormchaia books canonical Message of Tarasios to Pope Adrian: Рече Єлисѣй къ Гиєзии приялъ єси сребро Неоманово иризы, нъ и проказа єго прилѣпиться тобѣ и къ сѣмени твоємоу прилѣпиться въ вѣкы. Яко невъозможно Богоу работати и мамонѣ, а злѣє єсть Македоньсъкыя єреси. Македоний бо и прочии духоборци, раба Богоу хоуляще [Духа]. Святаго глаголахоу, си же раба себѣ стваряюще, коупоующе и продающе, съ Июдою 161 Правило Кюрила…, col. 86–88. сравнаються, имѣють съ нимъ часть, и да боудетъ отверженъ ивсея священичьскыя слоужбы лихъ и проклять.162 The canons referred to in this document on Ruthenian legal thought, especially the 29th Apostolic Canon, was also profoundly cited by religious reformers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu-ries, thereby refreshing the memory of the Church’s procedure for receiving ordination. There was a penalty set by Metropolitan Yosyf Soltan in the rules of the Vilnius Synod of 1509163 of being removed from a spiritual position for those who improperly acquired church offices and ex-communication for those who did not perform penance but remained in their sins. The publication of this text in 1614 was an attempt to modernize the impoverished system of the selection of priests and bishops and the administration of the sacraments. Representatives of the brotherhood issued this valuable legal and canonical record probably with the intention of supplementing the prevailing shortages of books belonging to this category on the publishing market. The first printed Nomocanon, which could be referred to when searching for such regulations, was ready only a few years later by the Kiev-Pechersk printing house (1620). For the same reason, another valuable item addressed to the clergy appeared in Lviv’s typography, the above-mentioned collected works of John Chrysostom and other Church Fathers, where the issue of verifying the intentions of claimants to the clerical state was one of the most important topics. In addition to the Dialogue on the Priesthoodand the excerpts from the homily commenting St. Paul’s letters, this collection did not coincidentally include canonical texts referring to simony, and could have been normative regarding the issue of consecrating worthy candidates to the priesthood or episcopacy. At the end of the second part of the above-mentioned publication (“ꙗже сѹтъ сщ҃енꙿствꙋ прилична”), there was a section on ordination for 162 Ibidem, col. 88. 163 Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, col. 8–9. a fee, and it contained three texts that were obligatory church documents. The section on buying and selling the chirotony (О хіротоній на мꙿздѣ бываемѣй)164 contains the letter of Basil the Great (329–379) to bishops with the ban on ordaining for money: Иже въ ст҃ыхъ ѿца нашего Васіліа Великаⷢ архіепіскопа Кесаріа Каппадокійскїа, посланїе къ иже подꙿ нимъ епіскопѡмъ, ꙗко да не поставлѧти имъ на пѣнѧзехъ.165 This was one of the 365 letters of his that were organized into 92 canons and included in the church code of law.166 Canon 90 concerning simony was issued by him as the Metropolitan of Cappadocia and the Exarch of Pontus to the suffragan bishops after he heard of charging fees for the laying on hands. According to Basil, bishops behaving in this way, especially under the guise of piety and in the full awareness of sin, sold themselves to Satan and deserved a double reprimand: Аще бо кто злоє въ притворенїй бл҃гаго творитꙿ, тъй сꙋгоубаго томленіѧ достоинъ єстъ. Занеже само то не соущи благоє съдѣловаєтъсѧ и прїємлетъ къ себѣ на съвършенїє грѣха, аки аще бы кто реклъ, доброє за споспѣшника. Сіѧ аще тако въ себѣ сѫтъ, прочее ѿселѣ да не бѫдꙋтъ, но да исправѧтъсѧ, понеже ноужда єстъ гл҃ати къ взимающемꙋ еже речесѧ ѡ Апⷭлъ къ хотѧщемꙋ дати, да Дх҃а Ст҃го общенїє коупитъ: Сребро твоє сꙿ тобою да бѫде(тъ) въ погибель. Немощнѣйшїй бо єстъ оумомъ иже неискоуства ради кꙋпити хотѧй, неже ли продаѧй даръ Бж҃їй продажа бо бысть и єже ты тꙋне приѧлъ єси, аще то продаєши, аки бы ꙗко проданъ бывъ Сатанѣ ѡтѧто ты бѫде(тъ) дарованїє. Корчемство бо въводиши въ дх҃овныѧ вещи.167 164 This is the title placed in the upper part of folios, in the running head; on the title page it reads: Сіє же паки, не токмо ꙗко прилично є(сть) сщ҃енꙿствꙋ, но и зело ноужⷣно и прежде всѣⷯ, аще и свѣдителꙿство имѣти бѫдꙋ(тъ) ѡ себѣ добро, вѣдати сщ҃енныⷨ, ꙗко толико достоинꙿство всѣхъ превъсходѧщеє, и блгⷣть єйже ничтоже равно єстъ ѿнюдъ не достоитъ сребромъ или златомъ не стѧжавати, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ…, Лвовъ 1614. 165 Ibidem, pp. 407–409; this fragment cf. Basili Magni, Scripta initio episcopatus, [in:] Patrologia graeca, edit. J.-P. Migne, vol. 32, col. 395-400; in Polish cf. Bazyli Wielki, List do swoich biskupów [sufraganów]. Zakaz udzielania święceń za pieniądze, [in:] Canones Patrum...., pp. 66–67. 166 M. Szegda, Bazyli Wielki, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, Lublin 1985, col. 136. 167 [Васіліє Великий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ ѿца нашего Васіліа Великаⷢ архіепіскопа Кесаріа Каппадокійскїа, посланїе къ иже подꙿ нимъ епіскопѡмъ, ꙗко да не поставлѧти The next two letters stigmatizing purchasing the sacraments are documents by Constantinople patriarchs. The first was published in the Lviv volume and was a synodal circular letter (Epistola encyclicafrom 458–459) on the ban of consecrating for money by Gennadius of Constantinople (? –471)168 entitled Геннадіа патрїархи кѡнстантїнꙋполска и иже при немъ събравшагосѧ Ст҃го Събора къ всѣмъ сщ҃еннѣйшимъ митрополитѡмꙿ и къ Папѣ Римъскомꙋ, окрꙋженно, сирѣчъ, бездѣ рассланное посланїе, ѡ еже не бывати на пѣнѧзехъ хіротонїам.169 In the encyclical, the Patriarch forbade “converting heavenly and spiritual charisms into earthly and perishable goods,” called for “grace to be grace,” since “it is not permitted for money to enter into this matter” and since incompatible things are not reconcilable, whoever serves mammon cannot simultaneously be a servant of the Lord (Matt 6: 24): Подобаєтъ бо блг҃дати присно быти блг҃дати и отнюдъ неходотаити нею сребръникъ […]. Небо възможно єстъ снійтисѧ когда въєдино неснитительнимъ, ниже съ Бг҃ом съгласитисѧ мамонѣ или иже тъй слꙋжащим слꙋжити Бо҃҃ у. Влдчнеє и сіє єстъ отреченїє непрерѣкоуємоє ниже 170 сꙋмнѣтелноє. Неможете Бо҃у работати и мамонѣ. The Greek sources of this document contain the signatures of the patriarch and the eighty-eight synod bishops.171 The list of names was имъ на пѣнѧзехъ [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ..., Лвовъ 1614, p. 408. 168 E. Stanula, Gennadiusz I, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka , vol. 5, Lublin 1989, col. 964. 169 Cf. Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ…, Лвовъ 1614, pp. 410–416; cf. Gennadius Patriarcha, Epistola encyclica ad pontificem Romanum et omnes metropolitanos, [in:] Patrologia graeca, vol. 85, col. 1614-1618; text of the message in Polish and Greek, cf. Gennadiusz, Najświętszy patriarcha Konstantynopola i zgromadzony z nim święty synod do wszystkich najpobożniejszych metropolitów o tym, że nie wolno udzielać święceń za pieniądze(transl. A. Caba), [in:] Canones Patrum...., pp. 109–112. 170 Геннадіа патрїархи кѡнстантїнꙋполска и иже при немъ събравшагосѧ Ст҃го Събора къ всѣмъ сщ҃еннѣйшимъ митрополитѡмꙿ... (Лвовъ 1614), pp. 414-415. 171 According to Vladimir Beneshevich, Slavonic translations of the nomocanon usually featured only four (or five, like in the translation of John Scholasticus’ Collectionof50Titles) names of bishops, signatories of the circular letter; an extensive list in Greek, cf. ДревнесловянскаяКормчаяXIVтитуловбезтолко reprinted in the Lviv edition of the document, probably in order to increase the significance of the document in the eyes of the clergy, who were obliged to respect its laws.172 The second canonical letter was addressed by Patriarch Tarasius (784-806) to Pope Adrian: Тарасіа, ѡ томжде, къ Адріанꙋ Панѣ старого Рима, Посланїе Тарасїа Ст҃ѣйшаго Патріархи Кѡнстантінꙋполскаго, Новаго Рима.173 It was a particularly valuable source of knowledge on the topic of disciplinary measures related to simony because the second part contained entries from important and authoritative church records on the subject. This extremely elaborate canon, which dates back to the times of the First Council of Nicaea, gathered together traditions and testimonies about simony.174 These contain the above-quoted verse from the Acts of the Apostles (8: 18–23), the Second Book of Kings (fourth in the Septuagint) (5: 25–27) and 1 Kings (third in the Septuagint) (13: 33), including the following canons: the Apostolic (29), the councils of Chalcedon (2), in Trullo(22); two fragments from the texts by St. Basil: the first from the Commentary to Isaiah and the second from the Letter to Subordinate Bishops (reprinted separately in full in the Lviv volume). Tarasius’ let- ваний, vol. 1, pp. 247–249. It was also reprinted in the Moscow KormchaiaBook(1650–1653) on ff. 280-281v, text cf. (21.03.2017) and was based on the Lviv edition, Е.В. Белякова, ИзданиепамятниковканоническoгоправавXVI–XVIIвв. ииспользованиеканоноввмосковскихпечатнихизданиях, [in:] Е.В. Белякова, Л.І. Мошкова, Т.А. Опарина, Кормчаякнига..., pp. 202–203. 172 Геннадіа патрїархи кѡнстантїнꙋполска и иже при немъ събравшагосѧ Ст҃го Събора къ всѣмъ сщ҃еннѣйшимъ митрополитѡмꙿ…(Лвовъ 1614), pp. 415-416. 173 Cf. Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ..., Лвовъ 1614, p. 416–436; Per omnia sanctissimo et beatissimo fratri et coministro Adriano papae senioris Romae Tarasius indignus episcopus Constantinopole-os novae Romae in Domino salutem, [in:] Patrologia graeca, vol. 98, col. 1442–1452; in Polish and Greek, cf. Tarazjusz z Konstantynopola, List do Hadriana, papieża starego Rzymu, o tym, że nie wolno udzielać święceń za pieniądze, [in:] Canones Patrum…, pp. 117–124. 174 A. Baron, H. Pietras, Wprowadzenie, [in:] Canones Patrum..., p. XV. Tarasius may have sent his letter to the pope with the acts of the Council of Nicaea, over which he presided. ter also contains quotations from the other sources edited in the Lviv collection: St. John Chrysostom’s Lifeand the encyclicals of Patriarch Gennadius. The Lviv version of the patriarch’s letter prepared by the Dormition Confraternity was expanded to include more original patristic citations probably at the initiative of the volume’s editors. These were, in particular, fragments from the nine letters by the famous epistolographer St. Isidore of Pelusium. Two letters on good priesthood werealso included in the first part of this extensive volume. Those were placed in the canonical-disciplinary section about purchasing sacra-ments and were addressed to representatives of various clergy and even liturgical ministers: bishops (Eusebius – three passages, Leontius, Hermogenes), presbyters, lectors and archdeacons. Thus, both the sale and purchase of the sacraments and ordinations were branded. The whole work concluded by excerpt referring to the passage on bishops from imperial legislation belonging to legal reformers in Byzantium, meaning Emperors Basil I, Constantine and Leo VI the Philosopher.175 Patriarch Tarasius considered the sin of simony to be heavier than the transgressions of the heretic Macedonius the pneumatomach, who proclaimed that the Holy Spirit was created by God the Father. Just like Basil the Great previously stated in canon 90, the hierarch compared simony to Judas’ treachery bought for silver coins,176 which 175 The emperors are linked to the emergence of the Prochiron (870–879), a private and public law textbook very popular among eastern and southern Slavs, and the Basilica, the most extensive medieval code of laws, which is likely to have originated in the late ninth century, when Leo VI Philosopher ordered the completion of the collection. It was based mainly on Justinian’s Code and other works, and its value lay in its clarity and the fact that it was compiled in Greek. The Basilica comprises six volumes of sixty books (Heksabiblos), cf. G. Ostrogorski, Dzieje Bizancjum, Warszawa 2015, pp. 251–254. 176 “[…] сребролюбїє же и корень єстъ всѣмъ злымъ именѹєтꙿсѧ идолослꙋженїємъ. Тѣмже да не паче Ха҃ идѡлы предъпочитаєте, малого ради сребренника. Ниже паки Іоѵдꙋ подражайте взѧтїами второє продающе иже єдиною за насъ распѧтаго”, [Васіліє Великий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ ѿца нашего Васіліа Великаⷢ архіепіскопа Кесаріа Каппадокійскїа, посланїе къ иже подꙿ нимъ епіскопѡмъ, ꙗко да не поставлѧти имъ на пѣнѧзехъ (Лвовъ 1614), p. 409. was probably a strong and understandable argument for the wider circle of readers who were not theologically educated. Вѣси бо мѫжꙋ желанїй Дх҃ѡвныхъ, ꙗко ѿраднѣйша паче єстъ Македонїева и соущихъ съ нимъ дꙋхоборецъ злочестиваа єресь. Онѣмъ бо тваръ, и раба Бо҃҃҃҃ у и Ѿцꙋ Дха Стго блѧдоущимъ. Сіиже своєго имъ, ꙗкоже видѧтъсѧ раба сего творѧтъ. Всѧкъ бо владыка єже аще иматъ, аще хощетъ продаєтꙿ, любо аще слꙋгѹ аще и дроугоє ѿ притѧжанныхъ нимъ посемоу образꙋ и кꙋпоуѧй. Владыка хотѧ быти кꙋплеⷩнаго цѣною сребра сиє стѧжетъ. Сице иже безъбожнꙋю сію вещъ съдѣлѡвающїй, низвѡдѧ(тъ) Дх҃а Ст҃го равнаѧ съгрѣшаютъ съ хꙋлѧщими ѡ Веельзевоули изгонѧти Хрⷭтоу бѣсы или ꙗкоже єстъ истиннѣє рещи, подѡбни соутъ Іоѵдѣ предателю иже богѡоубѣйцемъ жидѡмъ цѣною сребра Ха҃ продавъ.177 However, St. Isidore in his letters addressed to the presbyter Zo-sim and Bishop Leontius who were trading the gifts of the Holy Spirit, he compared this action to Caiaphas’ conduct: “Приѧлъ єси сщ҃енство образомъ не свѧщеннымъ, сщ҃еньства недостойне. Пѣнѧзми оукравъ вещъ нб҃нꙋю, вторый Каїафа, сребромъ не изреченныѧ тайны кꙋпивъ [...]”178, “Всѧкъ оубо иже сщ҃енꙿство кꙋпоуай, Каїафа Хрістоѹбієцъ обрѣтаєтꙿсѧ”179 The letter to Bishop Hermogenes who was trading clerical dignities included an admonition filled with accusations and warnings, point-ing to punishment for doing so. It was probably also a good source of information on forbidden practices in the 17th century, and for those who had already received the sacred episcopacy, it was a list of sins helpful in their examination of conscience: Коєѧ ради вины продаєши рѫкоположенїа, чесо ради пропиваєши сщ҃енꙿство, почто корчемъствѹєши бжⷭтвенными. Коєѧ ради вины посквернѧєши Цр҃ ковь? Чесо ради нищиⷯ имѣнїа присвоѧа богатѣєшисѧ. Въскꙋю напразѣ старости юношескими мечтаєшисѧ обидѣньми? Чесо ради не пребылъ єси началниⷦ, но начальствѹємъ ѿ злобы обличенъ бывъ? Тѣмже да вѣси ꙗко 177 Тарасіа, ѡ томжде, къ Адріанꙋ Панѣ старого Рима... (Лвовъ 1614), pp. 418–419. 178 [Ісідѡр Пілоусїотъ], Тогожде къ Зѡсимѣ Пресѵитерꙋ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ..., Лвовъ 1614, p. 427. 179 [Ісідѡр Пілоусїотъ], Тогожде Леѡнтїю Епⷭкпꙋ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ..., Лвовъ 1614, p. 428. большїй сѫдъ въспрїймеши, зане съдѣалъ єси, ꙗже инѣмъ въчиненъ 180 бывъ възбранѧти. Aforementioned collection of letters of The Holy Fathers regulating electoral procedures so reach in warnings and caveats concerning the abuse of Orthodox Church Law was translated, edited and published in 1614 which was a manifestation of Lviv Brotherhood’s decades long fight with the problem of sacredness trading. The letter of Basil the Great and the messages of both patriarchs who appeared in the manuscripts of the kormchaia in Ruthenian lands181 in the 17th century were also included in the passages in the printed Kievan Nomocanonalong with the commentaries by Theodore Balsamon (XII c.),182 whose explanations were held by Church in the highest regard and could be found in many legal and canonical collections in Kiev Metropolitanate. These church documents were published as awhole in the first Moscow edition of the kormchaia book.183 180 [Ісідѡр Пілоусїотъ], Тогожде къ Єрмогенꙋ, [in:] Ibidem, p. 430. 181 The messages of Basil the Great (Того же [Василіа Великаго] къ соущиимъ подъ нимъ єпⷭпмъ, ꙗко не поставлꙗти на имѣнни) and Gennadius (in the variant from the Ephrem Kormachaia), cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, pp. 509–511, 598–604. The kormchaia books inspired by the Serbian edition of the book often feature Gennadius’ and Tarasius’ instructions in one the-matic block. Both texts with Alexy Aristenes’ commentaries (twelfth century) are to be found in Chapter 42 of a Kormchaia Bookfrom the fifteenth century, until recently kept in the Jagiellonian Library (no. 71/1952), cf. Я.Н. Щапов, Восточнославянские и южнославянские рукописные книги в собраниях Польской Народной Республики, part 1: Рукописи собраний Варшавы и Кракова (№№ 1–93), Москва 1976, no. 89; also in a Kormchaia Bookfrom the late fifteenth century kept in the Stefanyk National Library in Lviv, cf. Кириличні рукописні книги…, no. 202. Three canonical messages are to be found in the Constantinov Kormchaia from the sixteenth/seventeenth century (Diocese of Lviv) from the collection of the National Library BN 12694 III, p. 245 and 258. On texts dealing with simony in the Ruthenian kormchaia book, cf. Я.Н. Щапов, Русская редакция кормчей XIII в., [in:] Idem, Византийское и южнославянское…, p. 166. 182 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 112–113 (129–130). 183 Cf. the messages in the Moscow edition of the Kormchaiafrom 1650–1653 (ff. 276 292), (21.03.2016). Representatives of circles of religious confraternities were not alone in the fight against simony. Already in the eighties of the sixteenth century, when the Church renewed relations with the East in Kiev Met- ropolitanate, the Patriarchs supported them. The first patron in these lands was Joakhim V (? –1592), the Patriarch of Antioch, who in 1586, along with the approval of their statute, gave the Lviv Brotherhood the authority to supervise the compliance with canon law by both the laity and bishops.184 Jeremias II Tranos (1536–1595), arriving in Ruthenian territory a few years later, already had experience in the fight againstsimony, which was also devastating the Greek Orthodox Church. After taking the throne of Constantinople in 1572, he campaigned in a determined and courageous way against using positions of high ecclesiasti- cal dignity for profit, and among the lower clergy sought to eradicate the habit of charging fees for communion and confession.185 Jeremias also gave impetus to change hierarchs, who convened for the first time in connection with his stay in the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1589 at the synod after several decades hiatus, and committed themselves to cyclical synod meetings.186 The resolutions of the bishops’ synod in 1591 proved that the reformation efforts of the hierarchs in the early 90s of sixteenth century already had a certain program. The first resolution of this meeting concerned the election of bishops. It tried to limit the influence of the king and magnates on the nomination, stating that it would be preceded by the election of a pretender to the performed hierarchical office from among four candidates. This was, therefore, 184 On the reform work of Patriarch Joakhim in the Kievan Metropolitanate, cf. B. Gudziak, Kryzys i refroma…, pp. 231–239, cf. also Б.Н.Флоря., Восточные патриархи и западнорусская церковь, [in:] Брестская уния 1596г. и общественнополитическая борьба на Украине и в Белоруссии в конце XVI – начале XVII в., part 1, pp. 117–130; K. Kuczara, Działalność Joachima V na rzecz poprawy materialnej iduchowej Kościoła prawosławnego w Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Od Kijowa do Rzymu…, pp. 685–692; idem, Grecy w Kościołach wschodnich w Rzeczypospolitej (1585–1621), Poznań 2012, pp. 60–68; A. Borkowski, Patriarchaty Wschodu…, pp. 35–50. 185 The patriarch deposed fee-demanding hierarchs and anathematized those selling the holy sacraments, B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, p. 66. 186 Cf. fn. 32. a step towards restoring the known but long forgotten sixteenth century procedure out of canonical-legal texts for filling in a bishop’s vacant chair.187 The implementation of order was to prevent many abuses by secular authorities, especially paying for the episcopacy and nepotism. These problems were also dealt with by later synods as early as the seventeenth century (we will write about this later). Synodal arrangements were supported by respective publishers. In addition to the aforementioned and very important Lviv collection and the works of the synod of 1509 prepared that same year, the recommendations and restrictions in electoral law on assigning bishops were mentioned briefly in catechism works and more broadly in no-mocanons. The Vilnius Teaching on the Seven Sacraments in the section on priesthood apart from a list of the personal qualities of a candidate for the priesthood and also for the episcopacy and the conditions that had to be fulfilled included also mentioned earlier Apostolic Canon 29: “Если которы(и) Епкⷭпъ, или Преⷥвитеръ, или Дїѧконъ, поⷨздѣ стсанъ прїйметъ, да изꙿвержетсѧ, саⷨ и поставивы(й), ꙗкоже Симонъ Волхвъ.”188 It was quoted in the Rules for yereis, a legal record attached by Gedeon Balaban to Trebnykpublished in Stratyn in 1606.189 It was first on a list of sources which the editors referred to in Kiev Metropolitanate’s nomocanons, published separately. It was quoted twice: first in the penitential part of this book,190 and then in the section On the Laying on of Hands (О рукоположеніи), where the material was enriched by a 187 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 304–306. The appointment of Andrei Zheliborskyi to the Bishopric of Lviv was opposed in 1641 by Petro Mohyla on account of a lack of another candidate. Zheliborskyi was eventually reappointed, but this time in accordance with the electoral law, cf. В. Кметь, “Життєписи єпископів грецького обряду” – пам’ятка української історіографії другої половини XVII ст., [in:] Lwów, miasto-społeczeństwo-kultura. Studia z dziejów Lwowa, ed. K. Karolczak, vol. 4, Kraków 2002, pp. 88–90. For more on the subject cf. also І. Скочиляс, Галицька (Львівська) єпархія…, pp. 564–565. 188 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 139. 189 “Аще єпⷭпъ мъзды ради поставитъ таковаго попа, да извергꙋтсѧ оба, и єпⷭпъ той и попъ”, Заповѣди о іереѡхъ, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ, Стрѧтинъ 1606, f. 677. 190 “За среберъники рꙋкополагаѧй, на кїй либо степень, съ рꙋкополагаємымꙿ да извръжетъсѧ, и ѿлꙋчитꙿсѧ по двадесѧ(ть)девѧтомꙋ правилꙋ Апⷭлъ”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 29 (46). ҃ ы(й) се(й) commentary by the famous canonist Theodore Balsamon. The elaborations also concerned Apostolic Canon 30, which prohibited the interventions of lay superiors in ordinations, or the will of the prince, as expressed by the book’s editor when updating this document: “Аще кій єпискоⷫ мїрскїа кнѧзѧ оупотребивъ, тѣхъ ради держатель бꙋдетъ Цр҃ кви, да ижⷣенетъсѧ, и ѿлꙋчитсѧ и съобщающїи сѧ ємꙋ вси.”191 This very well known method of abusing power by the laity was unequivocally condemned. Moreover, in the same nomocanon, the penitentiary part twice strictly forbade consecrations according to the will of the influential and mighty without due process. The rules were written in this book for wider use by parishioners. This is probably why they referred not only to the mentioned in Apostolic Canon 30 penalty of removing bishop from this dignity and excluding him from Church, but also other sanctions that any priest who demanded such an ordination could expect to face.192 In explaining the punishments resulting from the severity of a sin, the commentator used the above mentioned canonical texts of the Pa-triarchs of Gennadius and Tarasius, the fourth canon of the Council of Chalcedon and the twenty-second canon of the Council in Trullo.193 The problems related to the recruitment of the clergy and above all simony were justifying the need for the dissemination of legal ca-nonical positions. As Zakharia Kopystenskyi wrote in the preface to the second Kievan edition of the Nomocanon, this book was intended to be a measure to remedy the situation within the Church, in which 191 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 112 (129); Cf. also Номоканонъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, f. 55. The canon was cited in the first ti-tle of the Ephrem Kormchaia in Chapter 22, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 9; cf. also Constitutiones Apostolorum...., p. 279; A. Znosko, Kanony…, p. 18. “Иже приводить боѧры, да исходотайствꙋютꙿ ємꙋ ѿ Єпⷭпа сщенство, или нѣкїй санъ, да ҃ извержетъсѧ, и ѿлꙋченъ бꙋдетъ, съ всѣми обещниками, по тридесѧтомꙋ правилꙋ Ст ҃ Апⷭлъ”, “Причетникъ аще приведе(тъ) кнѧзѧ, или боѧрина, да оумоли(тъ) Митрополита за єпⷭпїю, или санъ, или Єпⷭпа, да извержетъсѧ, и ѿлꙋчи(т)сѧ по тридесѧтомꙋ правилꙋ ыхъ ыхъ Апⷭлъ”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 82(99) i 30(47). Ст ҃ 193 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 114–115 (132–133); Номоканонъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, f. 56. the most fundamental principles and procedures for the verification of priestly candidates were disregarded even though they were clearly laid down in ancient Christian collections of laws: Понеже бо преꙋмножисѧ всѧкїй грѣхꙿ паче пѣска морскагѡ, и безаконїѧ превозыдоша главꙋ, привниде же и дерзновенїе безмѣрное, а стꙋдъ и Бг҃обоѧзнїе далече ѿбѣже, ꙗкѡ многимъ противꙋ Канонѡмъ и совѣсти дерзнꙋти на степень сщ҃енства воскочити ради корысти и тщеславїѧ, но по Апⷭлꙋ, сицевыⷯ и слава вꙿ стꙋдъ ихꙿ. Кꙿ семꙋ же и злата и маммѡны ради по своєй имъ воли и невѣждествѣ раздрѣшати грѣхи неꙋдобъ рѣшимыѧ, єже 194 бо погибель имъ ꙗкоже и Симѡнꙋ волхвꙋ. Testimonies about the problems concerning the sale and pur chase of church offices remained, naturally, in moral teaching and in polemics, which brings us an exaggerated picture of the decline of discipline and morality among the clergy. Stavrovetskyi in his sermon on the Nativity of John the Baptist not only presented the ideal bishop personified by the famous Church Fathers’ service, but also the sad image of his contemporary priests. He criticized them multiplying not “divine talents” but the “devilish pride,” greed and the insatiable riches of mercenaries who gained or-dination through bribery, in order to further multiply their material goods, and he wept for over the plight of the faithful suffering from poverty: Нн҃ѣ же не сїа азъ зрю въ времена сїа рыдателꙿныа, оувы мнѣ, пръвѣе бо мирꙋ и прелести єго бꙋде рабъ и грѣхꙋ слꙋжитель посиⷯ приходи(тъ) ꙗко бы Бг҃ѫ слꙋжити, не ꙗко по достоиⷩствꙋ ставаєтсѧ слꙋгою Бж҃им, но несытыⷨ и проклѧтыⷨ сребролюбїеⷨ похищаєтъ санъ ст҃ый, не ꙗко оумнѡжити таланꙿтъ Бж҃ій и распространити хвалꙋ Бж҃ію, но ꙗкобы сꙋгꙋбо и трегꙋбо свое злато с лихвою прїємъ. И тако ѡбѡгащаютсѧ подꙿ оубогиⷨ Хм҃ъ, чесого немѣли въ мирѣ подꙿ хитрыⷨ дїаволомъ. Сами обогатившисѧ нищиⷯ млⷭтнею, ѡныхъ бѣдныⷯ оставили вꙿ наготѣ, въ гладѣ и жаⷤдѣ, скитатисѧ по селаⷯ оустроиша иⷯ просителей малой одробины хлѣба и разꙿдраной ризы, просто рекши послали ихъ ѱѡвъ дражнити. Сами же въ всѣхъ мира сего сластехъ преизꙿобилѧютъ, 194 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Преѡсщ҃еныⷨ Архїепⷭпѡⷨ, и Митрополітѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезныⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, Прпⷣбнѣйшиⷨ Архїмаⷩдритѡⷨ, Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ Игꙋменѡмъ…(Номоканонъ, Киевъ 1624); [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 106. ѡточілисѧ тꙋнеꙗдꙿцами, ласкателꙿми, мꙋчителꙿми, даже тыи снѣдаютъ трꙋды нищихъ. Прочее же помолꙿчꙋ и слезами затрꙋ, таковыи нн҃ѣ сꙋтъ оу насъ наставницы, иже не хвалꙋ Бж҃ію розмножаютъ, но бѣсоⷡскꙋю горꙿдыню.195 Stavrovetskyi’s harsh tone, who, in many of his teachings in the Homiliary Gospel spared no words of complaint towards the clergy, recalled the accusations made several years earlier towards bishops in the polemical Threnos. Meletii Smotrytskyi, hiding under the pseud-onym Theophil Ortholog, called his contemporary clergymen mer-cenaries, blind leaders and even predators and lions devouring their own herd.196 He chastised them for their lack of teachings, but also for corrupting and invading God’s house, being “motivated by gold and silver.”197 He warned those who bought and sold the gifts of the Holy Spirit that material goods would be the cause of their downfall. Niestetyż mnie [Matce-Cerkwi] nienasyconym łakomcom wopiekę podanej. Biada i wam ktzy przedajecie i wam ktzy kupujecie dar Ducha św. srebro wasze będzie wam na zgubę […] Biada prze-klętym waszym Symonom, od którychście na te urzędy Duchowne poświęcenie wzięli, którzy wiem, że nie dla godności waszej ani też za usiłowaniem prośby braciej ręce na was włożyli, ale niezbędnego łakomstwa powodem dla chciwej pieniędzy miłości, których pragnąc pobłądzili od prawdziwej wiary i uwikłali siebie w wiele boleści.198 Smotrytskyi’s charges were mainly addressed to the vladykas re-maining in union with the Catholic Church, but the fact is that this work, destroyed by King Sigismund III Vasa, was extremely popular among the Orthodox199 could only strengthen its positive teaching and disciplinary message and influence improvement in the functioning of the Church, which was reborn in terms of its hierarchical structures ten years later. 195 Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє на Pжⷣтво Cт҃го Іоаⷩна, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part 2, Рохмановъ 1619, ff. 130v-131.196 Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament…, Wilno 1610, ff. 11-16 (27-32). 197 Ibidem, f. 13 (29). 198 Ibidem, ff. 13v-14 (30). 199 D.A. Frick, Introduction, [in:] Collected Works of Meletij Smotryc`kyj, p. XIII. Kasian Sakovych (1578–1647), already a Roman Catholic by then, excelled in the polemics of the mid-seventeenth century, investigating abuses and shortcomings in the Orthodox and Uniate Churches. In Epanorthosis he described serious violations of the mandatory rule of non-payment for ordinations, claiming that there were cases of refusal to consecrate worthy candidates because of their poverty. At times, a bishop ordained a few priests for one parish in order to earn money, causing confusion: “choć sobie łby pourywajcie, bylem ja od święcenia zarwał.”200 The author of Epanorthosis claimed that no sacrament was so often paid for “jako kapłaństwo jest świetokupne i przedajne” and, therefore, he cautioned the participants in this process, meaning the vladykas and candidates, against such sinful conduct and the sanctions they ought to face: Ale też niech wiedzą i władykowie i popowie, że wielkiemu prze-kleństwu za takie symoniackie święcenia albo raczej przedawanie ikupowanie swieszczenstwa podlegają, bo tak mówi sobór karta-geński can.4. i drugie synody. Iż któryby episkop po mzdi to jest za zapłatę na stan duchowny ordynował, świecił takowy episkop ma być degradowany i ten którego ordynował, iż zdadzą się powiada, łaskę Bożą przedawać. Mają ojcowie władykowie majętności do wladyctw, z których mogą mieć przystojne wychowanie, a nie symonij.201 This problem mainly concerned the fees enforced by bishops, but, as the polemist pointed out, this crime also affected the rest of the clergy, for whom the vladyka was to be the role-model of good con- duct, a guardian of the faith, a teacher. Material benefits, according to Kasian, were also obtained by other participants in the ordination, because the candidate was forced to ”okupować się spowiednikowi, diakonowi, pisarzowi, śpiewakom, ale też kucharzom i woźnicom [...].”202 Another kind of abuse resulting from the dishonesty of the 200 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa…, Krak 1642, p. 58. 201 Ibidem. 202 Ibidem, p. 56. Bishop Innokentii Vynnytskyi tried to limit the practice and prepared a special letter specifying maximum fees for masses, blessings and other services; text cf. Іннокентій Винницкій, Всѣмъ въобецъ и кождомꙋ зособна, комꙋ ѡ томъ вѣдати належитъ з дꙋховного и свѣцкого станꙋ людемъ, а ѡсобливе hierarchies was noted by Smotrytskyi, who wrote about priests re-moved from the ministry who have been paying for the restoration of their hieratic dignity.203 Regarding the simony, Sakovych exposed the “domino” effect, which consisted in abuses performed by a bishop that were then imitated by a priest in his own parish: [...] drugi pop niebędzie dziecięcia krzcić ażby koniecznie chłopek by nauboższy krzciny sprawił, żeby tam z popadią i z popieniaty dobrze się najadł i napił albo upił. Także i z sakramentem do chorego niepójdzie aż zapłacą i spowiadać darmo nie chce mówiąc żem ja to dobrze Władyce popowstwo osolił zaczym, iż a maioribus incepta est iniquitas. Władyka popa złupił, pop też chłopa łupi nie potrzeba się dziwować.204 Trading gifts had to be a problem, since Meletius Pigas joined the discussion on the immoral behavior of the Ruthenian clergy a few decades earlier. At the end of the 16th century, the Alexandrian patriarch who became an ecumenical patriarch sought to eliminate the various abuses in the Kiev Metropolitanate region in his letters, and also banned charging fees for the sacraments: “Священникамъ запрещено брать деньги за какае либо таинство.”205 пречестнымъ ѡтцемъ намѣстникомъ, честнымъ презвитеромъ, богоизбраннымъ дїѧкономъ і всемꙋ церковномꙋ причтꙋ, также правовѣрнымъ брацтвомъ, и парохїѧномъ всѣмъ въ діѡцезїи нашей Премыской изобрѣтающимсѧ, намъ въ Дꙋхꙋ Свѧтомъ возлюбленнымъ и благопослꙋшнимъ сыномъ при благословленїи архїєрейскомъ до вѣдомости доносимъ, [in:] В. Щурат, Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї Западно-Рускої Церкви XVII в., Жовква 1907, pp. VI–VIII. 203 “Dzisiejszy zaś moi biskupowie i arcybiskupowie, wszytkę tę apostolską naukę [1 Tim 3: 5; Tit, 1] za się zarzuciwszy, nogami jej nieporządku, chciwością srebra zaślepieni podeptali. Ten tego czasu mądry kapłan i dowcipny, który to ma zczego mógłby i biskupowi swe od spraw cerkiewnych oddalony udzielić, aby był znowu przywrócony”, Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament…, Wilno 1610, f. 14 (30). 204 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa…, Krak 1642, p. 58. 205 И.И. Малышевський, Александрійскій патриархъ Мелетій Пигасъ..., vol. 2, Киeв 1872, p. 87. On the measures taken by the patriarch to improve the re-ligious situation in the Kievan Metropolitanate, cf. A. Borkowski, Patriarchaty Wschodu…, pp. 227–330. One of the first Ruthenian reformers who made appeals to cease these practices was Yozafat Kuntsevych, introducing the corresponding provisions in the Principles for Priests, which became the basis of the Polotsk council’s teachings in the eparchy. According to the ninth rule, a priest could not charge fees from a person who was to be baptized, a penitent for confession or for receiving the Eucharist, although it was acceptable to receive a voluntary donation for these ministries. Yet if a sacramental minister did not receive a donation, he was obliged, without comment, to administer the sacraments: Cвященники не можуть нічого вимагати від вірних за Хрещення, Сповідь, Святе Причастя, благословення, похорон чи які-небудь свої послуги; мають приймати тільки те, що їм жертвують. Коли б, однак, хтосьне мав нічого, що міг би пожертвувати, священник без слова, радо повинен виконати відповідну послугу.206 Metropolitan Yosyf Velamin Rutskyi also fought against simony in the Uniate Church, and the ban on paying for sacraments was con-cluded in the resolutions of the First Uniate Synod in Kobrin (1626): Симоніи албосвятокупства яко в посвещеню свещенников, так и дійствованю таин от свещенников аби не било, то єст cе не торговали, ялешто колвек хто принесет, аби вдячне приймовали.207 The ordinances determining canonical sanctions for demanding fees for the sacraments by priests were found in small nomocanons printed by the Orthodox.208 206 [Йосафат Кунцевич],Правила і конституції написані святим Йосафатом для своїх священників, [in:] Святий Йосафат Кунцевич. Документи щодо беатифікації, transl. Й. Романик, Жовква 2010, p. 302. 207 CоборКобринський року 1626 місяця Августа 26 дня, [in:] Ю. Федорів, Кобринський Синод 1626 р., “Богословія” 1974, no. 38, p. 77; cf. also С. Сеник, Берестейська унія і світське духовенство: наслідки унії у перших десятиліттях, [in:] Берестейська унія та внутрішнє життя Церкви y XVII столітті. Матеріали Четвертих “Берестейських читань, Львів, Луцьк, Київ, 2–6 жовтня 1995 р.,ed. Б. Ґудзяк, О. Турій, Львів 1997, p. 59. 208 Cf. e.g. “Свѧщенникъ аще поищетъ златицꙋ, и ли что ино, Причастїа ради, да извръжетъсѧ, по двадесѧтъ третемꙋ Правилꙋ, єже въ Трꙋллѣ”, “Сщ ҃ыхъДарѡвъ,съистѧзанїємъпрїємѧйзлато,илисребро,илиꙗйца,илииноєчто, Ст҃ енникъ за причащенїє The program for renewal implemented through the printing of appropriate sources and the publication of moral instructions was important. Nevertheless, the dissemination of knowledge about the obligatory rules was not enough. According to Sofia Senyk, the first thing was to fight against the factors that led to violations of the law, and therefore with the parish’s dependence on lay patrons and the poverty of the clergy209, which then educators were aware of.210 “Рѫки скоро ни на кого же не възлагай” – The Responsibility of the Consecrator Future bishops were warned against accepting material benefits from candidates, since it was necessary to first make a good assessment of the moral and intellectual qualities and knowledge of future deacons and priests. Consecrators reminded each elect of these principles in the instructions preached just after the act of nomination: Вѣждъ же сіе, яко епископу подобаетъ судити, Божественныя писанія толковати, посвящати, рукополагати, жертвиприносити, люди учити и Евангеліе нелѣностно проповѣдати.Да не лѣнивъ убо въ сихъ и унилъ обращешися, или нерадя во единомъ коемждо отъвсѣхъ тебѣ подобающихъ дѣлъ, и нинакого-же испитав прежде, аще достоинъ єсть, священническаго сана, житіемъ, ученіемъ и благими нравы да не возложиши. Такожде да извержетъсѧ, ибо лютѣйщїй сѧдъ поⷣиметъ нежели Іюда, иже на хꙋдѣй цѣнѣ Гд продаде”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 72 (89), 122 (139). 209 С. Сеник, Берестейська унія і світське духовенство…, p. 62. The scholar notes that candidates for the priesthood incurred debts to pay estate owners for introducing them to the bishop, Ibidem, p. 61. In addition, priests had to pay taxes, including costs of accommodation for the stationed troops. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the Eastern clergy was exempted from the duty in 1659. Ihor Mytsko’s contribution to the discussion concerning the article, cf. Берестейська унія та внутрішне життя Церкви…, p. 73. 210 The problem was tackled by Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi, cf. M. Kuczyńska, Ruska homiletyka…., pp. 158–159. The situation of the Ruthenian clergy, overburdened with taxes, was also described by polemicists, cf. М. Возняк, Історія української літератури, vol. 1, Львів 1992, pp. 481–482. ҃ а и накойждо священнаго сословія степени скоро да не возводиши. Двоженцовъ, убійцовъ ииныхъ всѣхъ безчинниковъ, ихъ же божественныхъ Апостолъ и святыхъ отецъ правила возбраняютъ, рукополагати нинакожо дерзнеши. Отъ ересиже симоніатскія весма да соблюдаеши себе и отъ нея да удаляешися.211 The hierarch who ordained was responsible for the preparation of the clergy, and the laying on of hands should be a testimony of the orderly procedure of the electoral process. The seventeenth-cen-tury legal records reminded them of this obligation. For example, in the section on the rules for bishops (Regulae Episcoporum) in the Constitutions, Metropolitan Rutskyi in the chapter entitled The Obli-gations aBishop Has Regarding Diocesan Clergy included provisions for prohibiting making hasty decisions and the obligation to thoroughly examine future priests.212 The teachings during those times also indicated the criteria by which candidates should be evaluated, and we will return to a discussion on these in the course of our reflection. When they were set, Paul’s Letter to Timothy was most frequently cited, containing a warning to consecrators against undertaking a rash and not validated in a moral sense decision to consecrate (1 Tim 5: 22). The truth contained in this apostolic letter was often repeated by the Fathers of the Church, and following their footsteps seventeenth-century moralists by printing and abundant citing the patristic works, including numerous references to valuable literature. This Bible verse was made part of a reminder dedicated to the clergymen in the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments: “[...] Епⷭкпи таⷦ заⷰного ѹрѧдꙋ тѧжаⷬ ни на коⷢ ледаѧко вꙿскладати не маю(тъ), паметаючи на ѡное страшное, што Павеⷧ с(вѧтий): вꙿ посланïи мови(тъ): Рꙋки скоро невоⷥлага(й) ни на когоⷤ, ниⷤ приобща(й)сѧ чꙋжиⷯ грѣсеⷯ.”213 211 Священникъ святительский (Освященник). It is a sixteenth-century pontificale from the collection of the Volhynian Seminary, quoted after: A. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., p. 359. 212 M. Szegda, Działalność prawno-organizacyjna metropolity Józefa IV…, p. 158. 213 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 140–141. In Dialogue on the Priesthood, John Chrysostom extensively com-mented on this verse about bishop’s responsibility for future priests and encouraged them to attentively listen to the apostle’s words: Послѹшай что оучн҃кꙋ рече бл҃женый Павелъ Тімоѳеоѵ прⷭномꙋ чадꙋ и възлюбленномꙋ: “Рѫки скоро ни на кого же не възлагай, ни же приобщайсѧ грѣхѡмъ чоуждиⷨ.” (...) На толікⷤꙋ же слоужбѫ хотѧщимъ кого причитати, простѣ и ꙗкоже прилѫчисѧ, аще онъ сици оугодно бѫдетъ противꙋ благодати или противꙋ ненависти дроугыхъ [...].214 The above issues were undertaken by John Chrysostom in hom ilies, primarily in those elaborating upon the Letters of St. Paul. Excerpts were found from the mentioned set of comments grouped by topic and were included in 30 chapters in the Lviv volume im-mediately after the text of the Dialogue on the Priesthood. The major issue of this section was the question of selecting worthy candidates for the clerical state. According to the title given by the compilers of the Lviv brotherhood, it was important for the renewal of clerical formation and should therefore be a useful source of information for representatives of this state: Тогожде иже въ ст҃ыхъ оц҃а нашего Іоанна Златооустаго архіепⷭкпа Кѡнстантинѡполѧ, ѡ тѣхъжде, ихъ же ѡ сщ҃енꙿствѣ въспоминаеⷮ ѿ бесѣдꙿ паче же ѿ ꙗже на пѡсланїа Павла Апⷭла, ꙗже сѹтъ сщ҃енꙿствꙋ прилична, въ общꙋю плъзꙋ сщ҃енꙿствѹющимъ избранныѧ еклѡги.215 A bishop’s responsibilities when selecting priests were mainly dealt with in the sixth large section that indicates the scope of undertaken issues entitled Ꙗко велїє єстъ сщ҃енство, и мнѡгаго требоуєтъ опаства, да бы достойнѣ сіє оуправлѧти и како подобаєтъ избиранїє творити на не216 and the seventh section Ꙗко сѫдъ подъємлетъ Ст҃ль не искоусныхъ поставлѧѧ.217 The eighth section contains similar recommendations for 214 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ(Лвовъ 1614), pp. 118–119, Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, p. 104. 215 Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ…, Лвовъ 1614, pp. 211–399. 216 Ibidem, pp. 241–245. 217 Ibidem, pp. 246–247. Yosyf Shumlanskyi, A Mirror for a Review and Better Understanding of the Holy Faith, Lviv 1687 consecrators, describing the appropriate predispositions of the men to be ordained as deacons.218 John Chrysostom when commenting on the biblical verse from the Letter of St. Paul (1 Tim 5: 22) explained to future consecrators the importance of the prohibition of “hastily laying on of hands”, meaning the reckless ordination of priests: Рѫки скоро ни на когоже не възлагай ниже приобъщайсѧ грѣхѡмъ чюждимъ. Сице велїє єстъ свѣдительство, аки аще бы гл҃алъ свѣдителѧ Ба҃ призывай и Сн҃а Єго и рабѡвъ Єго, ꙗко заповѣдахъ ти, предъ ними тебѣ завѣщаю. Ꙋстрашаєтъ Тімоѳеѧ. Таже сиѧ рекій, єже всѣхъ найпаче съмрътнꙋю ранꙋ съдѣловающеє бѣ наведе, и єже найпаче съмꙋщаєтъ Цр҃ ковь, си речъ бываємый хіротѡнїй. Рѫцѣ бо, рече, скоро, ни на когоже не възлагай ни же приобщайсѧ грѣхомъ чюжимъ. Что єстъ скоро. Не абїє ѿ пръваго искꙋса, ни же ѿ втѡраго, ниже ѿ третїаго, но мнѡгократнѣ разꙿсмотривъ и съ опасенїємъ истѧзавъ. Не бо безъ бѣдна єстъ вещъ сіа, ѡ съгрѣшенныхъ бо нимъ и ты сѫдъ подъимеши, иже начальство подавый, такожде и ѡ предваршихъ грѣсехъ оставивый бо прежнѧѧ грѣхи безъвременнѣ повиненъ бѫдетъ и хотѧщимъ ѿ него быти, ꙗко ты виновенъ сый и преминоувшимъ ꙗко не оставивъ плакати сиѧ, ниже въ оумиленїє ѡ нихъ прїйти, ꙗкоже бо 219 исправленнѡмъ приобщаєшисѧ сице и съгрѣшеннѡмъ. Access to these valuable admonitions by St. John Chrysostom con-cerning, among others, excellence in the priesthood widened in the 20s due to the fact that the Homilies on Paul’s 14 Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles were published in the Kievan Pechersk typography in its full assortment.220 The verse in 1 Tim 5: 22 could not be overlooked by Innokentii Gizel, the author of the first Ukrainian printed treatise on moral and pastoral theology. In a separate section devoted to the sacrament of the priesthood (Догматъ 6. ѡ тайнѣ сщ҃енства), just like his predecessors, 218 Како подобаєтъ и прѡчїихъ клирикꙿ избиранїє творити, и сихъ добродѣтели такожде истѧзовати, [in:] Ibidem, pp. 247–249. 219 Ibidem, pp. 246–247. 220 Cf. [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623; Idem, Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на Дѣѧніѧ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Киевъ 1624. he obliged consecrators to act responsibly in choosing their future priests: Пріємлющій же сїю Тайнꙋ, да бꙋдетъ Правилнѡ рꙋкоположенный. Подобаєт вꙿ немъ мнѡга смотрѣти свойства: аще нѣсть каѧ возбранѧющаѧ по Правилѡмꙿ ст҃ымꙿ препона, да не согрѣшаєтъ тѧжкѡ, и рꙋкополагаємый и рꙋкополагающїй. Ѡ чесѡмъ наказꙋєтъ рꙋкополагающагѡ Апⷭлъ: “Рꙋки скоро не возлагай нинакого же, неже прїобщайсѧ чꙋждымъ грѣхомъ”.221 In archimandrite Innokentii’s treatise, the issue of the proper verification of future priests was the hierarchy’s responsibility and once again this topic returned in the penitential part of the work. In a separate section on sins in the clerical state, there were special issues developed for the consecrator’s examination of conscious. Some of the questions concerned not by accident the integrity of the priests they were to ordain: “Во первыхъ єпⷭкопы или коили бо архїєрее долъжни испытовати вꙿ совѣсти своей грѣховъ таковыⷯ: [...] Аще рꙋкоположенїѧ, и власти дх҃вныѧ, подаютъ недостойнымъ?”222 This popular Bible verse used in teachings was also quoted by polemists. Meletii Smotrytskyi in Threnos argued that the conduct of contemporary bishops is a far cry from the list of the virtues outlined in St. Paul’s letters to his disciples. In addition, it explicitly negates the ap-ostolic call to conscientiously consider candidates for the clerical state: Otóż mam pasterze i nauczyciele. Otóż mam wodze i mistrze.Sami od głodu zdychają, a drugich karmić się podejmują. Sami olsnęli,adrugich wodzami się tuszą. Sami na obie nodze chramią, a drugimw podparcie się stawią. Sami będąc nieukami adrugich nauczać sięważą. O nieporządnego, o przewrotnego, o niezbożnego rąk wkładania obyczaju. Ręki na nikogo nie wkładaj rychło,Apostoł mówi, ani bądźuczestnikiem grzechów cudzych.223 221 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ…, Киевъ 1669, p. 139 (91). 222 Ibidem, pp. 382–383 (212–213). 223 Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣ to jest Lament…, Wilno 1610, f. 14 (30). “Через мою єпископію ставленниковъ ми не ставити” – A Bishop’s Range of Authority The order of ordaining the clergy indicated by the Church’s canon-ical-legal documents was not applicable in Kiev Metropolitanate with-out prior regulating the issue of proper way of gaining the episcopacy. The problem faced by the Ruthenian reformers in the era of the revival was not only the implementation of electoral procedures, but also closely related with these regulations precise determination of the scope of a bishop’s authority and responsibilities. Although this issue was also governed by canonical law from the earliest times, bishops have often failed to follow the rule written in the kormchaia books, limiting their governance and supervisory only to the territory of their eparch,224 which essentially they should not leave.225 In the Ruthenian territory, there was an unambiguous oath con- cerning this order. The bishop first made a promise of immediate response to every call by the Metropolitan of Kiev. Next he made a promise on using the bishop’s proxies (including the ordination of clergy and blessing the antimension) within his area of jurisdiction. This part contained the characteristic promise in Kiev Metropolitanate of not carrying out “any order in another Orthodox region except in the eparchy entrusted (to the bishop)”:226 224 Title 1, Chapter 21 of the Ephrem Kormchaia “О поставлѧющихъ не подъ собою соуштаꙗ въ градѣхъ или въ епархиꙗхъ” contains references to the 35th, Apostolic Canon, canons of ecumenical councils: of Ephesus (8th) and Nicaea II (3rd), as well as those of local synods in Antioch (13th and 22nd). The canon of the Second Council of Nicaea concerned another issue, that of ordination by the will of sec-ular lords bypassing the electoral procedures, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 9. Other synods, too, dealt with the question of the scope of bishops’ power, cf. e.g. 6th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and 15th Canon of the Council of Sardica. 225 The ban was dealt with in the 14th and 15th Apostolic Canons, 15th Canon of the First Council of Nicaea, 5th and 10th Canons of the Council of Chalcedon, 17th and 18th Canons of the Quinisextum Council as well as other canons dealing with the unlawful change of eparchies by bishops and parishes by presbyters. 226 These additional formulas were not included e.g. in the Moscow versions of the oath, cf. М. Ваврик, До історії єпископської присяги…, p. 378. [...] через мою єпископію ставленников ми не ставити, ні діякона, ні попа, ні протопопа, ні ігумена, ні архімандрита, ні антимінсов не давати, іли святительскоє что сотворити у чужей епископії, і во всіх властех іх, ні в моєго господина владики (імярек) митрополита київського і всея русі повіті, ні іная діла церковная не ділати ми, кромі єпископскоі данной ми, господином і владикою моїм (імярек) митрополитом київським і всея русі, илиодшедшу ми которую сторону чужую, не піти ми обідні безповелінія митрополита, во чиїм преділі нe буду.227 Those words added to the standardized oath were also placed in fifteenth-century installation documents (the so-called stavlennaia gramota) issued by Kievan Metropolitans for newly ordained bishops.228 Evidence that these competency laws were ignored by dioceses in the 16th and 17th centuries was, among others, recorded in discus sions by polemists and efforts to ensure that regulating the situation be incorporated into new legal documents or synodal constitutions. Jurisdictional conflicts between bishops were sometimes caused by metropolitans making double elections in one eparchy. Such an accusation against Kievan Metropolitan Onesyfor Divochka (? –1589) was made by the secular representatives of the Lviv Brotherhood in 1585.229 Thus, excess of their episcopal power was often the result of rivalry between the vladykas. These conflicts intensified in the days after the 227 Kievan oath from the hand-written sixteenth-century Euchologion Illirico 15, quoted after: М. Марусин, Чини Святительських..., p. 35; abbreviated version of the oath, cf. М. Ваврик, До історії єпископської присяги..., pp. 367–369 (additional formula, p. 368), reprint of the oath from a sixteenth-century Archieratikon available in: О. Лотоцький, Український Архієратикон, pp. 162–166 (the formula p. 163). 228 “И такоже поминати ємоу о всѣм своє исповѣданїє, якоже ся исповѣдалъ пред Богом и пред избранными єго аг҃ лы и прѣд нашим смиренїєм, атакоже ничого цр҃ ковнаго дѣла не оучинити ни въ моєй митрополїи ани въ иныхъ єп҃҃҃ спїах кромѣ данноє ємоу єпспїи от Бга и от нашего смѣренїа”, quoted after: М. Ваврик, До історії єпископської присяги…, p. 378. 229 “Наставилось епископовъ много, на одну столицу по два, за тымъ и порядокъзгибъ”, Proceres terrarum haliciensis, leopoliensis, premisliensis etc. Fidei graecae con-queruntur coram metropolita kiovensi de misero statu ecclesiae ruthenae rogantque atquemonent eum, ut ecclesiam sibi commissam iuxta canones ss. patrum et iustitiam regat(Varsavia 14 februarii 1585 ), [in:] Monumenta…, vol. 1, no. LXXV, p. 105. Union in Brest due to the existence of two hierarchical structures dating back to 1620 in the Eastern Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.230 Kasian Sakovych wrote about breaking the rules concerning limit-ing bishop’s authority in Epanorthosis: “Bywa i to, że czasem [bishop] do cudzej diecesiej i parafij poświęci [księdza].”231 This occurred be-cause bishops ordained from clergy by vladykas were consecrating the antimensionsand churches, and thus defining the boundaries of their jurisdictions, but not always according to the boundaries assigned to them. Consecrated antimensions were particularly the real symbols of hierarchical authority over the entire diocese. As the polemicist cunningly wrote, even if the liturgical altar cloths did not require changing, quite often the new bishop, whether Orthodox or Uniate, when accepting an eparchy, blessed his own “żeby się jego władza znaczyła.”232 The illegal ordination of the clergy, as well as blessing liturgical altar cloths outside their diocese, was a way for hierarchs from foreign jurisdictions to manifest their power and express their expansive policies. Although these issues were clearly regulated by church law, conflicts and abuses were occurring.233 This is probably the reason why these principles were so often mentioned in synodal documents. The documents that have survived as a result of the work of the Brest Synod of 1590 contain the following statement, with an additional ban on accepting popes in foreign dioceses and administering the sacraments outside of their own eparchy: […] каждый в парафѣи своеи один другому жаден з нас в парафѣю ничим вступоватися, в презвитери и в диякони и в под(д) 230 Examples, cf. A. Mironowicz, Prawosławie i unia za panowania Jana Kazimierza, Białystok 1997, pp. 215–216, 243–244; Idem, Sylwester Kossow…, pp. 80–82. 231 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣabo Perspektywa..., Krak 1642, p. 57. Cf. also above mentined fragments from this work, fn. 200–202. 232 Ibidem, pp. 49–50. 233 This was how, for example, the Patriarch of Moscow Nikon manifested his ambitions, when, after the Treaty of Pereiaslav, he would ordain bishops and priests within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Kiev Sylvester Kossov, cf. e.g. A. Mironowicz, Prawosławie i unia…., pp. 127-130; Idem, Sylwester Kossow…, pp. 95–96 . якони в чужую парафѣю посвещати и становити, церквеи светити,антимисовъ давати не маем, также и на потребы ездити венчатикрестити и ни жадных справ дѣйствовати отнюд в чужомъ предѣлене маемъ, и попов чужих предѣловъ приимовати без отпустноеграмоты и благословеня звыклогов правилех светых описанои, илюбезные презвитери отнюд ставити и совершити не маем […].234 The attempt to organize these issues is illustrated by the ordinance that the parish priests arriving at synods were required to show proof, so they brought the antimensions and the so-called installation documents, received on the day of their chirotony, confirming the proper course of ordination and assignment to a given parish. There are documents that prove the special involvement of Metropolitan Piotr Mohyla in restoring this disciplinary and organizational order.235 The bishop of Lviv, Yosyf Shumlanskyi, was no less a zealous hi-erarch. He issued a printed decree ordering checks using protopopes (deans or elder presbyters), appointed by the bishop, not only for the priestly documents, but also of the liturgiarions, euchologions and parish metric book records: Кождый протопопа нехай своихъ свѧщенниковъ презентꙋєтъ на соборѣ помѣстномъ єпископскомъ, а свꙗщенници нехай показꙋютъ Требники, 234 Michael Metropolita Kioviensis et alii episcopi in Synodo Berestensi considentes decernunt, in futurum semel in anno ad synodum in civitate Berest et non in Belz, sicut prius decreverant, convenire, ut dioeceses suas iuxta statuta ecclesiastica administrare et greges sibi commissas iuxta canones et legem divinam facilius gubernare et pravas consvetudines extirpare possint, [in:] Documenta Unionis Berestensis eiusque auctorum (1590-1600), ed. P. Athanasium G. Welykyj, Romae 1970, no. 1, pp. 6–7. 235 С. Голубев, Киевский митрополит..., vol. 2, p. 494. There is a surviving certifi cate issued by the metropolitan to a priest whose installation documents raised doubts. He was suspended in his ministry until the matter was cleared at the synod, cf. Грамота кіевскаго митрополита Петра Могилы, разрѣшающая Болячевскому священнику (ставленническая грамота коего возбуджала сомнѣнія) священнодѣствіе до времени перваго митрополитанскаго собора, на судъ котораго означенный священникъ обязываетъся лично явиться (1633), [in:] С. Голубев, Киевский митрополит..., vol. 2, Приложенія, no. XIII, pp. 52–53. According to Golubiev, the case was successfully resolved and the priest obtained the relevant documents confirming his right to continue in his ministry in the parish, Ibidem, no. XIII, pp. 53–54. Слꙋжебники, антимисы, листи становыє, метрики, а єсли который не маєтъ зъ собою, теды ѡтецъ протопопа чистою совѣстїю маєтъ зезнати, єсли 236 мают метрики и все належноє. The preserved constitution of the Lviv Eparchial Council of 1699 illustrates the aspirations of Lviv’s bishop to remove the shepherds ordained by consecrators from foreign jurisdictional areas and those who did not have a blessing from their own vladykas.237 Under the synod’s control, the antimensionconfirmed the bishop’s permission to celebrate the liturgy, which according to old practice was given to a newly ordained priest238 as described by Theodore Balsamon in his comments on Trullan’s 31st Canon.239 That is why the teachings on the scope of a bishop’s authority also appeared in the works discussing the conditions of properly preparing for service at the altar. Tarasii Zemka wrote in his preface to the Kiev Sluzhebnyk in 1629 about priests who were allowed to officiate in the Eucharist, but only in the case of valid ordination, and therefore one who was ordained by the bishop from the appropriate jurisdictional area: 236 cf. Іосифъ Шꙋмлꙗнский, Ꙗкосѧ маютъ Ѿц҃еве протопопове, а ꙗк сщ҃енници и весъ клиръ дх҃овный вꙿ порѧдкахъ црковнихъ заховати҃, (Ꙋнев 1680), p. 3. 237 “Тїє зас, которїє знайдꙋютсѧ въ епархіи нашой, бꙋдꙋчи ѡ неналежитых рꙋкоположенными пастыревъ, а ꙋсиновленіꙗ нашего не восприꙗли, тих всѣхъ клꙗтвѣ Свꙗтихъ и Богоносныхъ Ѿецъ, преподаємъ, донелѣже не полꙋчат нашего благословеніꙗ”, Упис у книзі Львівського духовного суду “діянь” та конституції єпархіального собору 1669 року, reprint of the document in: І. Скочиляс, Собори Львівської…, p. 99. 238 It seems that the custom is older than that of the handing of a sluzhebnyk to new priests, which began to be mentioned in the sixteenth century, but, unfortunately, the scholar did not specify to which period the practice in question applied, М.Марусин, Чини Святительських …, p. 65. 239 И. Дмытревскій, Историческое, догматическое и таинственное изъясненіе на литургію, Мосвка 1856, p. 95; in Polish the commentary reads as follows: “An-timinsy przygotowywane są przez sprawującego jurysdykcję w diecezji Arcypasterza, na moment poświęcenia Cerkwi, aby były one położone na świętych ołtarzach w świątyniach, aby poprzez to było zrozumiałym, że posługa kapłańska jest wypełniana za zgodą Biskupa”, quoted after: M. Filimoniuk, Historia an-tyminsa a Boska Liturgia, “Wiadomości Prawosławnej Diecezji Białostocko-Gdańskiej” 2008, part. 1 (55), p. 12; cf. also А. Петровский, “Учителное извѣстіе” при славянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 236, part 1, p. 931. “[Євхаристїа] съверъшаєтꙿсѧ, ѿ Іереа ѿ своего ємꙋ єпⷭпа законнѣ хиротонїсанаго.”240 The teachings on the Eucharist in the first part of the Great Trebnyk (1646) discussed the issue most extensively. Petro Mohyla outlined the silhouette of the celebrant, who not only had to be properly disposed to lead the celebration, but above all properly ordained by bishop in strict accordance to the rules: “Слꙋжитель своиственный, Страшной, Превеликой, Предивной и Прⷭтой Тайнѣ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃а нашего Іис Хстъ ҃҃естъ самый точїю Сщ҃енникъ Правилнѣ и Чиннѡ по степенемъ меншимъ и вѧщшимꙿ на сщ҃енство ѿ Єпⷭпа възведеный и рꙋкоположеный [...].”241 The term “properly” indicates a valid consecration that is in accord with the canons. Thus, in the cause of an ordination, the hierarch was extremely important, since the right to administer the sacrament of ordination was reserved for a bishop in his diocese. This principle was reminded, among others, by the authors of the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, citing the 35th Apostolic Canon: “Епкⷭпъ въ своеⷨ тоⷧко предѣле неха(й) поⷭтавлѧетꙿ на сщ҃енство, ꙗко мовѧть Правила С(вѧтыхъ): Апⷭлъ (35 и 29): Непоставлѧти ѿ чꙋждаго предѣла, ни вꙿ предѣле, иначе(й) чинѧчи, да изꙿвеⷬже(т)сѧ”.242 Yozafat Kuntsevych, probably one of the authors of this work, in his own hand-written Constitutions prepared for priests in Polotsk Eparchy, also referred to the findings contained in this canon and in the articles of local synods in Antioch and Sardyka (confusing the numbers of the canons): „Священники не повинні приймати Тайни Священства від іншого Єпископа, атільки від того, в чиїй єпархії у них будуть церкви. Забороняє це 35 Апостольський Канон і Атіохійський Собор (Канон 5) іСардикійський Собор (Канон 17).”243 240 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 5v. 241 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней...(Киевъ 1646), p. 219. 242 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ковныⷯ..., Вилно ca. 1618, p. 139; Canon 29 mentioned in the Teaching concerns simony. 243 Правила і конституції написані святим Йосафатом…, p. 307. In fact, as Yosafat Romanyk notes, the matters are dealt with in the canons of the Synod of Antioch: 13th and 22nd, as well as the 15th Canon of the Synod of Sardica, cf. Ibidem, fn. 156. The binding canonical regulations related to the bishop’s jurisdiction written in the kormchaia books, and next printed in the no-mocanons,244 in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were recalled by the authors of the polemic literature. This was usually done by the Orthodox who were proving to the Uniates, that their decision to adopt the act of uniting the Ruthenian Church with Rome, violated Church canons. With this goal in mind, the author of the work Ekthesis (1597) whose pen name was Christophor Philalet recalled Apostolic Canon number 34: “Episkopom każdego narodu potrzeba swego starszego znać i onego jako głowę mieć i nic zbytniego bez wolej jego nie czynić, tylko to, każdy niech odprawuje, co jego eparchiej należy i pod nią będącym miastom.”245 The Orthodox author of the composition of Questions andAnswers… (1603) acted in a similar way, placing the text of this and other canons in the context of deliberations on the “Brest” interference of the pope in a foreign jurisdiction.246 Thanks to all these reminders, 244 “Рꙋкополагаѧй внѣ своєгѡ предѣла съ рꙋкополагаємымъ да изверъжетъ сѧ по тридесѧтъ пѧтомꙋ правилꙋ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 29 (46). 245 Marcin Broniewski [Christophor Philalet], EKTHESIS abo krótkie zebranie spraw, które się działy na partykularnym, to jest pomiastnym Synodzie w Brześciu Litewskim (Krak 1597), ed. J. Byliński i J. Długosz, Wrocław 1995, p. 62. A further com-mentary on the canon reads: “Nic zbytniego, mi [34 Kanon Apostolski], nie mają czynić, bez wolej starszego. A ci nie prosto śmieli zbytkować, ale i z innymi niemałymi sprawami, których im dekreta świętych kanonów zakazują, jedność uczynić obojgom Kościołom, kusili się, która przez takowy synod piąci i dziesiąci abo i mniej episkopów, nie może być i takowych zwłaszcza, którzy w theologiej siły i umiejętności, nie świadomi, nie wiedząc doskonale zrozumienia przyczyn tych, dla których nasza wschodnia Cerkiew jedność zachodniego Kościoła odmiatuje”, Ibidem, pp. 62–63. 246 “[…] каждая епархія маетъ мѣти своего началника, о чомъканонъ 34 Святихъ Апостолъ такъ мовитъ: епископомъ каждого языка потреба вѣдати, а собѣ первого имѣти оного, яко голову, и ни чого не дѣяти безъего зданя. Чого и в Антіохіи отцы потвердили канономъ девятымъ, абы тое правило за першое было принято”,Вопросы и отвѣты православному зъ папежникомъ(1603), [in:] RIB 7, pp. 32–33. the legal rules were most certainly better known. Observing these principles was the condition for good organization and the internal order of life in the eparchy. It clearly defined the boundaries of the territory in which the bishop was fully responsible for the parish clergy, and this was of paramount importance for checking candidates for ordination. The purpose of the record was to prevent chaos or abuse that might be caused by ordaining clergy by adventitious bishops or even frauds who pretended to be hierarchs and consecrated for profit. Representatives of the brotherhood complained about such situations to Jeremias II, asking for legal regulations concerning these occurrences. Kuntsevych mentioned this dealings, pointing out that the result of such ordinations is a dubious priesthood, and that the “pseudo-priest’s” sacraments and Liturgy were of no value: […] деякі нерозважливі вдаються до чужих єпископів, які незнати звідки приходять і, не показуючи жодних посвідчень на доказ того, що вони є справжніми єпископами, наважуються в чужихєпархіях уділяти свячень, усупереч суворим Декретам і КанонамСоборів. Як наслідок, всі ті, кого вони висвячували, єсумнівнимисвященниками, а всі світські люди, які підпорядковуються тим священникам, заслуговують на праведний Божий гнів, бо їхні СвятіЛітургії є сумнівними, а Святі Сповіді, поза всяким сумнівом, ажніяк не можуть бити дійсними. Те саме належить розуміти і проінші Таїнства, які ці псевдосвященники виконують.247 The vladykas sometimes used the intercession of hierarchs who were frequently changed according to the will of the Turkish authorities. For example, the new Bishop of Przemysl, who was not accepted by Petro Mohyla because he wanted to persuade the Metropolitan to accept his candidacy by obtaining a blessing from the unaccepted in Kiev Metropolitanate canonical leader Athanasius III (Patellaros), the deposed successor of Constantinople’s Patriarch Cyril I (Lukaris). At that time, the Metropolitan issued a document to the clergy and faithful in the Diocese of Przemysl in which he warned them about similar fraudulent pretenders to this office. In addition, he reported 247 [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції…, p. 308. that such appointments only seem to be in harmony with the will of God and canon law in the Eastern Orthodox Church. […] его мил. панъ Иванъ Попѣль на опарте того таковагосвоего поступку и ошукиване церкве и привлащенѣ собѣ неналѣжное инѣкгды належати жадного мѣрою немогучее Епископское власти, щитится нѣякимсь змышленнымъ отъ нѣкогось Афанасія, намъ невѣдомого Патріарха, якобы до нас митрополита о то, абысмъ его м. пана Попѣля, мимо каноны и право Божоє, на епископство посвятили, писанымъ листомъ.248 Mohyla emphasized in the letter that even if the bishop candi-date was blameless, he should first and foremost receive permission, a blessing and their mission given by the Metropolitan of Kiev.249 Normalizing these electoral principles was important for the reform, which important element was to restore the mutual responsibility of the lower clergy and hierarchs in selecting appropriate candidates for the respective priestly positions. “Ктоколъвекъ […] прагнетъ станꙋ дꙋховногѡ, повиненъ таковый наипервѣй самъ себе разсꙋдити” – On Inner Readiness for the Priesthood In the light of the principles found in the seventeenth-century sources published in Kiev Metropolitanate, the initial stage of preparation for the sacrament of priesthood should include a candidate’s heartfelt self-evaluation, and an external, multi-level verification of his readiness for ministry carried out by lay people and, above all, the consecrating bishop’s opinion. This initial process, of course, was not clearly indicated in the le-gal records and the regulations describing the electoral procedures. The need to form a candidate’s conscience to be ready for the clerical state was preached by the Church Fathers, followed by moralists over 248 Грамота митрополита Петра Могилы къ перемышльскимгражданамъ..., p. 556. 249 Ibidem, p. 557. the centuries, including teachers and those who renewed the spiritual and religious life of the Eastern Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Patristic advice on this topic was made available, among others, thanks to the Lviv edition of Dialogue on the Priesthood (1614). John Chrysostom urged bishops to carefully examine each candidate’s ability to undertake ministry before ordination, and at the same time stressed that the candidate must reflect very deeply on himself: “подобаєтъ оубо и хиротонисати хотѧщемꙋ, многоє творити испытанїє, много же болше сего хиротонѧщемꙋсѧ.” 250 In the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, one of the oldest printed sources on sacraments in the section On the Priesthood, we read that the future priest, in addition to virtues, should have a sincere inten tion to act for the glory of God and for the salvation of his neighbor, thus obtaining merits in heaven: “На(й)первей томꙋ который Iере(й)ства желаетъ, потреба абы зꙿ своего живота и зꙿ щирости ѡбычаевꙿ мѣлъ залецеⷩе: до того абы тое кꙋ добромꙋ концꙋ, кꙋ хвале Бж҃ой, и кꙋ блиⷤниⷯ збавеⷩю, и длѧ боⷧшиⷯ собѣ заслꙋгъ вꙿ нб҃е, то(т) урѧⷣ прїймоваⷧ.”251 Yosyf Shumlanskyi preached the need for every man who aspires to receive diaconate or presbyterate ordination to awaken the awareness of this responsibility, treating this self-consciousness as an indispensable element of preparations for the ministry. According to the Lviv vladyka, this inner spiritual self-evaluation by a candidate should always precede the external test performed at the request of the bishop: Ктоколъвекъ зъ людей свѣцкихъ прагнетъ станꙋ дꙋховногѡ, свꙗщенникѡм(ъ) альбо дїаконом(ъ) зостати, то повиненъ таковый наипервѣй самъ себе разсꙋдити, аще возможетъ дꙋховный санъ дꙋховнѣ провадити, ꙗкѡ сам Христос Спаситель нашъ далъ на то пересторогꙋ, гды такоє подобенство повѣдѣлъ: Кто ѿ вас хотѧй столпъ создати, не прежде ли сѣдъ разочтет(ъ) имѣнїє, аще имат(ъ) єже єстъ на совершенїє (Лꙋка, зачало 77).252 250 [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно…(Лвовъ 1614), pp.118–119; Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, p. 104. 251 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ..., Вилно ca. 1618, p. 140. 252 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 226. It was certainly not by chance that these words became part of the teachings preached by the bishop at the synod. Therefore, they resounded in the presence of candidates awaiting ordination to spiritual ministry. It was a right time for them to reflect on the evangelical council given in Luke the Evangelist’s instructions: “For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and esti-mate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it?” (14: 28)253 and then a candidate should consider his mission and readiness for ministry before making a final decision for ordination. Five mandatory conditions of good preparation for the priesthood were pointed out by Ivan Vyshenskyi in the Message to the Bishops who Rejected Orthodoxy. These were faith and readiness to perform the teaching ministry, with accordance to the words Christ spoke to apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Matt 28: 19–20).254 Next, they are to have the courage to renounce self, to sacrifice themselves to spiritual ministry and accept the burden of responsibility for others, expressed in the following two verses from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me (Matt 16: 24)”255, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14: 26–27).256 Первое – вѣра кр҃ щеная во имя Oтца и Cына и Cвятого Духа; второе – при вѣрѣ узаконеные заповѣди исполнити, по реченному от Господа, егда послав на проповѣдь учеников по воскресении 253 NRSV (03.05.2017). 254 NRSV (03.05.2017). 255 INRSV (03.05.2017). 256 NRSV (03.05.2017). глаголя:Шедше, научите вся языки, крестяще их во имя Отца и Сына и Святого Духа; таже паки учаще их блюсти вся, елика заповѣдах вам; третее – крест Христовна рaмо взяти и душа своея во мирѣ сем отрещися, по реченному от Господа: Аще кто хощет в слѣд мене ити, да отвержется себе и возмет крест свой и послѣдуєт мии пакиАще кто не возненавидит душа своєя, не может быти мой ученик.257 The last two conditions concerned breaking all ties to earthly life so focused on material needs and voluntary poverty. Vyshenskyi again quoted the respective Bible passages: “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will in-herit eternal life” (Matt 19: 29); “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Matt 19: 21).258 Четвертое – дом, села, имѣния, сродство и мирское дружество оставити, по реченному от Господа: Всяк, иже оставит дом, села, имѣния, отца, матер, братию, сестры имени моего ради сторицею восприимет и живот вѣчныйнаслѣдити паки Любяй отца, матер, сына или дщер паче мене нѣсть мене достоин; пятое – конечная нищета, по реченому от Господа: Аще хощеши совершен быти, иди продажд имѣния своя и дажд нищим и имѣти имаши сокровище на небеси и, взем крест, послѣдуй ми.259 A future priest and teacher had to discern in their own heart read iness to undertake a task that required such great sacrifice concerning the external world and material possessions. It was important that he embrace the spiritual challenge of priesthood with full conviction. All of the conditions mentioned by Vyshenskyi were reconstructed on the basis of Jesus’ evangelical counsels for the disciples of his era when he 257 Иван Вишенский, Велможным их Милостям… (Писание к утекшим от православное вѣри епископам), p. 51. 258 NRSV (03.05.2017).259 Иван Вишенский, Велможным их Милостям… (Писание к утекшим от православное вѣри епископам), p. 51. awakened their apostolic awareness and prepared them for their own ministry. To be a disciple of Christ in those times meant to share his suffering, to depart with their loved ones, to renounce the pleasures of life, to be cordial and respectful towards others, to be exposed to insults, hatred and persecution and to always be ready to die.260 Similar to the case of candidates for the Episcopal office those preparing for priesthood, when making an examination of conscience concerning their mission, should know that they do not choose honour, dignity and income, but accept a burden and danger (cf. the section “Мнози ѿ стыхъ бѣгахꙋ пастырскагѡ сана” – Responsibilities and Dangers of the Bishop’s Office). A future priest was once again reminded of this truth during their solemn consecration. The sign of readiness to carry the cross was, according to the authors of the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, the crown (tonsure) of hair cut on the head during the initiation ceremony. It depicted both the imperial might of the priesthood and the crown of thorns wounding the Saviour.261 Кгдыⷤ ѡ такомъ постригаⷩю старые и поважные ѿц҃и ст҃ые, ꙗко Дïѡнисїй ѡ ерархïи цр҃ ковной вꙿ глаⷡ. 6. Iерониⷨ, и иные чинѧтъ змѣнꙿкꙋ, а повѣдають, же Петръ ст҃ый вожⷣъ Апⷭльскïй вꙿнеⷭлъ то(тъ) ѡбычай, напамѧ(т)кꙋ вѣнꙿца терновнаⷢ на головѣ Хв҃ой часꙋ мꙋки его вложоного: ачъколꙿвекъ нѣкоторые твердѧтъ, же тыⷨ знакоⷨ показꙋетꙿсѧ црⷭкаѧ зацность, котораѧ тыⷨ ѡсобамъ баⷬзо пристои(тъ), которые везваные сꙋть до части гдⷭней.262 A neo-presbyter carried the responsibility for the good of human souls on his shoulders, and in oath he made a commitment to endure in holiness and courageously defend the faith.263 He also heard many of the injunctions concerning priestly duties during the consecration 260 K. Romaniuk, Duchowość apostołów według wymagań Jezusa, [in:] K. Romaniuk, A. Jankowski, Kapłaństwo…, p. 186. 261 An explanation of the symbolism of the tonsure as a crown of thorns in me-dieval Ruthenian sources, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований…, vol. 2, p. 128; Т.И. Афанасьева, Древнесловянские толкования на литургию в рукописной традиции XII-XVI вв., Москва 2012, p. 98. 262 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 128–129. 263 Examples of presbyters’ oaths, cf. Приложенiя, [in:] А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., no. 19 i 20, pp. X–XI. liturgy. They were included in prayers and numerous exhortations in Kiev Metropolitanate that accompanied the handing on of the liturgi-cal vestments, the epimanikia, phelonion or liturgiarion.264 “[…] єгда хотѧть поставити попа […] да истѧжють житьє єго […]” – The Pre-Ordination Interview and Decision Transparency The external pre-ordination process of assessing a candidate’s readiness for priestly ministry began with coming to the bishop and expressing his will to receive ordination. According to the Regulation on how to select suitable candidates for spiritual offices and ordaining them to the priestly or deaconate ministries, a candidate who wants to receive the priesthood handed the bishop his application on Monday, and then, according to the accepted tradition, repeated this twice, again on Wednesday and Friday. After this thorough confirmation of his deep conviction of making a right decision to become a clergyman, the candidate began the testing period. This included a background check of the cleric’s moral lifestyle, substantial preparation and gen-eral ability to serve as a minister. The first of these requirements, a “good lifestyle” and “sincere morals,” were included in the set of conditions that should be met by those receiving priestly ordination (“пріемлющїе”) popularized among the clergy in the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments. As we read: “На(й)первей томꙋ который Iере(й)ства желаетъ, потреба абы зꙿ своего живота и зꙿ щирости ѡбычаевꙿ мѣлъ залецеⷩе”265, since the bishop can only lay hands on those who lead a pious life: “побоⷤностью живота ꙋкрашеные.”266 In order to obtain the information necessary to decide on ordaining, the bishop appointed an official who gathered all the required 264 А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., pp. 208–209. All his was described in the Middle Ages in special explanatory articles included in hand-written kormchaia books and other popular collections (e.g. Златая цеп), on this subject cf. Т.И.Афанасьева, Древнесловянские толкования…, pp. 97–106. 265 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 140. 266 Ibidem, p. 141. data about the future priest at place of residence. Participants in this interview process prior to his consecration included neighbors and people who knew the candidate since childhood and therefore could attest to his impeccable character and confirm good repu-tation. This principle was well-known in the canons of the Greek Fathers and already incorporated into the medieval Synod rules by Metropolitan Kyryl II(III): “Єпископи же, єгда хотять поставити попа или дьякона, да истяжють житьє єго, како боудеть имѣлъ житьє преже поставленья, да призовуть знаємия соусѣди. Єгоже знають издѣтьска якоже правило седмоє глаголеть Феофила, архиєпископа альксандрьскаго.”267 The Metropolitan spoke of Archbishop Theophil of Alexandria’s Seventh Canon, and cited this rule concerning transparent proce-dures undertaken in the presence of clergy and lay people. St. Paul already pointed to this requirement in his first letter to Timothy: “[…] he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil” (3: 7).268 It was therefore impor-tant that the faithful, in case of any doubts as to the appropriateness of the chosen person, had the right to express their public fears in the presence of the bishop and the whole congregation in the church before the people: “да свѣдять поставленьє вьси священьници, аще єдинако смыслять, и тогда єпископъ, да испытаєть, и пришедшимъ свѣдительствовавшимъ о немъ, да поставленъ боудеть. Поставлениє же втайнѣ не бываєт.”269 267 Правило Кюрила..., p. 89. 268 NRSV (03.05.2017). 269 St. Theophilus of Alexandria’s 7th Canon, quoted after: Правило Кюрила..., pp. 89–90. The canon has been preserved in an abbreviated version with Aristenes’ commentary in the Sophia Kormchaia Book, cf. A. Pavlov’s commentary, in: Ibidem, footnote 10. In the Ephrem Kormchaia the canon read as follows: “Хотѧщихъ поставлꙗти тако да боудеть ѡбразъ ꙗко вьсѧкоє чистительство съвѣщати въсхотѣти тъгда єпⷭпоу искоушати и съпохвальшю ємоу чистительство поставлꙗти посрѣдѣ цр҃҃ кве пришьдъшемъ и людьмъ и провъзглашьшю еппоу, аще людиє могоуть съвѣдительствовати, поставлениє же тай да не бываєть. Цр҃ кви бо миръ имоущи подобаєть вьсѣмъ ст҃ымъ поставлєниємъ въ цркви бывати, въ области же аще ҃ Theregulation on how to select suitable candidates for spiritual offices and ordaining them to the priestly or deaconate ministriesrequired that the special bishop’s official was to obtain testimonies about the life of the future priest, and the candidate’s background and origin were also checked. Men who had been raised in a good, Christian family and living in a state of grace were allowed to be consecrated. Посилаєт [святититель] з нимъ въ єго домоу, на то оуставленнаго врядника своєго и велит испытовати родоу племени єго и соусѣд тамо бли соущихъ о нем. Добрѣ родителю и закону отца и мт҃ ри сн҃ ъ . Не имѣєтъ ли на собѣ таковыя вещи, которыєж възбраняют чл҃҃҃ коу сщенства. Боуде ли не тать, не дшегубец, не разбойникъ. Когда тїи окрестъ соущїи єго, провославныи хр҃ тїане ничтоже таковаго отлученїя нан възглаголют, тогда тот врядник ст҃ лськый извѣдаши о нем, исправне о житїи пребыванїа єго, иже онъ достоинъ къ сщ҃ енствоу, възимаєт єго з собою, и поставляєт пред ст҃ телемъ, и повѣдаєт вся, яже онъ […] испитал.270 This document contains many practical tips for conducting field interviews, as it was also possible to evaluate the candidate on the basis of letters of recommendation sent by his neighbors and family members. This form applied in cases where it was difficult to get to the place of residency, for example, an applicant for ordination who lived in distant location very far from the particular College of Bishops. This arrangement was the sign of the effort made to ensure that the transparency principle in the decision making process be observed. The widespread acceptance by the faithful of a new parish priest was important for the internal order and life of a diocese. For this reason, Bishop Yosyf Shumlanskyi, who through his numerous приобщивъщесѧ соуть нѣции приобьщивъшимъсѧ къ разоумоу да не ини поставлꙗють нъ въ истиноу правовѣрньнымъ клирикомъ искоушающемъ пришьдъшю пакы епⷭпоу и провъз[г]лашьшю пришьдъшемъ и людьмъ тъкъмо да не боудеть нѣкоєго прѣсилїѧ”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, pp. 535–536. The canon in a Polish transl. cf. Teofil Aleksandryjski, Święceń należy udzielać publicznie, [in:] Canones Patrum…, p. 100. 270 Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство..., p. 138; cf. also А.С. Петрушевичъ, Архіератиконъ кіевской митрополіи съ половыни XIV столѣтія..., p. 5. publishing and organizational activities helped the Orthodox Church’s renewal, popularized rules that improved control over those who wanted to be ordained. These certain assignments related to the procedure of preparing for consecration were entrusted to a protopope.271 He was obliged to provide the bishop with a letter of recommendation about the candidate expressed by the whole community for whom the ordained priest was to become their shepherd. The document had to be sealed by the signatures of two, or eventually just one of the representatives of this community.272 These principles made the electoral process transparent and, above all, encouraged parish involvement in the process. In this way, the people also became responsible for choosing worthy priest ministers. For orderliness in the priestly ministry, the opinion of the lay patron was very important, meaning the owner of the goods in which the Church was located. In the case of a bishop, the king’s permission was required. Ivan Vyshenskyi urged the Orthodox to actively participate in the election and struggle of their contender for ordination, es-pecially for the bishop’s office, and if he was not accepted, he should publicly hear their disagreement to be consecrated.273 Whereas, a few decades later, Shumlanskyi, the administrator of Lviv Diocese, who trod more soberly through the “Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s” reality, initiated an order to receive the approval of lay patrons for a given candidature. Its absence caused a number of “turbulence” with which the faithful and the bishop himself had to struggle: Але тꙋтъ, въ Корѡнѣ и державѣ великодержавногѡ монархи, Наѧснѣйшаг(о) королѧ польскаго, Пана нашегѡ милостиваго, панове дѣдичнїє, ꙗкѡ тежъ земских(ъ) добр посессорове, альбо панѡве старостѡве добр(ъ) Єгѡ Королевской 271 Definition of the office, cf. L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego…, pp. 808–812. 272 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 227. 273 Иван Вишенский,Порада, како да ся очистит церков Христова, p. 24. On this subject, cf. the earlier subchapter “На свѧщенический степен по правилохъ свѧтыхъ отецъ да восходѧтъ, а не по своихъ волѧх” – On the Order of Selecting Candidates to the Episcopacy. Милости, где котѡрїй зъ нихъ панꙋєтъ, тамъ надъ подданством(ъ) маючи владзꙋ, часомъ пред посвꙗщенїемъ, часомъ по посвѧщенїю, не тылко тых(ъ), котѡрїи сѧ безъ вѣдомости и волѣ ихъ на свꙗщенство становѧтъ, але и грѡмады и насъ, єпископа, частокротне тꙋрбꙋютъ. Прето пастырско наказꙋемъ, абы ѿ сего часꙋ, безъ волѣ цѣлой грѡмады и безъ консенсꙋ, альбо писма пана власне належитогѡ, не важилъсѧ жаденъ къ намъ приходити, под(ъ) оутратою кондицїи, альбо парохїи,накоторꙋюбысѧ мѣлъпосвꙗтити.274 “Свѧщенникѡмъ быти не можетъ [...] который ꙗвнымъ злочинствомъ єсть помазаный […]” – On Moral Impediments on the Road to Priesthood Verification of candidates for the priesthood usually started with reviewing their moral values. The above cited Regulation (Указъ) proves that the instructions governing the matter of selecting candi-dates and their eligibility for becoming clergymen began by checking if they had committed the heaviest sins and crimes (theft, robbery, murder), which the bishop’s documentalist, had to pay special attention to. This was important because such acts completely disqualified a man from seeking the priesthood. Other reasons for which preparations for ordination could be stopped at this initial stage were not only indicated in the chynovnyks and the Ruthenian legal records included in the kormchaia,275 but also mentioned in the canonical literature first printed in seventeenth century catechism teachings. In the Didaskalia often republished in the seventeenth century, this principle was termed as follows: “Може(тъ) ли кождый члк҃ъ быти сщ҃енникоⷨ? Не кождый, бо ведлꙋгъ канѡновъ апⷭлкиⷯ и ст҃ыхъ богонѡсныхъ 274 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 227. 275 Sins deemed inadmissible in the case of candidates for the priesthood were men-tioned already by Metropolitan Ioan II (1080–1089) in the 34th rule of the canon-ical Church Rules: “И єже иерѣємъ до оупиваньяпиющимъ иєрѣємъ сице речемъ, яко апостолъ повелѣваєтъ: не пьяници, ни яра, ни сварьника въ иєрейскыи привести санъ”, Іоана, митрополита рускаго, нaреченаго пророкомъ Христовымъ, написавшаго правила церковная..., p. 20. ѡтецъ тотъ ѿ свѧщенства ѿдаленъ вываєтъ, або свѧщенникѡмъ быти не можетъ [...] который ꙗвнымъ злочинствомъ єсть помазаный […].”276 However, the list of sins that prevented receiving ordination was much broader. What the bishop’s official failed to disclose during the “field” interview should have been discovered by the appointed confessor. This was because after a careful self-examination by the candidate, according to the orders of vladyka Shumlanskyi, “повинен ѡбрати себѣ ꙗкогѡ искꙋснаго и разсꙋднагѡ дꙋховнагѡ, альбо ѿ єпископа назначенагѡ, и томꙋ повиненъ всегѡ житїѧ своегѡ сꙋмнене ѿкрыти, и на розсꙋдокъ егѡ подати [...]”.277 The Nomocanon included an example of a special document certifying their act of confession, during which the spiritual father “looked deeply into the heart of the repentant candi- date” as he “confessed all committed sins.”278 Detailed instructions concerning the confession preceding con- secration were given in the first rule by Metropolitan Kyryl II(III). According to the described procedure, in the beginning it was nec-essary to check whether the penitent coming to confession was not a blasphemer, a thief, a drunkard, a perjurer or brawler;279 next, the spiritual father asked him about sins of impurity: Потомь подобаєтъ испытати ихъ о вещехъ грѣховныхъ, єда въ блоудьствѣ содомьстѣмь были боудоуть, ли съ скотиною, ли 276 [Силвестер Косовъ], Ѡ тайнахꙿ церковных вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 1642, p. 226; Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, f. 16. 277 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 226. 278 “Сщ҃еннаѧ добрѣ оуставившїй, Бг҃опроповѣдници Апⷭли, и съ ними сщ҃енноє съсловїє Бг҃оносныⷯ ѡц҃ъ, повелѣша и заповѣдаша, да никтоже безꙿ истѧзанїа, на степень сщ҃енства во сходитъ, да не дѣютсѧ Бжⷭтвеннаѧ не свѧщеннѣ. Сегѡ ради и сего по Дх҃ꙋ сына моєгѡ, имⷬкъ. Пришедша къ моєй хꙋдости, поставивъ пред Иконꙋ Влⷣки Ха҃҃ , и Престыѧ Бц҃а, и въспомѧнꙋвъ ємꙋ страшноє сꙋдище Хв҃о, да чⷭтымъ исповѣданїемъ исповѣстꙿсѧ прежднихъ своихъ съгрѣшенїй. Ꙗже ꙗкѡ чл҃вкъ съгрѣши, въ животѣ семъ, и испытавъ ѡпаснѡ глꙋбинꙋ срⷣца єго, обрѣтохъ и достойна сщ҃енствꙋ, и свѣдителꙿствꙋ єгѡ, достойна семꙋ быти, въ славꙋ Ѿца и Сн҃а и Ст҃гѡ Дх҃а, Аминь”, Kнига свѣдителна къ Архїерею ѡ хотѧщемъ прїѧти сщ҃енства степень, [in:] Номоканонъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, f. 76. 279 “[...] аще боудоуть не кощюньници, ни хыщници, ни пьяници, ни ротници, ни сварливи”, Правило Кюрила..., col. 90. въ роукоу съгрѣшениє, или въ татбѣ, развѣ аще не дѣтьскаго, ли преже поятия жены своєя растьлить дѣвство, ли съ многыми лѣгалъ боудеть, или от своєя жены законьныя блоудъстворилъ боудетъ [...].280 Another group of questions concerned giving false testimony, murder intended or committed under duress, harassing servants with “hunger and nakedness”, the use of violence and inflicting suffering, earning money from usury or ransom, witchcraft. A man guilty of at least one of these faults could neither become a priest, a deacon nor serve in the Church. Also, the printed Small Nomocanon in Kiev Metropolitanate specified the principles according to which candidates should be selected for the state of clergymen, so as to prevent public sinners from receiving ordination. In the Kiev edition from 1629 we read: Аще растлѣнно єсть отроча ѿ кого, или самꙿ сый отрокъ растли иногѡ отрока, или блꙋдъ сътвори съ женою, или съ мꙋжемъ, или съ скотоⷨ или съ птицею, или съ женою си чреⷥ єстество, или жена єго не бѧше девица, или обрꙋченъ бывъ съ иною или жена єгѡ съ инѣмъ, или двоженецъ єсть, или прежⷣе вѣнчанїа растли ѡбрꙋчницꙋ свою, или прелюбодѣйствова жена єгѡ, или сътвори оубійство, или клѧ(т)сѧ, или конѧ оукраде, или вола, или ѿ съсꙋдъ цр҃ ковныхꙿ, и одежди оукраде что, и єсть свѧтотатецъ, или разбойничествова, или бисть звѣздословъ, или влъхвъ, или чародѣ(й), или воскъ лїаше, и олово, или превѧзоваше звѣрѧ или волки, или женомꙋжїє, или ѿвержесѧ когда Ха҃ , или ино нѣчто сътвори ѿ ѿречеⷩныхꙿ.281 As we can see, the description of offenses was very close to the principles of Kyryl II(III). Usury or drunkenness were overlooked, but issues concerning sins of impurity were broadened and elaborated. In the Nomocanon, examples of fortune-telling practices (such as pouring waxing and lead) were pointed out, while many centu-ries old rule, still recommended that the candidate have no contact with witchcraft. Similar lists of sins since the Middle Ages have been found in manuscript exhortations that were then printed for 280 Ibidem. 281 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 83–84 (100–101). yereis.282 In the 17th century, similar lists of sins were also found in other types of printed moral teachings concerning the customs of the Ruthenian clergy.283 The sin of impurity, which is an impediment on the way to ordination, was also described in other legal records. The oldest printed evidence comes from the Regulations for Yereis: “Іерей аще въпадътъ въ блꙋдъ или галатомъ(?) или съ скотомъ, таковый да ѿлꙋчитсѧ ѿ литꙋргїа, аще ли кто обрѧщетсѧ въ сихъ и єще не попъ сый таковый да не прїйдетъ на іерейство.”284 In the treaty Peace with God for Man, a description of the sin of impurity was also accompanied by a commentary explaining the circumstances in which he became a public scandal to others. In the eighth condition for admission to ordination in the section The Sacrament of Priesthood, Gizel taught that a candidate must be free from particularly detestable sins. The example concerned sins of the flesh in the case when the candidate was caught and accused of shamelessly committing, or the situation in which he was commonly known to have a concubine: “Требѣ да бы не быⷧ оскверненъ грѣхомⷨ мерзкиⷨ зѣло, паче же народнымꙿ, вѣдомымъ ѿ мнѡгихъ, и соблазнѧющимъ ихъ, ꙗкѡже безꙿстꙋднымъ телеснымъ, а чтѡ горѣє, въ немъ же бы кто ꙗтъ былъ, и сꙋжденъ, или жилъ ꙗвѣ съ наложницею.”285 The moralist cited the biblical quotations from the Book of Leviticus (21: 21): “No descendant of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire,” and from the Gospel of Matthew, 282 On this topic cf. Т. Шманько, Статті морально-канонічного характеру в рукописних служебниках і требниках XVI–XVII ст., “Київська Академія” 7, 2009, pp. 99–100. 283 Cf. e.g. “[...] аще кто достоинъ бы былъ презвитерꙿского сана, и оучителемъ быти и свѣтилникомъ вꙿ домꙋ Бж҃емъ, маючи вымовꙋ краснꙋю, и остротꙋ оума, а онъ станесѧ мира сеⷢ рабъ, бꙋде торꙿжникомъ, шинꙿкаремъ, пѧницею, костырею, лихваремъ, воиномъ, чл҃кооубїйцею, кровопролиⷡцею, токовый не Бг҃ѫ рабъ, но дїаволꙋ. Таковый по истинꙿнѣ закопавъ талантъ Га҃ своего, вꙿ землю темнꙋю зло виⷣного срдⷣца своего”, Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкий, Поꙋченїє вꙿ нлⷣю 16 (по Всѣхъ Ст), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part. 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 288. 284 Заповѣди о іереѡхъ, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ..., Стрѧтинъ 1606, ff. 676-676v. 285 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 143 (93). ⷯы҃ “You are the light of the world” (5: 14),286 upholding the call to purity and to be an example for their neighbor: “вы єсте свѣтъ мірꙋ сіестꙿ, вы єсте образъ добрыхъ дѣлъ ꙗвственныⷯ всѣмъ, а не злобы коеѧ ꙗвствеⷩноѧ.”287 In some sources, the sin of impurity was not mentioned at all. For example, according to the principles in Teaching on the Seven Sacra-ments, a future priest could not have been a murderer and a cruel man: “Ани люди крвавые и мꙋжобо(й)цы, поневаⷤ по правиломъ с(вѧтихъ): ѿц҃ъ ѿкиненые сꙋть, и вадꙋ вꙿ собѣ мають, до сщ҃енꙿства мають быти [не] прыпꙋщеные.”288 On the other hand, in the Kievan Brief Catechismof 1645, there is no list of sins at all, but the clean conscience of the candidate was mentioned among three other conditions required for ordination. As the authors of the work expressed, it is important that conscience would not interfere (“абы сꙋмнѣне емꙋ не перешкажало”) in receiving the priesthood.289 “Сѧ годи(тъ), абы тые которыⷯ посщ҃ають, ничого такового в собѣ не мели, длѧ чогобы люди легко иⷯ собѣ важити, и горъдити ими могли” – Other Impediments and Conditions for Receiving the Priesthood According to the principles listed in the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, it was not permissible to ordain anyone who was born out of wedlock. This was motivated by the need to preserve the priest’s authority among the faithful, which could be undermined and could 286 NRSV ; (3.05.2017). 287 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 143 (93). 288 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ црковныⷯ…, Вилно҃ ca. 1618, p. 143. 289 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки...., Киевъ 1645, p. 418. According to the Ruthenian rules from the kormchaia book, a priest who confesses his sin after consecration is to be excluded from the priesthood (izverzhennia), Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований…, vol. 2, p. 74. be harmed due to the potential contempt or even scorn of the parishioners who knew his family background: “Таⷦ же беⷩкарты, и вси которые сѧ не родили сꙿ пораⷣного маⷧженства, оѿтѧтые сꙋть ѿ того станꙋ, абовеⷨ таⷦ сѧ годи(тъ), абы тые которыⷯ посщ҃ають, ничого такового в собѣ не мели, длѧ чогобы люди легко иⷯ собѣ важити, и горъдити ими могли.”290 Innokentii Gizel archimandrite of Pechersk expressed a similar fear in the chapter On the Sacrament of Priesthood (О тайнѣ сщfrom a normalizing the ecclesiastical law treaty Peace with God for Man. Presenting eight conditions that a candidate had to fulfill for the clerical state, the fifth condition took into account the issue of his origin. If he was a descendent of a non-marital relationship, and this truth was widely known among the local community, then it was considered to be a serious obstacle in pursuit of the clerical state. The priesthood, as the moralist wrote, is a great dignity that surpasses others, and therefore a clergyman could not be burdened by a bad reputation. Father Innokentii’s additional fears were also aroused by the fact that children sometimes imitate the sinful conduct of their parents: Да бы не былъ рожденъ ѿ блꙋда, єже бы всѣмъ былѡ ꙗвственнѡ. О чесомъ такѡ гл҃етъ Гд҃ь, єще вꙿ Ветхомъ Завѣтѣ: Да не внїйдетъ блꙋдорожденныи вꙿ Сѡнмъ Гдⷭнь. Чесѡгѡ вина єстъ, ꙗко сщ҃енство єстъ достоинство надъ всѧ инаѧ высочайшее, тѣмже не иматъ нꙋжды терпѣти злꙋю славꙋ, вꙿ нейже сꙋть безстꙋднѡ рожденныи. Кꙿ томꙋ, ꙗко тако рожденный, ѡбыкоша послѣдовати, нравѡⷨ безстꙋднымꙿ родителей своихъ.291 The norms concerning the above issues were also given in other printed canonical books distributed in the first half of the 17th centu-ry. The oldest records of this type are Rules for Yereis from Stratynski’s Trebnyk(1606) edited and published by Bishop Gedeon Balaban. It was required that the parents of the future priest be good Chris-tians. A bishop was not allowed to lay hands on candidates who were born as sons of a third wife of father or whose parents were blood 290 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 144. 291 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 141–142 (92–93). The fragment quoted is the one on the Exclusion from the Community of Israel from the Book of Deuteronomy (23: 3), which also lists other obstacles to being admitted to the assembly of the Lord (23: 1–9). ҃ енства) relatives who got married despite a very high degree of kinship: “[...] трибрачна мꙋжа сн҃ъ или кровомѣшенїа рожденїє ѿ таковыхъ всѣхъ да не смѣєтъ къ іерействꙋ пристꙋпити.”292 The method for determining the degree of kinship, which was of primary importance for entering the sacrament of marriage, was discussed in detail in the little nomocan-on in the Trebnyk. The above regulations were not disseminated in the printed nomocanons nor in the normative work by Gizel. What is more, he considered that in some instances, unconditional rejection of a man who is seeking the priesthood due to the sins of parents was sometimes harmful. This is why he allowed for the situation where a particularly virtuous candidate who were “eclipsing his parents’ shame by his zeal” could be ordained after receiving a special blessing from the archbishop. For those who were previously monks, this was not even required.293 In the medieval rules, ordinances, the seventeenth century Nomo-canon and the Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, recurred what may appear obvious condition that a woman could not become a priest: “невеⷭтъ никгды, неприпꙋщано до тое та(й)ны тоⷧко мꙋжеского полꙋ,”294 and even less so a hermaphrodite, as Gizel stated in the second treatise on the sacrament of the priesthood, since such a person carries female elements.295 The ban on the ability to be ordained for the castrated was men-tioned only in the Vilnius Teaching. The rule did include a provision that it applies only to a man who knowingly deprived himself of manhood: “Скопци которые сꙋть скопцами не ѿ рож(д)енïѧ своего, ани ѿ нꙋжды, але сами себе скопили, не сꙋть достойни сщ҃енства (Собор 1, Никей, права 1; Апост. Прав, 22, 23, 24).”296 Among the mentioned Apostolic Canons only one numbered 22 concerned candidates, while the rest 292 Заповѣди о іереѡхъ, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ, Стрѧтинъ 1606, f. 677. 293 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 141–142 (92–93). 294 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ црковныⷯ…, Вилно҃ ca. 1618, pp. 141–142. 295 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 140 (92). The rule is also expressed in the printed Nomocanon; hermaphroditism is described with the term женомужїє cf. Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. (84) 101. 296 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 143–144. referred to penalties for priests and the laity.297 The most important were the ordinances relating to clergy who were sanctioned by the Nicene (325) General Council (canon 1).298 The second requirement in the Teachingand Gizel’s treaties con-cerned a candidate’s valid sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation: “понеже предъ слꙋженїемъ и строенїємъ дх҃овнымъ первѣє подобаєтъ родитисѧ дх҃ѡвнѣ и силꙋ дх҃овнꙋю имѣти.”299 It was also very important that a future bishop not be a newly baptized Christian, a recent fol-lower of Judaism or a pagan.300 However, Archimandrite Innokentii 297 Canon 22 of the Holy Apostles in Ephrem Kormchaia: “Издрѣзавый себе да не бываєть причьтникъ самооубийца бо єст себѣ и Бж XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 66. Canons 23 and 24 of Holy Apostles, Ibidem. All these canons cf. also Konstytucje apostolskie oraz Kanony Pamfilosa zapostolskiego synodu w Antiochii, Prawo kanoniczne świętych Apostołów, Kary świętychApostołów dla upadłych, Euchologion Serapiona, transl. S. Kalinkowski, A. Caba, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2007, pp. 277–278; A. Znosko, Kanony…, p. 16. 298 “Иже въ недоузѣ отъ врачевъ по ноужи каженикъ боудеть ли отъ поганъ издрѣзанъ сии да прѣбываєть въ причьтѣ, аще ли кто съдравъ сы издрѣзалъсѧ боудеть, томоу и въ причьтѣ соущю истѧзаємоу престати подобаєть и отъселѣ никого же таковыихъ достоить приводити, а ꙗко же се ꙗвѣ єсть ꙗко о строєннихъ вешть и о дьрзаюштихъ себе издрѣзати речено быⷭ сице, иже отъ поганъ ли господни скоплєни быша обрѣтають же сꙗ инако достоини таковыꙗ въ причьтъ приводить правило”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 83. Cf. also Dokumenty soborów powszechnych, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, vol. 1: 325–787, Krak 2002, p. 27; A. Znosko, Kanony…, p. 35. 299 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 140 (92); Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 142. 300 This must have been a reference to Canon 80 of Holy Apostles: “От ꙗзычьскааго житиꙗ пришьдъшааго и крьщьшасѧ ли отъ зла пребываниꙗ не правьдьно єсть абыє поставити епⷭпа не правьдьно бо єще не искоусьноу ємоу соуштю инѣмъ быти оучителю, аште не по Бж҃ьствьнѣмь дарѣ се боудеть”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 79; cf. also O [świeżo] ochrzczonych poganach, [kandydujących do święceń], [in:] Konstytucje apostolskie …, p. 291; A. Znosko, Kanony…, p. 30. The requirement was expressed already by St. Paul in his First Letter to Timothy (3: 6). If someone was seeking episcopacy, then, as he wrote, “He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall intothe condemnation of the devil”, NRSV (03.05.2017); cf. also Biblia Tysiąc-lecia, p. 1348. ҃ ий твари врагъ”, Древнесловянская Кормчая did allow exceptions to this rule. A God-loving candidate, showing fervent faith, humble and wise, could be admitted to ordination if “the situation called for it.” Gizel did not explain this last thought, yet, judging by the subsequent corrections of the Orthodox Church’s law, it was probably happening when there were no well-prepared pastoral ministers. This was perhaps an analogous situation to what occurred at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries in Orthodox preaching, when, in the face of the lack of good preachers in church, talented students of the confraternity schools, including lay people, were allowed to preach.301 “Ведлꙋг лѣтъ абы былъ способный” – Age Requirements for Candidates to the Clerical State Seventeenth century printed records, similar to medieval man-uscript sources precisely indicated the age requirement for persons to be ordained.302 Kiev’s Nomocanon cites canon Forty of the Quinisextum Council, requiring that a newly ordained presbyter be 30 years old: “Повелѣваєтъ Четыринадесѧтое Правило иже въ Трꙋллѣ, ꙗко иже бываетъ сщ҃енникъ прежде Тридесѧти лѣтъ.”303 The Vilnius Teaching 301 For example, Stefan Zizanii received permission from the ecclesiastical authorities to preach, but in 1595 he was banned from this ministry for several reasons described in Metropolitan Mykhailo Rahoza’s document. Text of the document, cf. Michael metropolita kioviensis Stephanum Zizanij in civitate Vilno praedicantem anathemisat interdicitque ei verbum dei praedicare (Novohorodok 10 octobris 1595), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, vol. 1, Leopolis 1895, no. CCCXCIII, pp. 676– 678. Cf. also Посланіе Мелетіяко всѣмъ вообще православнымъ русскимъ польской державы (въ которомъонъ восхваляєтъ ихъ твердость въ православіи, а затѣмъ даеть отвѣти и изясненія на нѣкоторые сдѣланые ему изъ Руси вопросы, какъ-то: о патріаршихъ титулахъ, устройствѣ патріаршаго клира, значеніи братствъ, а правѣ мірянъ проповѣдывать въ церкви, ставропигіахъ и проч. (июля 1597 г.), [in:] И.И. Малышевський, Александрійскій патріархъ Мелетій Пигас..., pp. 44–60. 302 Правило Кюрила..., p. 92. 303 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ …, Киевъ 1629, p. 87(104). A presbyter who was a confessor had to reach the age of forty: “И сіє Ст҃іи Ѡц҃и оуставиша: аще єсть добродѣтелный, тщаливый въ Дх҃овныхъ Чинѣхъ, долженъ быти Дх҃овникꙿ Повыⷲше made reference to the principle of not ordaining mad, stupid and possessed people (“юродивые албо глꙋпые”, “бѣсноватые”) because of their not fully developed rational abilities, and it was recalled that for this same reason, children are not considered suitable, since we expect candidates to be in a “capable age.”304 The author of the preface to Lviv’s Euchologionnoted that the Greek term presbyter means elder, pointing not only to age, but also to the wisdom and spiritual maturi-ty obtained along with age: Бываетꙿ же и Пресвѵтерами зовꙋтꙿ зꙿ грецка, що значисѧ стареⷰ албовѣⷨ на томꙿ оурѧдѣ Бозскомꙿ повинны быти ни млокосы, але вꙿ лѣтехꙿ подешлыⷯ, и не такъ далеце старостю великою ꙗкъ мꙋдростю статечною (по напысанномꙋ: сѣдина мрⷣость чл҃кꙋ) оздобленый которыⷨ чⷭть достойнаѧ ѿ всѣх ꙗко ѿцем, албо старшиⷨ, хочъ небарзо старымꙿ лѣты маетсѧ выражати, ꙗкꙋю чⷭть старыⷨ правоⷨ прирожониⷨ посполите ѿдаємѡ. Гды также ѿцами длѧ оучтивости 305 зовемѡ. In Kiev’s Brief Catechism (1645), the obligatory age of the candidate for priestly ordination was not indicated, but the authors ordered that age to be controlled so that the future yerei “ведлꙋг лѣтъ абы былъ способный.” 306 By specifying the age of consecrated persons in detail, the author of the Teaching referred to Canons Sixteen and Seventeen of the Carthage Council and, like the editor of Nomocanon, to Canon Fourteen of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.307 Canon Eleven from Neocaesarea referred to by Gizel and confirming it by canon Fourteen in Trullo, which or Четыридесѧ(тъ) лѣт. А нижей сихꙿ лѣтꙿ, да не дръзаетꙿ на сице высокїй връхъ єже сп҃сати инѣхъ. Страшно бо єсть, и оудобопадежнѡ”, cf. Ibidem, p. 131(148). 304 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ..., Вилно ca. 1618, p. 142. 305 Преⷣмова до чителника, саномъ Сщ҃енничества почтеннагѡ, [in:] Єѵхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1668, ff. [2v-3]. Cf. also “На(й)болши(й) зо всѣхъ чиновъ ст҃ых естъ степень Презвитерства, называемъ в тоⷨ стане бꙋдꙋчыхъ Презвитерами, то естъ старшыми, не толко длѧ зꙋпоⷧныⷯ и сталыⷯ лѣтъ, которыⷯ до того станꙋ барзо потреба, але болей длѧ наꙋки и розꙋмꙋ сталого”, Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 133-134. 306 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки...., Киевъ 1645, p. 418. 307 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 142. dered that deacons be at least 25 years old at ordination, and priests to be ordained must be 30 years old. These documents emphasized that it is not possible to ordain younger men, even if they appear to be “extremely worthy,” especially since Christ himself gave example by being baptized and started teaching at a mature age.308 Those who have received ordination without attaining the designated age were to be punished by being removed from this dignity.309 Although the Nomocanon popularized these canons, comments in the Teaching (ca. 1617) and Gizel’s treatise (1669) confirmed the fact that the seventeenth century practice did not respect the principles contained in them. Pechersk’s archimandrite argued that after the bishop’s approval, a candidate to spiritual ministry could be five years younger than the law stated. Both sources explained the rea-sons for not following the old conciliar regulations. Gizel motivated the derogation from this law using the same arguments as the authors of printed decades earlier theTeaching, namely by the needs of the Orthodox Church in difficult times. Both sources sought support in the authority of the Book of Numbers, in which 25 years was the age limit set for the Levites serving in the Tent of Meeting (8: 24): Въ ꙗковыⷯ преⷣ тыⷨ лѣтеⷯ припꙋщⷶно до Но ѡбаче нн҃ѣ, ради мнѡгиꙿ сего сщ҃енꙿства, свⷣча(тъ) соборы ст҃ыхъ ѿцъ: времени неꙋдобствъ, не такѡ сїє где повелеваю(тъ) абы Чтеⷰ преже лѣтъ 14 и ѡбовѧзꙋєтъ, и до Єпⷭкопскагѡ Поⷣдiѧкоⷩпрежⷣе20,Дïѧконъ25,Презвитеръ найпаче осщ҃енїѧ, 30 лѣтъ 30, непоставлѧлиⷭ. Нн҃ѣ заⷭ того Епкⷭпи длѧ требꙋетꙿсѧ. Пресѵитерꙿ же бываетъ и многихъ, того часꙋ, трꙋдностей не звыⷦли вꙿ годꙋ 25. Къ чесомꙋ пресѵитеромъ перестерегати, едно абы хотѧщïи ст҃итисѧ извѣтъ єстъ, и ѿ писанїа ст҃го вꙿ на иподïѧконство меⷧ лѣтъ принамне(й) 18, ветхомꙿ завѣтѣ, гл҃юща: Се єстъ 308 Canon 11 of the Synod of Neocaesarea: “Поп прѣже тридесѧтъ лѣтъ да не поставлєнъ боудеть, аще и зѣло єсть чл҃къ достоинъ, нъ да съблюдаємъ боудеть Гь҃ бо Іс҃ Хс҃ь въ тридесѧтьноє лѣто просвѣщенъ бысть и начатъ оучити”; Canon 14 of the Council in Trullo: “Ст҃хъ нашихъ богоносьныхъ оц҃ь да оудьржитьсѧ канонъ и о семь, ꙗко попъ прѣже л҃ лѣтъ да не поставленъ боудеть […]”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов безтолкований, vol. 1, pp. 240, 154; cf. also A. Znosko, Kanony...., pp. 135, 74–75. 309 Canon 15 of the Council in Trullo cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 155; A. Znosko, Kanony...., p. 75. на Дïѧконꙿство не мней ниⷤ 20, на Iере(й) ѡ Леѵитехъ, ѿ 25 лѣтъ, и вышше, ство 25. Маю(тъ) повоⷣ до того зꙿ пиⷭма да внїйдꙋтъ слꙋжити слꙋженїє въ с(вѧтого) (ѡсобливе мовечи ѡ Iере(й)стве) Храмъ Свидѣнїѧ.311 где сꙋть тые слова: Се естъ о левитехъ ѿ 25, лѣтъ и выⷲшей, да вни(й)дꙋтъ слꙋжити слꙋженïе въ храме свѣденïѧ.310 310 311 In the “softer” version of the above-mentioned work, a priest could be 25 years old and a bishop at 30. The practice in the seventeenth century was even more liberal. For example, the author of the Lviv diary noted that Arsenii Zheliborskyi received nomination as bishop at the age of 25, and thus according to church canons he was 15 years younger than the required 40 years of age.312 It was similar in the case of the Episcopal consecration of his successor Yosyf Shumlanskyi, who was a candidate for the Lviv bishopric at 23 years of age,313 or Innokentii Vynnytskyi born in 1654, who began to rule over Przemyśl in 1679,314 and it was probably the same with many other bishops. It can therefore be argued that in the seventeenth century, no canoni-cal rules concerning the age of consecrated persons were observed, although the rules themselves were clearly set out and available in publications through legal records, catechisms, theological works and even the prefaces of church books. “Требѣ да бы былꙿ свободный” – A Priest’s Social Status The social status of the man was rarely recalled as an impediment to ordination in the sources at that time. The future priest should fully devote himself to spiritual ministry, so he could not be subordinate to another state and obliged to another ministry. This principle was 310 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, pp. 142–143. 311 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 141 (92). 312 В. Кметь, “Життєписи єпископів грецького обряду”…, p. 89. 313 Т. Чухліб, Львівський єпископ Йосиф Шумлянський…, p. 788. 314 Cf. Б.І. Балик, Інокентій Іван Винницький…, p. 37. very valid in the first centuries after the advent of Christianity. At that time, Patriarchal documents about the issue of ordaining slaves were reaching the Ruthenian lands, they then became part of the kormchaia book. 315 In the sixth condition for admission to consecration, Gizel referred to the Eighty-Second Apostolic Canon,316 and recommended that the case of such a candidature be taken into account, and before the decision to ordain was made, there should be consent from the patron or lord. This canon about the exclusion of slaves from ministry 317 318 was also mentioned in the Vilnius Teaching. Требѣ да бы былꙿ свободный, а не рабъ Вы(й)мꙋютъ тежъ невоⷧники ѿ или плѣнникъ, не имѣѧй изволенїѧ тое ст҃ости, кгдыⷤ на слꙋжбꙋ бж҃ꙋю и свобожденїѧ ѿ Гдⷭна. Никтоже бо пошлюбены(й) не може(тъ) быти можетъ работати двѣма Гдⷭинома тотъ, которы(й) свободы не маеть, але противныма, теленсномꙋ и дх҃овномꙋ. естꙿ чꙋжо(й) моци поⷣданы(й) (Апост. Іерей же долженъ всѧко работати паче Прав. 82).318 Гдⷭеви Дх҃овномꙋ, сїестъ Бг҃ꙋ, тѣмъ же требѣ дабы былъ свободенъ ѿ Гдⷭна телеснагѡ.317 “Подобаєтъ же єпископꙋ альбо свꙗщенникови быти оучительнꙋ” – Substantive Preparation for the Priesthood An extremely important element of priestly formation, widely described in the teachings for the clergy and the instructions for consecrators, was testing the level of knowledge and skills of the fu 315 Cf. 1228 г. Грамота константинопольскаго патріарха Германа ІІ къ митрополиту всея Руси Кириллу І о непоставленіи рабовъ въ священный санъ инеприкосновенности имуществ и судовъ церковныхъ, [in:] RIB 6, pp. 79–84. A.S. Pavlov’s information about the presence of the work in Church law, Ibidem, pp. 79–80. 316 Canon 82 of Holy Apostles, [in:] Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 80. cf. O dopuszczaniu niewolników do kleru, [in:] Konstytucje apostolskie..., p. 292; A. Znosko, Kanony…, p. 30. 317 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 142 (93). 318 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 143. ture minister. Already in the thirteenth century, Kiev’s Metropolitan Kyryl II(III) recalled the 22nd canon of the Council in Trullo in his synodal rules, which was actually mainly concerned with simony, but also mentioned that receiving this spiritual dignity was possible after passing an examination.319 According to the regulations preserved in the chynovnyks, the duty of verifying the substantive preparation of a candidate was the responsibility of the official appointed by the consecrator, who had previously checked his background.320 Bishop Shumlanskyi in his teaching expressed the belief that testing their knowledge and preparation can be performed by an examiner appointed by the bishop, or even the vladyka personally: “Повинен таковый кождый мѣти въ себѣ наꙋкꙋ згоднꙋю, и ѡвшеки свꙗщенникомъ потребнꙋю [...] пилне того постерѣгаючи, длѧ того власне еѯаменатора назначаємъ, и приходѧщихъ на посвꙗщенїе добрѣ еѯамѣновати кажемъ, подчасъ и сами еѯаминꙋємъ.”321 According to the above recorded testimony, the tested knowledge of a candidate was “adequate and always required for priests to enter the ministry.” The ruling on selecting worthy candidates contains information that a state official first checked to determine whether or not the candidate was literate322. Unfortunately, neither of these two texts clarified what is meant by the term knowledge. Based on these sources, it is difficult to establish a detailed picture of the requirements placed on candidates in this regard. Some supplementary information on the level of their substantive preparation is provided by polemical sources, especially those on the formation of priests found in the discussion between the authors of Epanorthosis and Lithos. According to Kasian Sakovych, Ruthenian land did not have educated priests, which was due to abandoning recruitment pro-cedures in favor of the common practice of paying for an ordination: 319 Cf. Правило Кюрила..., col. 87; in edition of Ephrem Kormchaia this is Canon num ber 21, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 129; cf. also A. Znosko, Kanony…, p. 78. 320 Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство..., p. 192. 321 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), pp. 226–227. 322 Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство..., pp. 138–139; Kasjan Sa kowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa..., Krak 1642, p. 56. “[…] niegodnych i nieumiejętnych na stan kapłański dla simonnij przeklętej święcą i owieczki krwią Chrystusowa odkupione głupim i nieumiejętnym pasterzom paść pozwalają.”323 Being rather spiteful, he also claimed that the test for ordination was quite dependant on the candidate’s wealth (“miewa tam dobry examen mieszka swego”) rather than his substantive preparation324. The polemist, in describing this reality, probably exaggerated the extent of the moral decline among bishops. Nevertheless, in the 16th century, such factors as choosing hierarchs by “secular key”, lack of good organization of ecclesial life at the diocesan level in connection with the disappearance of the convening of synods during which teachings for candidates and priests were proclaimed or temporary lack of hierarchical structures in the Orthodox Church, most importantly of seminaries were impeding the improvement the clergy’s substantive qualifications. Vasylii Tiapynskii, a secular publisher of fragments of the Gospelcirca 1580, spoke about the poor education of the clergy, especially their frighteningly low level of knowledge of the Slavonic Church language325. His handwritten preface presented initiative of the bilingual version of the book project (“prosta mova” and in the Orthodox Church’s Slavonic language) as an attempt to reach the clerical circles with materials for the study of the language of the liturgy.326 He ap- pealed to the hierarchs fighting in the quest for offices and power to 323 Ibidem, p. 59. 324 Ibidem, p. 56. 325 Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917…, no. 12. 326 “Бо а хто богобойный не задержить, на такую казнь божiю гледечи, хто быне мусил плакати, видечи так великих княжат, таких панов значных, такмногодеток невинных, мужов з жонами в таком зацном руском, а злащаперед тым довстипном, учоном народе езыка своегославнаго занедбанеа просто взгарду. C которое за покаранем панским, оная ясная их в словебожьем мудрость, а которая им была, праве, яко врожоная, гды от нихотишла, на ее мѣстьце натыхмѣст такаяоплаканая неумеетность пришла,же вжо некоторие и писмом се своим, а злаща в слове божем, встыдают!Анаостаток, што может быти жалоснейшая, штошкарадша, иж и тые,што се межи ними зовуть духовными и учители, смѣле мовлю, намней егоне вмеют, намней его вырозуменяне знают, ани се в нем цвичат, але и анишколы ку науце его нигде не мают, зачим в полскіе абов иные писма за repent and undertake again the abandoned efforts to improve their own qualifications and educate the clergy: В тую потребу отчизны вашое в простоту грубую про недoстаток науки брати вашое прикладом своим милосерным, если есть што милости братерское у вас, гдыж межи всими люцкостями ничого не естьтак власного, а злаща богобойному человѣку, яко улитоване, которим указуемпо собе неякое подобенство добротливости божіее. А наконець, дле заплаты собе от пана вечное, - тому народу вашому неумеетностью заведеному и утрапеному, допомагаючи, митрополита вашого, владык и учителей ваших до того прозбамивашими вели, жебы не подкупов, не посулов дле поседаня столиць один перед другим, не до животейи привильев, один над другого обварованейших, але слова божего самии се учили и других з маетностей и именей от ваших предков им не на марнотрацтва, не на строй и што такого, але для наук наданых. Ова бы ку науце, леч не такой, яко тепер, на вѣчный свой встыд, только прочести, и то ледвов своем езыку, не болшь учатсе. Школы заложити и науку слова божего, от так много лѣт занедбаную, выдвигнути братьи вашой хотели и усиловали.327 The low level of the clergy’s preparation, including the lack of knowledge of the Church’s Slavonic language, was criticized by the contemporary polemists. The first of these were Roman Catholics Piotr Skarga and Stanislaw Hozjusz,328 and then representatives of both Eastern Churches in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth joined the reforms. Ipatii Potii responded to the letter of Ostrogskyi, asking bitter questions about the academic program for ministry in the Orthodox Church: “A gdzie są uczyciele i kaznodzieje, którzy by ludzi nauczali, i na dobre uczynki i obyczaje uczciwe (przywodzili), такою неволею, немалои у себе и дети, не без встыду своего, бы се одно почули, немалаго заправуют?”, Прадмовы і пасляслоуі…, p. 34. 327 Ibidem, p. 36. 328 Cf. I. Ogijenko, Język cerkiewno-słowiański na Litwie i w Polsce w w. XV–XVIII, “Prace Filologiczne”, vol. 14, 1929, pp. 535–536; B. Walczak, Językowe konsekwencje unii brzeskiej. Postulaty badawcze, [in:] Czterechsetlecie Unii Brzeskiej. Zagadnienia języka religijnego, ed. Z. Leszczyński, Lublin 1998, pp. 7–12; J. Stradomski, Liturgiczny język Słowian, [in:] Idem, Spory o “wiarę grecką”…, pp. 113–125. a chlebem duchownym głodnych karmili? Gdzie ćwiczenia? Gdzie nauki? Gdzie usta one, które by strzegły zakonu Pańskiego, aby słusznie mogli być nazwani aniołmi (Malach. 2) (albo posłami)Pana zastępów, którzy by opowiadali ludziom wolę Jego?”329 This problem was then undertaken by Orthodox moralists from the first decades of the seventeenth century. The first men in this field were probably Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi, as proven by numerous exhorts to priests printed in Rachmanov’s Homiliary Gospel(1619)330 and Zakharia Kopystenskyi, who made critical comments on the intellectual formation of the clergy in the manuscript Palinodia331 and in the preface to the Nomocanon.332 Tarasii Zemka, another Kievan intellectual, commented on the uneducated priests whom the “Ruthenian Orthodox Church had in abundance,” and these remarks were not accidentally placed in the preface to the Kievan Sluzhebnyk in 1629. It took the form of a small treatise on the liturgy and was directed to the very numerous group of celebrants who clearly lacked basic knowledge about the history, importance of the 329 Hipacy Pociej, Odpis na list niejakiego kleryka Ostrozkiego bezimiennego…, col. 1098– 1100. 330 On this subject, cf. M. Kuczyńska, Ruska homiletyka…, pp. 146–159; А.З. Новак, Традиційні теми повчань для священників…, pp. 125–142. 331 As Kopystenskyi wrote, mediocre candidates would be ordained bishops: “[…] неуки и простаки великіи въ писмѣ святомъ небѣгліи”, which was reflected in a similar of the men ordained priests: “Зачимъ тыи святыи и вшелякой чести годныи духовныхъ преложенствъ столицы чути почали на собѣ не толко двоженцовъ и мужобойцовъ, але и такіи нерядники, которыи въ Богу пошлюбленномъ безженномъ животѣ, ведлугъ каноновъ и своего поволаня, не заховалися. Пресвитере зась, отъ ныхъ насвяченіи, - сметья было людское, бо юж до такой зневаги святое пресвитерское достоенство пришло было, же ся на оное чловѣкови доброму дати потягнути, якъ на свѣтскую якую ганбу поступити было. Откол ся до него самыи толко голодныи и неукове такъ натиснули были, же южъ розознати не было, гдѣ былъ частшій пресвитеръ въ корчмѣ, чили въ церкви?”,Захарія Копистенский, Палінодія или книга обороны…, [in:] RIB 4, col. 1057. 332 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Преѡсщ҃еныⷨ Архїепⷭпѡⷨ, и Митрополітѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезныⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, Прпⷣбнѣйшиⷨ Архїмаⷩдритѡⷨ, Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ Игꙋменѡмъ, Прпⷣбнымъ Іеромонахѡⷨ, Прчⷭстнымꙿ Протопопѡⷨ, Чтⷭнымъ Іереѡмъ... (Номоканонъ, Киевъ 1624), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 106. Eucharistic Sacrifice and of the liturgy, he stated sadly.333 The Uniates had similar intentions by including the compilation of teachings for yerers concerning the Liturgical celebration, to Słuzhebnyk published in Vilnius in 1617. These works attested to the urgent need to provide both the candidates and representatives of the clergy with appropriate educational material. Many texts regulating church law concerning selecting candidates for clerical positions contained the obligation to accept only people of keen mind. In the seventh principle of his treaties Peace with God for Man, Gizel pointed to the need to admit only these type candi-dates to the clerical state. The term “keen mind”, however, had little in relation to knowledge, but indicated a person’s potential, such as the ability to acquire knowledge from others or for self-education, capability of teaching to the faithful. A necessity to possess these features was motivated by the archimandrite by often cited quotations for priests using the words of the Prophet Malachi: “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (2: 7), and Christ to the disciples: “You are the salt of the earth” (Matt 5: 13),334 explaining that salt means “ученїє украшающе дѣла” 335 A candidate’s ability to reason was also important from the perspective of church law, which prohibited ordaining those who could not become teachers. The problem concerned Apostolic Canon Fifty-Eight, cited by the editors of the nomocanons who created a list of requirements for 333 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 5v. 334 ; (03.05. 2017). 335 “Требѣ да бы имѣлъ разꙋмъ, прислꙋщающїй къ своємꙋ санꙋ, сїєстъ ко строєнїю таинъ цр҃҃етъ Бгъ, чреⷥ Малахїю Прⷪрка: Ꙋстнѣ квныхъ, и ко поꙋченїю людї(й). О чесѡмъ тако гл҃Іереѡвы сохранѧтꙿ разꙋмъ, и закона взыщꙋ ѿ Ꙋстъ єгѡ, ꙗко Аг҃глъ Гд҃а Вседержителѧ єстъ. Хс҃ же къ Іереомъ своимъ глетъ: Вы єсте соль земли. Идѣже чрезъ соль, Ꙋченїє оукрашающе дѣла рaзꙋмѣетъсѧ”, Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 142-143 (93). consecrated persons: “Възбранѧєтъ Сщ҃енства аще не възможет люди ꙋчити о Вѣрѣ и житїи, по правилꙋ С(вѧтихъ) Апⷭлъ.” 336 A brief note on the scope of knowledge necessary to obtain priestly ordination was found in the Vilnius Teaching. First are listed candi-date traits such as a life of piety, strong faith and then reason, knowledge of the Scriptures and the traditions of the Church Fathers, which was justified by the duty to teach Christians and encourage them to be pious.337 According to the instructions in the ukaz, in the case of deficiencies in knowledge, the vladyka would sent the candidate back home to give him time to study. If he then obtained this knowledge, then he was to read the Psalter, the Apostle and the Gospel in the presence of the bishop, and then went to his confessor. Having received the sacrament of penance, he obtained an official letter attesting to his readiness for the priesthood and was then consecrated.338 A little more light on the subject of knowledge was shed by the author of Lithosin a separate part of the work entitled Na fałszywie w sakramencie kapłaństwa wyliczone absurda odpowiedź. In response to the Sakovych’s accusations of widespread corruption in buying sacred offices by priests, he confirmed the mentioned in the ukaz habit of postponing ordination in the case of ignorant candidates and their need to be additionally educated, which was to be carried out in mon-asteries: [...] idź jeno do Kijowa tam obaczysz jak u Jego Mości Ojca metropolity naszego nie z pieniędzy wiele kto przyniósł ją, to ty fałszywie 336 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 83 (100). Номоканонъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, f. 41. The canon applied to ordained priests who were to be punished, if they did not start teaching: “[…] извержетꙿсѧ єпⷭскопъ и іерей, аще не сꙋтъ оучителнїи, и ниже Вѣри ниже Житїа людей оучатъ”, Ibidem, f. 43v. 337 “Рꙋки скоро невоⷥлага(й) ни на когоⷤ, ниⷤ приобща(й)сѧ чꙋжиⷯ грѣсеⷯ. Але тоⷧко на тые самые, которые бы не толко побоⷤностью живота ꙋкрашеные были, вꙿ вѣре несꙋмеⷩной, вꙿ розꙋме досталомъ знашлисѧ, а наⷣто в наꙋце писма с(вѧтого): и преданïѧⷯ с(сѧтихъ) ѿц҃ъ мели великꙋю знаемость, абы народъ таеⷨницаⷨ вѣры светое и законꙋ Бж҃ого могли наꙋчити, и хрⷭтïѧⷩ кꙋ цноте и побоⷤности побꙋжати, и ѿ грѣховъ ѿводити”, Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 141. 338 Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство і ставити у їерейскый, идїаконъскый чинъ, pp. 192–193. prawisz, ale z artikułów wiary, z siedmiu sakramentów i okoliczności ich ordinanda examinują. Obaczysz tam to, że nieuka by najwięcej dawał do szkoły albo do domu nie poświęciwszy odeszlą, a które-by jeszcze nauki potrzebował około artikulów wiary i sakramentów takowy na pół roka, a czasem na rok na Metropolitanskiej strawie wmonastyrze dla ćwiczenia zostaje.339 Thus, the exam covered the material from the catechism, the truths of the faith and the sacraments, which was to be the basis for their teachings in parishes. Most likely because of this, the Orthodox Church’s reformers preached catechism teachings to the clergy at synods, and then they tried to publish them. A good example of this are Sylvester Kossov’s Didaskalia editions (cf. the Chapter One). The Archimandrite of Kiev Lavra Zakharia Kopystenskyi, who was involved in educational and publishing work in Kiev, in the preface of the second publication of the Nomocanon by the Pechersk community, expressed his conviction that the candidate should be proficient in the knowledge contained in this book. In the 17th centu-ry, four works titled Nomocanon were published in the Kiev Metropolitan area. The 1620 edition, similarly to the next two editions in Kiev (1624, 1629) and one in Lviv (1646) were not, in fact, what the Slavs called kormchaia books, but so-called small nomocanons or epitymiinyks(Ruthenian), also known as liber poenitentialis (Latin) and were mainly for confessors.340 This work were to assist them in their daily penitential ministry, being their “guide and teacher” that contained very important information for priestly formation, with regulations on the conditions for ordination that the candidate had to fulfill before the bishop laid his hands on him. In addition, it was a handy source of the most necessary canons and principles of the Church Fathers. Содержитъ же вꙿ себѣ Номонанон сей воспоминанїе и оученїе, какѡ приходити вꙿ сщ҃енство, како ко исповѣди приходѧщихъ прїймати и исправлѧти, 339 Euzebi Pimin, LIΘOΣ abo kamień…, Kij 1644, p. 149 340 In Byzantium the term nomocanon referred both to the the book which the Slavs called the kormchaia book and to the epitymiinyk, Canon Law, [in:] The Encyclopedia of EasternOrthodox Christianity, vol. 1, ed. J.A. McGuckin, Chichester 2011, p. 100; А. Павловъ, Номоканонъ…, p. 2. како цѣленїє подобноє коемꙋждо лицꙋ и врачеванїе подати. [...] Єсть ꙋбо Номоканон сей краткое собранїе канонѡвъ и разсꙋжденїй ст҃ыхъ ѡц҃ъ, наставникъ и ꙋчитель дх҃овникѡмъ, кающыⷨ же сѧ, єсть врачебница, комꙋждо 341 же сіа книжица єсть ꙋдобостѧжателна. Kopystenskyi believed that a candidate who did not know the rules, orders and canons of discipline for the consecrated life included in this book did not deserve to become an ordained priest or bishop, nor should he be a confessor: “И да не поставлѧє(тъ) сѧ Єпⷭпъ или іерей, паче же дх҃овный ѡц҃ъ, аще сихъ книⷢ не стѧже(тъ), и ѿ нихъ ꙋразꙋмленъ не обрѣтаетсѧ, влѣпотꙋ бо речесѧ ємꙋ, врачꙋ исцѣли себе сам (Лꙋка 4).”342 The prefaces to Kiev’s Nomocanons from 1624 and 1629 contained an ambitious though somewhat utopian program of self-education for priests, especially those who received a bishop’s blessing for the ministry of confession. 343 An absolute novelty in the teachings for priests was the recommendation concerning language skills. Yosyf Shumlanskyi not only wanted every sviashchennyk to know the Slavonic language, but also Polish, and preferably Latin as well, languages without which a citizen of the Crown in the eyes of Catholic lords and the clergy was considered to be a fool.344 Petro Mohyla and Sylvester Kossov, tried 341 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Преѡсщ҃еныⷨ Архїепⷭпѡⷨ, и Митрополітѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезныⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, Прпⷣбнѣйшиⷨ Архїмаⷩдритѡⷨ, Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ Игꙋменѡмъ, Прпⷣбнымъ Іеромонахѡⷨ, Прчⷭстнымꙿ Протопопѡⷨ, Чтⷭнымъ Іереѡмъ...(Номоканонъ, Киевъ 1624), p. 107. 342 Ibidem. 343 Books recommended by the Archimandrites of Pechersk Zakharia Kopystenskyi and Petro Mohyla concerned mainly confessors; for more on the subject, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Źródła wiedzy dla kapłana– przedmowy w XVII-wiecznych nomokanonach…, pp. 283–301. 344 „Наслꙋхалемъсѧ и тогѡ часто, же намъ панѡве дꙋховенствѡ рымское, а часомъ и лѧда кто, примѡвлѧютъ простотою, называютъ насъ неꙋками. А то длѧ тогѡ самогѡ, же латинскогѡ писма альбо польскогѡ многїє не разꙋмѣютъ, ѧзыкомъ латинскимъ альбо польским мовити не оумѣютъ, хоча и дрꙋгїй свꙗщенникъ въ словенскомъ ѧзыкꙋ и писмѣ бꙋдетъ добре оучоный и оумѣєтный, и большъ оумѣти бы не повиненъ, только кождїй своєгѡ власногѡ ѧзыка добре писмѡ, але же латинскогѡ ѧзыка альбо польскаго не оумѣєтъ, то южъ оу пана простакъ”, Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 232. to explain this necessity by promoting the new Latin-Polish school curriculum, several decades earlier among the enemies of Polish and Latin.345 The vladyka of Lviv believed that a Ruthenian priest should be a worthy partner of every conversation in Latin, either by written letter or directly face to face: “Подобаєтъ же єпископꙋ альбо свꙗщенникови быти оучительнꙋ”, и сама слꙋшност, альбо потреба дꙋховнаѧ того по нас вытѧгаєтъ, иле тꙋтъ въ краѧхъ Корѡны Польской, абы дꙋховенство наше россїйское православное дꙋховенствꙋ рымскѡмꙋ ѧзыкѡмъ принамнѣй корреспондовало, жебы свꙗщенникъ зъ паномъ полѣтичне моглъ сѧ розъмовити, и на заданьє ꙗкой трꙋдности оумѣетне ѡповѣдити. Прето потреба ѡвшеки дꙋховенствꙋ нашемꙋ тꙋтейшомꙋ не толькѡ словенскогѡ, але и польскагѡ писма, а можна и латинскогѡ, быти оумѣетномꙋ.346 To make knowledge of languages a norm among the clergy, the bishop turned to priests with the recommendation that they care for their son’s education, teaching them the Slavonic language at home, and above all not to forbidden them acquiring proficiency in other languages in school347: […] здалося намъ, пастыреви, за речъ слушную въ той книжцѣ нашей и то типомъ изобразити, и пастырско васъ, Пречестнїи и Честнїи отцеве, оупомнѣти, ажебысте домъ свой добре правячи, особливе въ томъ заховатися и въ звичай собѣ взяти хотѣли, абысъте сыновъ своихъ зъ молодыхъ дитинъскихъ лѣтъ заправовали, первѣй своєго словенского писма, и языка добре наоучивши, потомъ до школъ польских и латинских не забороняли, и овшемъ отцевско ихъ промововали.348 345 For more on the subject, cf. A. Naumow, Język – deklaracja przynależności czy narzędzie, [in:] Idem, Domus Divisa…, pp. 45–49. 346 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 232. 347 “[…] И дѣти свои на наоуки до школы давати, бо простотою нашою и святое набоженство гинетъ, а опущаєтъся, и о повазѣ духовной южъ и простые хлопи запомнѣли”, Яковъ Суша, Наука Соборовая и розные постановення…, p. 10. 348 Ibidem, p. 232. These words most probably indicate that the Ruthenian environment still failed to understand the need for comprehension of Latin and Polish, sometimes regarded as dangerous means leading to the loss of identity. These fears were generated primarily out of ignorance, which also brought about indifference towards linguistic competences so significant to a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was especially important for people who in the same way as parish priest represented a given group or community, even if they did not hold high offices. The Bishop of Lviv believed that proficiency in this language would have a profound effect on improving the image of the Ru-thenian clergy among the Latin speakers, thus becoming a means of rebuilding their authority in the community of lay patrons and then the faithful as well.349 In addition to knowledge, certain skills were required of candidates to the spiritual state that could only be obtained through training. These were mentioned in the Brief Catechism, but specific solutions to the problem were not given.350 It seems, however, that also in this case, the family home could also play an important role. Over time, it became a custom for the parish to be inherited by the son, and therefore he received his initial education and training at 349 This was still being written about in the early eighteen century, cf. Regulae et leges ab alumnis vladimiriensibus observandae: “1. Do seminarium Włodzimierskiego mają bydź przyjmowani tacy, którzyby mieli lat szesnaście, aby po wyjściu znauk mogli bydź ordynowani na kapłaństwo, nie krnąbrni, posłuszni, spokojni, z uczciwych urodzeni rodziców, a ile można kapłańscy synowie, jeżeli nie mający w łacińskim języku początki, przynajmniej czytać i pisać należycie po rusku i polsku umiejący, w rozumie i pamięci nie tępi, indolis bonae, a mający dobrą i nieprzymuszoną wolą w stanie kapłańskim służyć […]”, Postanowienia soboru Wlodzimierskiego, podane ad observandum Wielbnym ojcom, do diecezej Włodzimierskiej należącym, dnia 15 miesiąca octobra roku 1715, [in:] І. Скочиляс, Релігія та культура Західної Волині нaпочатку XVIII ст. За матеріялами Володимирського собору 1715 р., Львів 2008, p. 68. 350 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки..., Киевъ 1645, p. 418. John Chrysostom, Dialogue on the Priesthood, Lviv 1614 home from father.351 In connection with this widespread practice, Metropolitan Yosyf Rutskyi in the resolutions of the Kobryn Synod (1626) ordered bishops to teach priests about the need to prepare their young sons for future spiritual ministry: “єпископов на своєм синоді упоминати маєт свещенников, аби синов cвоих з молоду цвичили так в науках, яко и в обичаях, станови священническому належачих.”352 At the beginning of the 18th century, Kiev’s Archmonk Dmytro Tuptalo, already during his ministry in the Yaroslav-Rostov region, in one of the teachings for yereis, just like his predecessors from half a century, appealed to the priests to take care of the education of their sons. They should first taught them reading and writing so that they could understand the words of the Bible, and then sent them to the school in Rostov which Tuptalo established for further study so that they would become worthy successors of the priestly dignity.353 Furthermore, because often altar servers (diacs), subdiacs, lectors, cantors and psalmists who performed lower ministries in Orthodox churches became later deacons and priests, it could be assumed that they were well-versed in the order of Orthodox rites, and to a certain degree they knew the liturgical texts. 354 Because a consecration had to 351 Generally speaking, the fact that parishes were inherited automatically did not motivate clergymen to broaden their theological knowledge, as was discussed e.g. by the Bishop of Vilnius Benedykt Woyna in an account sent to Rome: “Wy starcza bowiem u nich, że urodził sie synem [kapłana], a nie jest ważne, czy jest uczony. Byle umiał czytać jest uważany za godnego [być kapłanem] i nie może zostać wcale usunięty albo pozbawiony dziedzictwa po ojcu”, quoted after: L.Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego…, p. 966. 352 CоборКобринський року 1626 місяця Августа 26 дня, [in:] Ю. Федорів, Кобринський Синод 1626 р., “Богословія” 1974, no. 38, pp. 76–77. 353 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє [Іереовъ къ Бжⷭетвенномꙋ причащенїю], p. 141. More on this topic cf. M. Kuczyńska, Św. Dymitr Rostowski (Daniel Tuptało), [in:] Eadem, Z Zachodu na Wsch. Obywatele Rzeczypospolitej na ołtarzach Cerkwi rosyjskiej, Krak 2011, pp. 40–41. 354 М. Марусин, Погляд на виховання кандидатів духовного стануна Україні, відбитка з “Богословії”, vol. 31–34, Рим 1964, p. 7. Training was particularly important in the case of priests who did not inherit parishes, S. Senyk, The History of the Church…, vol. 2, pp. 171–173. be preceded by training, Euzebi Pimin claimed that candidates who showed adequate knowledge were not to be ordained directly after their exam, because it was now time to acquire practical skills: Ci zaś, co umieją nie zaraz poświęceni bywają, ale po kilku Niedziel wprzód w monastyrze pobożnego życia i na chorze porządnie nabożeństwa odprawować ćwiczą się. A potym Minores ordinesdostąpiwszy i diakoństwa w nabożeństwie do sakramentów należącym niedziel kilka także się ćwiczą, dopiuro zaś Kapłaństwa dostąpi-wszy jako Sakramenta odprawować i nimi szafować uczą się. I tak dopiuro list stanowy albo format od metropolity wziąwszy do swego prestoła albo ołtarza idą, bo tam bez pewnego miejsca gdzie mu Bóg objawi ołtarz żadnego nigdy nie święcą. Toż rozumiem że i episkopi, którzy są pod posłuszeństwem Jego Mości Ojca metropolity naszego czynią, bo jak ich jego Mość przy ich Poświęceniu i na synodach napomina i obliguje. A waszy unitowie jak sobie chcą tak niech czynią nam do nich nic.355 The letters to confessor and examiner mentioned by Pimin con-firming that when a candidate was worthy of the clerical state, were read on the day of his consecration before the liturgy. The ukaz also set provisions for practices after the ordination.356 The newly or-dained priest, before taking up the parish assigned to him, should have celebrated the liturgy and performed all other services under the guidance of an experienced celebrant in the cathedral. According to different sources, this course lasted from one to six weeks:[...] слоужити ємоу, въ большоє съборноє цр҃ кви, шесть недель. А маєт тот новоставленый всѣгды на Бж҃҃ їихъ и стыхъ литоргїахъ євангелїє чести гораздо, просмотрѣвши, абы чо҃ л неспѣшно, жебы зналъ статїй и възгласы, а на оутрынях и на вечерняхъ, тот же новоставленный, абы говорилъ псалътиръ, и псалмы, иканоны, цр҃҃ ковноє каженїє жебы знал. И все дѣйствосщенниче своє, томоу маєтся оучити пилно абы оумѣлъ гораздъ а тыхъ новоставленныхъ мают присмотрят и оучити по всю тоую шесть 355 Euzebi Pimin, LIΘOΣ abo kamień…, Kij 1644, p. 149. 356 А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., pp. 192–193. недель, бж҃҃ ественной слоужбѣ, и всемоу црковному правилоу [...] попа поп.357 Yosyf Velamin Rutskyi, in the Kobryn Synod resolutions, included the obligation to reinforce the long lasting custom of keeping the newly ordained priests a few weeks longer at the bishop’s cathedral in order for them to achieve proficiency in celebrating the liturgy and the sacraments: “[...] жаден с посвещенихъ не отойдет от єпископа своєго, ажби час який премешкал в служенїю служби Божоє иажби се научил действованя тайнами пресвятими.”358 A similar recommendation could be found in the Regulations for Bishops (Regulae episcoporum) written near the end of the metropolitan’s life. Ordained neo-presbyters were to celebrate seven masses under the supervision of the bishop in the cathedral in order to obtain appropriate skills. Those who did not possess the proper knowledge and proficiency were obliged to stay with the vladyka for the period of time needed to reached it.359 Only in the 18th century was the problem of the lack of seminary teaching solved by the Basilians. In 1715, at the Council of Volodymyr Volynskyi, the foundation of the Eparchial Seminary was solemnly proclaimed.360 The documents of the council indicated the need to raise the theological competence of candidates for the clerical state, who were to be supervised by the appointed examiners together with the governors, and the main role was played by the quarterly so-called protopresbyter councils.361 The Orthodox did not have sem 357 Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство..., p. 140. In the light of Euchologion Slavonicum 15, a newly ordained priest should celebrate the liturgy for seven days in a row, М. Марусин, Чини Святительських Служб…, p. 22. For more on the subject, cf. also А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., pp. 195, 210. 358 CоборКобринський року 1626 місяця Августа 26 дня…, p. 78; cf. also С.Сеник, Берестейська унія і світське духовенство…, p. 59. 359 The relevant fragment, cf. Regulae episcoporum, [in:] Археографіческій сборникъ документовъ относящихся къ исторіи сѣверо-западной Руси, vol. 12, Вильна 1900, p. 206; description of rules cf. M. Szegda, Działalność…, p. 158. 360 The school curriculum and requirements for candidates for the seminary, cf.І.Скочиляс, Релігія такультура…, pp. 35–45. 361 Ibidem, pp. 33–34. inary-type schools, but they created a network of fraternity schools and numerous colleges, especially the Kiev-Mohylan, and others in Kharkiv and Pereiaslav probably contributed to raising the level of education, especially for the higher clergy. In the seventeenth century, the lack of a network of schools for candidates for the clerical state caused both the Uniates and the Orthodox to pay close attention to other, less effective, but available means for educating their clergy. This was probably the reason why the bishops instructed parish priests to treat an obligation to teach their sons to become their successors with utmost responsibility. Aclear sign of strives to improve the qualifications of the clergy was also visible in efforts aimed at refreshing and reintroducing the practice of verifying candidates before their consecration and training newly ordained presbyters. Education of the clergy was not just limited to the time immediately after consecration and was to be of a permanent nature, as the bishop was responsible for deepening the intellectual formation of the clergy by proclaiming exhortations during the cyclically held syn-ods. This custom was revived in the seventeenth century,362 as proven by the manuscripts distributed and the first publications of both the old as well as the new versions of these instructions. The preserved constitutions of the Lviv Eparchial Council of 1669 show that Bishop Yosyf Shumlanskyi attempted to increase the super-vision of priestly skills in parish ministry, especially in such important matters as celebrating the Mass. This was a task that could only be performed on site, in the Orthodox parish assigned to the priest, and therefore it was the responsibility of the bishop’s vicar (protopope). He was the one who ought to check the clergy in his deanery and train the priests who were not proficient in celebrating the liturgy. For priests who refused to participate in the training course, there was a penalty: “Свꙗщенници, которїє в целебрацїи не сꙋт перфекти, повинни Велебніи ѿцеве немесникове, таковыхъ на седмичноє набоженъство брати. Томꙋ, єжели бы сꙗ спротивлꙗли, тим самимъ неблагословенїю нашемꙋ 362 For more on the subject, cf. e.g. I. Skoczylas, Sobory eparchii chełmskiej XVII wieku…, pp. 55–56 passim. подпадают.”363 This program was part of the renewal program of Lviv’s vladyka, the organizer of synods, author of the bishop’s teaching for priests, the first publisher of the text of the priestly oath,364 and above all catechetical and theological works, which were to assist parish clergy in their ministry.365 “О законномъ бракѣ свѧщенниковъ” – Wives in the Lives of Candidates and Priests An impediment in preparing for priestly ordination might have been a candidate’s wife, and just as well not having a wife at all. The Eastern Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not re-quire celibacy from its clergymen, but celibacy was strictly required for bishops. In the 16th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the topic of marriage for the ordained reoccurred in the polemics on denominational movements concerning Protestantism, and there was a dis-cussion about celibacy during the Council of Trent.366 On the Catholic side, an ardent defender of celibacy was, among others, Piotr Skarga, who believed that wives were a source of the clergy’s ignorance.367 Stanisław Hozjusz, Jakub Wujek, Fabian Birkowski and other preach 363 1669 р. Львів. – Упис у книзі Львівського духовного суду “діянь” та конституції єпарїяльного собору 1669 року…, p. 99. 364 The text was published twice as a part of the Mirror (1680) and Metrical Records (1687), cf. Chapter One. 365 Cf. І. Скочиляс, Собори Львівської…, pp. LXIX–LXX. 366 On the problems with maintaining celibacy and implementing the reform at the time, cf. G. Ryś, Trydencki przełom, [in:] Idem, Celibat, pp. 97–106. 367 Piotr Skarga, O jedności Kościoła Bożego pod jednym pasterzem i o greckim od tej jed-ności odstąpieniu (Krak 1577), [in:] RIB 7, col. 392. In a subsequent edition of the work, the theme was elaborated on. To substantiate his thesis, the Jesuit cited testimonies of Church Fathers, mainly Greek: Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa. The added text was placed in footnote 5 of the edition in question (col. 392-396). ers opted to maintain the principle of priestly celibacy.368 However, there was no unity in the Catholic camp on the topic of celibacy dur-ing Tridentine, something which the Protestants departed from and a discipline not always kept by Catholic priests, 369 as mentioned by the supporters of its abolition. These included prominent writers in those days: Przemysl’s priest Stanisław Orzechowski, who fought for the recognition of his own marriage, and Andrzej Frycz-Modrzewski, whose works on the topic were censored.370 Over time, the Orthodox and a little later the Uniates voiced their opinions about this matter. Marcin Broniewski, a Protestant hiding under the pen name Christophor Philalet, spoke up at the end of the 16th century in opposition to clerical celibacy, citing Orzechowski’s arguments. The writer was struggling with the soteriological exclu sivity of Catholicism and believed that different traditions were not an obstacle to Church unity: Aby Grecy z Rusią przeto iż u nich pospólstwo kielicha używa, a kapłan żonę ma, na stronie niepobożnych i w liczbie nieprzyjaciół poczytani być mieli – nie zda mi się. I owszem rozumiem to o nich, że 368 A. Szafrański, W. Wójcik, Celibat (Kościół Zachodni), [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, edit. F. Gryglewicz, R. Łukaszyk, Lublin 1995, col. 1400. 369 On the problems with the attempts to introduce celibacy in Poland between the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries, cf. J. Fijałek, Stosunek duchownych do niewiast i konkubinat, [in:] Idem, Życie i obyczaje kleru w Polsce średniowiecznej na tle ustawodawstwa synodalnego, Krak 2002, pp. 66–82. The publication featured provin cial and diocesanstatutes concerning the problem, cf. pp. 83–97; cf. also G.Ryś, Celibat, pp. 89–97. For more on the subject with regard to the post-Tridentine period, cf. e.g. W. Pawlikowska-Butterwick, Konkubiny w życiu prałatów i kanoników wileńskich w XVI–XVII wieku. Uwagi o recepcji uchwał Soboru Trydenckiego w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim, [in:] Tridento visuotinio Bažnyčios susirinkimo (1545–1563) įtaka Lietuvos kultūrai, ed. A. Aleksandravičiūtė, Vilnius 2009, pp. 221–236. 370 S. Orzechowski in De lege caelibatus contra Siricium oratio (ca. 1547 i 1551), cf. on the subject A. Kaim, Ekumenia w dobie Renesansu: jedność Kościoła w ujęciu Stanisława Orzechowskiego, Lublin 2002, pp. 48–54; A. Frycz-Modrzewski in the fourth part, On the Church, of Republica emendanda libri quinque, a work that was censored in Poland and was published in the five-part form in Basel in 1554 and then in 1559; on both authors and problems with the publication of their work, cf. J. Ziomek, Renesans, Warszawa 1999, pp. 168–204. są chrześcijanami i że są w Kościele. A przez imię Kościoła rozumiem Kościół ten, który w różnych obyczajach i porządkach jedną wiarą i jednym krztem pod jednym Bogiem po wszytkim okregu ziemie jest rozlany, który jest słupem prawdy i przybytkiem Ducha Ś., który błądzić żadnym sposobem nie może, którego rozkazania i postanowienia trzymać się trzeba, choć nie zawsze wiedzieć, dla czego on to rozkazuje, a owego zakazuje.371 In Kiev Metropolitanate, there was a rule that a candidate to priesthood must have a wife or otherwise receive a monk’s tonsures.372 It was necessary, however, for the sacrament of marriage to precede the ordination. This order was expressed in ecclesiastical and secular legislation on Ruthenian territories and was made widespread by the metropolitans in the oldest legal records. An example can be the regulations by Metropolitan Ioan II (1080–1089) from the canonical Church Rule,373 where the hierarch also discussed other detailed conditions for presbyterate aspirants. Any man who parted with his spouse in order to receive a monk’s tonsures could become a priest, regardless of whether his wife also did the same.374 In the fourteenth-century instruction by Kiev’s Metropolitan Petro (Ratenskyi), which was also included in the kormchaia book,375 the situation of a priest who be-came a widower was also resolved: 371 Broniewski cites the Przemyśl canonicusStanisław Orzechowski (Diatryba contra calumniam1548): Marcin Broniewski [Christophor Philalet], AΠOKPIΣIΣabo odpowiedź…, col. 1579. 372 In some Eastern Churches celibacy was mandatory, in other Churches priests could marry, cf. M. Szegda, W. Wcik, Celibat IV. W Kościele katolickim. A. Kościoły wschodnie, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, col. 1398–1399. 373 “[…] в подьяконѣхъ на прочеє потщися никакоже поставити, дондеже оженитися, по поставленіи же поимающе жены погубляють чинъ свой. А иже [преже] створенaя, аще хощешь, [по искушенью] расмотри”, Іоана, митрополита рускаго, нaреченаго пророкомъ Христовымъ…, col. 5. 374 “Мужа отлучившася своєго подружья, мнишескаго ради житья, аще отлученая от него жена со инѣмъ сочтається, не възбраняється єму на иєрейство прити, ничтоже бо съгрѣши, но иже ся паче поиметь, сему възбранити єрейства, аще были мысли, нынѣ хощеть прияти”, Ibidem, col. 6-7. 375 The instruction was known from a sixteenth-century copy and attributed to Met ropolitan Kyprian already in the kormchaia book, which, according to Aleksei Писах многажды о семъ къ вамъ, аще у попа умретъ жена да идетъ въ монастыръ, имѣєтъ священство своє, аще иметъ въ слабости пребывати и любити мірскыи сласти, да не поетъ. Аще не послушаєтъ моєго словеси, да будетъ неблагословенъ и тіи, иже пріобщаются съ ними. Вы же яко апсиди затыкающе уши свои, тако не слышите, но мыслите въ тѣхъ грѣсѣх умрети. И да не буди се.376 These disciplinary records made out of concern for the clergy’s morality were known in manuscript circulation. They were then con- firmed in the documents of the council of Vilnius in 1509 and printed for the first time in 1614. The Lviv brotherhood, the publisher of this work, just like the metropolitan 100 years earlier, sought to improve the moral life of the clergy. Conducting the Vilnius meeting, Yosyf II Soltan, the Metropolitan of Kiev, Halych and all of Rus’, referred to secular legislation, most likely the novels of Emperor Justinian,377 and most of all the current practice of the Church in Constantinople propagated the need for a legitimate wife, not a mistress. If this condition was not fulfilled, the bishop was obliged to remove every priest in his jurisdiction from ministry who had not become a monk: А и царьскіизаповѣди повелѣваутъ: “аще священникъ не имаетъ жены своее законного брака, святителю подобаєтъ такового отъ сана отлучити и въ мірскіа люди увести”. Якоже и нинѣ вселенскаа великаа Константінополъскаа церковъ держитъ, вси тамо сущіи священници, не имуще женъ, не священъствуутъ, или въ мнишескій чин да идутъ и тогда священствуутъ, аще ли ни, тогда къ простой чади причитаутъся.378 Pavlov, was prompted by the official nature of the text, a binding synodal document; a commentary on the text, cf. Поученіе митрополита Петра духовенству (объ епитиміяхъи вдовыхъ попахъ) и мірянамъ (объ усердіи къ церкви), [in:] RIB 6, col. 159. 376 Ibidem, col. 161–162. 377 The emperor raised the law applying to celibacy of bishops and marriages of clergymen to the status of state legislation, cf. M. Szegda, W. Wcik, Celibat, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, col. 1398. 378 Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, [in:] RIB 4, col. 11. The Metropolitan declared that the bishop who ordained an unmarried man was to be punished by removal from the bishopric (izverzhennia), and if a metropolitan dared to perform this act, the council of bishops was to decide on taking away his honorary office. All those who did not do penance after committing this sin were threatened by excommunication.379 The most important Church canons on these issues were popular-ized at the turn of the 16 and 17 centuries by polemicists who needed to support their arguments with valid points upheld by the authority of Church documents. One of the first Ruthenian Orthodox religious disputants was Vasyl Surazhskyi Malushytskyi, who was involved in the educational and publishing circles of Kniaz Konstantyn Ostrogskyi. When defending the Orthodox Church’s rules against attacks by Catholics, he based his arguments primarily on canons cited in the work. It was the Fifth Apostolic Canon also quoted in other works and Canon Thirteenth of the Council in Trullo referring to it, which, according to a brief commentary, was rejected by the Latinists. The author of Knyzhycia, in the part of the work entitled On marriage, or the Marriage of Priests and Deacons (О брацѣ, сирѣчь – о женитвѣ, презвитеръ и діаконовъ),recalled also the seventeenth rule of the Apostolic Constitutions, which contained the Marriage Rules Concerning the Clergy, although this source was not entirely accepted as Holy Spirit inspired by the East or the West:380 Правило пятоє святыхъ апостолъ глаголетъ: “презвитеръ или діаконъ своея жены да не отпуститъ извѣтомъ благовѣріа, аще же отпустить, да отлученъ будетъ священства. Пребываай же и нехотяй паки пояти ея, да извержется […]”. Еще о семъ и въ заповѣдехъ апостольскыхъ Климентомъ, папою Римскимъ написаныхъ въ главѣ 17 доводне писанообрящеши. Сего ради и шестый святый вселенскій собор, на немже первоначалникъ бысть блаженый 379 Ibidem, col. 12. 380 The Eastern Church adopted only the Apostolic Canons during the Quinisex-tum Council, A. Baron, H. Pietras, Wprowadzenie, [in:] Konstytucje apostolskie…., pp. XV–XVI. Агафонъ, папа Римскій, въ правилахъ своихъ оутверждаютъ о семъ, паче же въ правилѣ 13 сице глаголютъ: “понеже въ Римстей церкви въ чину правила предано увѣдахомъ, хотящимъ сподоблятися поставленія, дьякономъ или презвитеромъ обѣщеватися имъ, яко ктому съ своими женами несовокуплятися. Мы же, древнeму послѣдующе правилу апостольскаго упевненіа, и чину священыхъ мужъ по закону сожитіємъ, и от нынѣ цѣломъ быти повелѣваємъ, никакоже имъ къ своимъ женамъ совокупленія неразрушающе, ни лишающе ихъ друга къ другу во врѣмя подобно приближеніа”. Тѣмже явѣ єсть, яко и въ семъ Римляне, не храняще преданіа святыхъ апостолъ и богоносныхъ отецъ утверженіа и клятвы нерадяще, своя нѣкая умышленіа составляютъ, так яко и въ прочихъ вещахъ обрѣтаются претворяюще.381 In the cited passage, an important argument addressed to Catholics was the participation of popes in the creation of the mentioned Church documents. Pope Clement was the legendary founder of the Apostolic Constitutions, and Pope Agaton, through his legates, par-ticipated in the Constantinopolitan Council in 680. The work of this Synod entered the corpus of the documents of the Council called the Fifth-Sixth (691). The two aforementioned canons: the fifth Apostolic Canon and the thirteenth canon of the Fifth-Sixth Council, were also used by an-other famous polemist, Marcin Broniewski, defending marriage for consecrated persons: Do tego też prezbiterom i innym, którzy są duchownego stanu, opuszczać swoje żony bez mniszego życia i porządku rozkazują na duchowny stan wstępując. Co aby nie było w Duchu Świętym, zakazuje święty powszechny synod w trzynastym kanonie, który tak się w sobie ma: Ponieważ w Kościele rzymskim w porządek kanonów zachowywać podano, doznaliśmy, że którzy chcą diakońskiej abo prezbiterskiej dostąpić chirotoniej, aby wyznawali że już więcej nie mają obcować zswymi żonami. My tedy zwierzchniejszego naśladując kanonu apostolskiego rozsądku i porządku, aby duchowni mężowie, którzy wedle zakonu ożenili, od dzisiejszego czasu utwierdzając, 381 ВасилСуразкий (Малюшицкий), О единой истинной православной вѣрѣ и о святой соборной апостолской церкви, (Острог 1588), [in:] RIB 7, col. 844–845. rozkazujemy, aby żadnym sposobem zjednoczenia z swymi żonami nie rozwiązywali (i tak kanon potwierdzając dokłada). Jeśliby kto śmiał ważyć się nad apostolskie kanony, bądź kto z księżej, bądź zdiakonów abo poddiakonów ostać się żony swojej zjednoczenie ipospolitowania, niech będzie złożen. I wiele innych kanonów idekretów wzgardza i przebacza często obaczysz.382 Catholic-Orthodox debates probably caused a ferment, which could contribute to consolidation of the knowledge about the Ru-thenian clergy’s obligations concerning organization and discipline. Perhaps the polemic works containing extended and commented fragments of ecclesiastical documents could have been an additional source for deepening the knowledge of canonical literature among clerical circles.383 This was all the more since some polemical texts were printed in two languages (Polish and “prosta mova”), and the particularly popular prints are also preserved in numerous manu-script copies. The biggest opposition in the Catholic circles was towards the Eastern Church’s order on having a wife. According to Piotr Skarga, this stood in contradiction with the proclaimed in Sacred Scripture need for full dedication to spiritual ministry, and in Ruthenian land, it resulted in the fall of teaching: […] duchowni naszy żonami się nie bawią, ani bawić mogą, dla rozdwojenia to, wedle apostoła, czynią: aby się nie rozrywali świeckimi zabawami, ale obiema rękoma służby się jego ś. i zakonu i nauki Bożej chwycili, żeby w kościele Bożym nauka zbawienna nie zginęła, tak jako u Rusi przeto zginąć musiała. Jeśli którzy naszy kapłani występują, a ślubów swoich nie chowają, to na swój karb czynią, z zakonu to nie idzie. I na Rusi tacy się popi najdują, których niepowściągliwość małżeństwem się uhamować nie może.384 382 Marcin Broniewski [Christophor Philalet], EKTHESIS abo krótkie zebranie spraw…, p. 65. 383 Excerpts from canonical literature were also cited by the author of a polemi-cal dialogue in manuscript form, cf. Вопросы и отвѣты православному зъ папежникомъ z 1603 r., cf. RIB 7, col. 87–88. 384 Piotr Skarga, O jedności Kościoła Bożego pod jednym pasterzem…, col. 392. The confirmation of similar allegations made by the Orthodox is found in the dialogue between the pope follower (papiezhnik) and the Orthodox in the polemical Questions and Answers, in which the former refers to the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7: 32–33)385 and argued that the main reason for the lack of educated pastors and preachers is priests spending their time with wives, families and household maintenance: […] у васъ для того пастырове и казнодѣи учоные буты не могуть, же однымъ дозволяєте жоны мѣти, а кгды першая умретъ, то и другую волно ему взяти въ малженство. За которую забавою попъ вашъ часу волного до науки нигды мѣти не можетъ. Абовѣмъ болшей его тягнетъ старане о жонѣ, о дѣтех о господарствѣ дому своего, анижли о церкви Божой.386 The Orthodox in his riposte also used St. Paul’s letters to Timothy (3: 2–3, 12) and Titus (1: 1), which stressed a priest’s duty to be married to one wife. He explained to their adversary that the passage from the letter to the Corinthians that he cited refers to lay people.387 Interestingly, later arguments by the Catholic side were picked up by the Uniates. In the days after their unification with Rome (1596), the Orthodox position on marriage was criticized by Uniate Metropolitan Ipatii Potii, despite the fact that the Uniates did not depart from the principle of marriage for the clergy. He claimed that fam- ily concerns and living needs often negatively affected the values of priestly ministry. He upheld the reasons for this, not only because duties towards his wife and loved ones draw a priest’s attention away from clerical ministry, but perhaps also due to the serious phenome-non of the family taking over property owned by the church, including inheriting a clerical position. According to the Metropolitan, the 385 “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife […]”, NRSV (03.05. 2017). 386 Вопросы и отвѣты...(1603), col. 84. 387 Ibidem, сol. 84-86. automatic transfer of a parish from father to son did not oblige the latter to undertake formative preparations:Kapłanom swoim iż żon mieć nie dopuszczali, mądrze to upatrzy li. Czego Ruś teraz doznawa i wielkiej trudności zażywa z strony żon i dzieci popowskich, którzy wszyscy prawem dziedzicznym garną się do majętności cerkiewnych. A sukcesor, co cerkwi służy, niema czasem i chleba gdzie zarobić! Azatym, spodziewając się na dziedziczne cerkwi, mało się i uczą, ponieważ nie po godności, ale po dziedzictwie cerkwi dostępują. Rzymskiego kościoła Bóg uchował od tego kłopotu. Przetoż nie dziw, że godnych kapłanów mają: bo nie po dziedzictwie, ale po godności wstępują do kościołów. Nie wspominam czego więtszego, jaki kapłan ma być, i jaki lepszy, czy żonaty, czyli ten, który Panu Bogu w czystości służy, a niema zabawy takiej.388 The quoted fragment confirms Sophia Senyk’s thesis that in the first decades after the Union of Brest, the statements by Uniates point to incentives for the clergy to remain unmarried.389 The Orthodox de-fended the marriage of priests and at the same time raised accusations against Catholics regarding the fictitious observance of celibacy by the clergy. Herasym Smotrytskyi claimed that they were surrounded by servile women, obtaining money for their living expenses, and sometimes without even trying to hide behind the veil of alleged de-cency, openly lived with their concubines: Такъ тежъ жоны законъные, отъ самого Бога презъреные, иподаные и отъ апостолъ святыхъ, такъ скуткомъ яко и писмомъ потверженые, духовнымъ своимъ поотыймовали, да на ихъ местъца блудъницы поподъставляли, а хотя не подставляли, ино на дурное и сами ся домышляютъ, кгдыжъ их посполузъ собою многіе явне ховаютъ, и особный юръкгелтъ у пановъ своихъ имъ вымовляють: Если же ваша милость опатрилъ каплана, потреба еще и на прачку. А ты бѣдъный попе рускій мусишъ и зъ законъною нендзу клепати, неборачъку.390 388 [Hipacy Pociej], Harmonia albo concordantia wiary, sakramentów i ceremoniej cerkwi Ś orientalney z kościołem rzymskim, Wilno 1608, [in:] RIB 7, сol. 212–213.389 С. Сеник, Берестейська унія і світське духовенство..., p. 69. 390 Герасим Смотрицкий, Каленъдаръ Римский новый, [in:] Архив Юго-Западной России, part 1, vol. 7, Киев 1887, p. 261. The discussion on celibacy was also undertaken by the Greek hi-erarchs. Meletius Pigas, while still the Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to Ipatii Potii, the Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev, and touched upon a number of doctrinal and ritual topics concerning, among other things, celebrating the Eucharist, and he also addressed the issue of priestly marriages. The Patriarch’s speech was to a great extent in the form of rhetorical exclamations and questions addressed to the metropolitan, whom he accused of misappropriation of canonical apostolic and conciliar principles. His goal was to decidedly defend the principle of receiving the sacrament of marriage by future priests: Что сказать о законномъ бракѣ священниковъ? Къ нему имѣютъ такое отвращеніе, что охотнѣе соглашаются терпѣть безчинія, безпорядки, даже прелюбодѣянія, чѣмъ законный бракъ священниковъ заключаемый невдовымъ мущиною съ дѣвицей. Даже то, что бракъ есть таинство не можетъ расположить ихъ къ себѣ. Но тщетно! Не то заповѣдують постановленія апостольскія и соборныя. Будешь ли ты слушаться єтихъ жестокихъ опредѣленій противъ брака, сдѣланныхъ твоимъ патріархомъ т.е. епископомъ римськимъ, и запретишь имѣть женъ твоимъ священникамъ […]? Запретиш ли, говорю, женитьбу священникамъ, и именно до принятія священничества, такъ чтобы мущина невдовый, женивсь на дѣвицѣ, дѣлался потомъ священникомъ?391 In the later part of the Patriarch’s message, he referred to the teaching of the Apostle (probably St. Paul in his First Letter to Timothy 3: 2), and to the canon of the Constantinople Council, most likely bearing in mind the thirteenth canon from the Council in Trullo, which was most often mentioned by the Orthodox in the context of celibacy at that time. In addition, he also referred to the documents of the First General Council of Nicaea and the decrees of the local Synod 391 Письмо Мелетія къ Ипатію Поцѣю. Мелетій обличаєт главнѣйшіе изъ отличительныхъ предметовъ римско-католическаго ученія, осуждаетъ унію защищаетъ Восточную Церковъ, убѣждаетъ и умоляетъ Поцѣя возвратитися къ православной Церкви (15 акт. 1599), [in:] И.И. Малышевський, Александрійскій патріархъ Мелетій Пигас..., vol. 2, pp. 136–137. in Carthage (419),392 which were generally not mentioned by the other participants in the debate in Kiev Metropolitanate: “Особенно св. Отцы постановили єтот законъ на первомъ Никейскомъ соборѣ, на основаніи словъ великаго пустынника Пафнутія; а на Картагенскомъ соборѣ предали проклятію того кто бы отважился противиться єтому установленію св. Отцевъ.”393 In Nicaea (325), the first such attempt in history of Church was made to introduce obligatory celibacy for the clergy. It was blocked by the mentioned patriarchal letter of Archbishop Pafnutius of Thebaid.394 Despite the opposition to celibacy, some Orthodox teachers saw problems linked with priestly marriages to varying degrees. The monk and reformer Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi did not postulate the introduction of celibacy yet repeatedly wrote about the moral and substantive unpreparedness of the Ruthenian clergy to perform par-ish ministry, drawing attention to the fact that priests overwhelmed by this mortal life and their families, and sometimes to a lesser degree or not at all caring for spiritual matters. The image full of accusatory tones of priests abandoning their teaching, dressing their wives and daughters in lovely gowns and gold strips, yet at the same time com-pletely neglecting to supply their churches with the necessary books, became the symbol of this situation. As the moralist wrote, “in some churches, books are torn, and in others they cannot be found at all.”395 392 Canon 3 of the First Council of Nicaea applied only to concubinage and a ban on cohabiting with women, which Canons 3 and 4 of the Synod of Carthage of 419 – pre-liturgical abstinence of the presbyter, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, pp. 84, 314–315. 393 Письмо Мелетія къ Ипатію Поцѣю…, p. 137. 394 M. Szegda, W. Wcik, Celibat, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, col. 1398. 395 Cf. e.g. “Єгда же смертнымъ часомъ оугасли ѡныи пречꙋдныи свѣтилꙿницы, тогда по нихъ настꙋпили чл҃цы лꙋкавыи и лѣнивыи дѣлателѣ винограда Хв҃а, вожꙿды слѣпыи, неоукове, пѧници, сребролюбцы, плотолюбцы, найпаче женѣ и чадомꙿ работаетъ нежели Бг҃оу и найболꙿше ѡ сихъ прилежитъ и промышꙿлѧєтъ нежели ѡ стадѣ Хв҃ѣ и о наѹцѣ збавенꙿной. На женахъ ихъ и дщерѧхъ ризы свѣтлыи, пасы златокованны, а въ цр҃ кви книги подраныи, а въ инной и сихъ не найдешꙿ. Таковыи всѧ дн҃и живота своего, точїю о вѣнахъ промишлѧютꙿ, а о книзѣ оучитеⷧной ниже помишлѧю(тъ) [...]”, Кирилъ Тран квилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 13 (по Всѣхъ Стpart 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 274. ),[in:]ЄѵⷢⷢлїєꙊчителное…, ⷯы҃ Most certainly, not every parish presented such a bad situation, but Trankvylion drew attention to an important issue. A priest had to have the ability to reconcile family life with the ministry of serving the Church. Candidates for the clerical state had to be prepared to take up this challenge while at the same time having a wife. The wave of discussion about celibacy most likely focused the at-tention of its opponents on another problem associated with priestly marriages. Moral teachings and polemists discussed the sixteenth century cases of second, and sometimes even third marriages among Orthodox priests, including instances of priests living in concubi nage, which also affected the other denominations: “А тепер вже до такового своволенствапрышло, же и по поставленію попы женятся, a другіе не только двоженцами, але тройженцами суть.”396 Such accusations of ordaining those in second and third mar-riages, and even candidates supporting concubines, were brought up by Marcin Broniewski in address to Mykhailo Rahoza at the time of the Union of Brest: Przed przeszłym rokiem, to jest już temu minęło czwarte lato, dowiedziawszy się świętej pamięci Jeremiasz, patriarcha konstanty-nopolski, że ten metropolit Michał, wiele bezzakonnych i nieprzystojnych spraw poczynił, nie tylko że dwużeńców i wielożeńców, ido tego wszeteczników jawnych, z cudzymi żonami mieszkających popów chirotonisał, i innym wielu onym podobnym popować dopuszczał, ale bez zakoństwa niezliczone i omomie gorsze nad one nie-litościwe poczynił (dla czego i pierwej niego będący Onisiforus złożon jest od stolice i eparchii metropolskiej) przez pisanie swe patriarsze ekskomunikując go do czasu, karanie słuszne nań włożył, rozkazując mu w Duchu Świętym, aby się mógł uznać, a takowe bezzakoństwa przestać, i aby złożeniem jako Onisiforus koniecznym nie był karan sprawiedliwie.397 It seems, however, that in the sixteenth century’s clerical circles, including the bishops, a second marriage was an occurrence common 396 Hipacy Pociej, Harmonia…, col. 212. 397 Marcin Broniewski [Christophor Philalet], EKTHESIS abo krótkie zebranie spraw…, p. 53. enough to not cause any outrage, and thus, until the time of the re-forms, social consent was given to candidates living in a second and sometimes even third marriage.398 The problem was first raised by the secular communities associated with the brotherhoods who undertook the religious and cultural rebirth of the Church, even before representatives of the hierarchy joined the renewal process. Antioch Patriarch Joakhim’s arrival followed by other hierarchs awakened the hope of the faithful for dealing with the problem of unworthy bishops who were thought to be a major obstacle to Church reformation.399 The intervention of the laity and the Ruthenian nobility400 caused the representatives of the Eastern patriarchates to join the debate. These included the Pa-triarch of Antioch Joakhim V and the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II Tranos.401 There is evidence that the representatives of the Lviv Brotherhood asked the Greek dignitaries of the Eastern Church to speak out against unworthy bishops. Evidence of this is the letter by Joakhim V from 1586 in which the patriarch mentions the problem 398 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, p. 283. 399 Б.Н. Флоря, Восточные патриархи…, p. 124. Reasearcher as an example gives document Confraternitas stauropigiana ad consultum Ioachimi patriarchae Antiochiae conqeritur per legatos suos coram Teolipto patriarcha constantinopolitano de misero statu suo, petit auxilium eius occasione renovationis ecclesiae et erectionis scholae atque typographiae et proponit ei octo quaestiones spectantes ad doctrinam christianam, ut eos melisu de hisce informet (Leopolis 28 maii 1586), [in:] MonumentaConfraternitatis…, vol. 1, no. LXXXVIII, pp. 138–142. 400 Attempts to abolish remarriage were apparently made by representatives of these two groups, as evidenced by the patriarch’s documents, cf. Б.Н. Флоря, Восточные патриархи..., p. 122. Jeremia II’s document has not survived in its en-tirety: “Слишахомъ отъ многихъ благовѣрныхъ князей, пановъ и всего христіанства, и сами очима своими дво-и-троженцомъ сущымъ литоргисати и зѣло веліе […]”, cf. Окружная грамота Константинопольскаго патріарха Іереміи Литовско–Русскимъ епископамъ о изверженіи изъ сана священниковъ двоеженцев и троеженцевъ, съ выговоромъ, что Пинскій епископъ Леонтій таковыхъ въ епархіи своей утаилъ (1589), [in:] Акты, относящіеся къ исторіи западной Россіи, vol. 4: 1588–1632, Санктпетербургъ 1851, no. 17. 401 Cf. B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, pp. 238, 282; Б.Н. Флоря, Восточные патриархи…, pp. 117–130; A. Borkowski, Patriarchaty Wschodu…, pp. 45, 46, 91, 114–115. brought up by Kiev Metropolitanate’s faithful concerning second marriages and adultery among bishops, and he deplored the spiritual consequences of their sinful behavior. This made it impossible for them to worthily fulfill, among others, their teaching ministry. We can read about this in the preserved fragment of the document: […] аще архіереи суть беззаконно постановлени, блудодѣи идвуженцы, яко могуть других учити. Писано бо єсть он же глаголеть: не прелюбодѣй, а самъ прелюбодѣетъ, он же глаголетъ: не отступуй правды а сам отступаєт. Ипаки писано есть, видишь сучецъ у воцѣ брата твоєго, а у своемъ бервна не чюешь. И зас писано есть: кто самъ злыи, яко можеть инымъ добре учинити. А если мы архіереи, о братіе, самизлы, кого можем добрымъучинити. Если мы, о братіе, отступаемъ от правила, како можемъ иншимъ глаголати, абы неотступали. Если мы, о братія, блудодѣицы […].402 The same rules applied to presbyters, and so they could not be in second marriages or licentious relationships, and what is more, the Patriarch of Antioch reminded them a ban known from teachings of the synods and chirotonias, ban on spending time in taverns, contacts with wizards or fortune tellers and practicing usury.403 The same doc-ument obliged the brotherhood to inform the bishop of inappropriate conduct among priests. If the problem concerned the hierarchy, then by right of the brotherhood statute given by Joakhim, the laity had the right to renounce obedience to a bishop who acted contrary to the canons.404 The Hierarch announced excluding from the Orthodox Church those who had been widowed and were still ministers de-spite being married once again or living with a concubine. He also prohibited the faithful under penalty of excommunication to keep 402 Ioachimus patriarcha Antiochiae Russiam visitans mores episcoporum et cleri vituperat(1586), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, vol. 1, no. LXXXIII, p. 132. 403 Ioachimus patriarcha antiochenus confraternitatem ad ecclesiamassumptionis b. v. Mariae instituit, (Leopolis 1 ianuarii 1586), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, vol. 1, no. LXXX, pp. 113–119. 404 Ibidem. in touch with such priests and receive the sacraments from them.405 Interestingly, the patriarch announced an amnesty to all the clergy who would cease their sinful lifestyles by living in a second marriage or in concubine. He also announced the unconditional punishment of condemnation for those who did not convert or who would com-mit this sin in the future.406 It was a well thought-out action plan that provided not only sanctions for perpetrators, but also anticipated to mobilize the clergy, setting the path of moral and spiritual rebirth.The Brotherhood also wrote a letter to Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos, first in 1591, asking him, in connection with the synod planned for the upcoming year, to regulate many ritual and disciplinary issues, including the problem of second marriages.407 Once again, after the Synod of 1592 informing him about the disturbing results of the syn-odal discussion with the clergy, which conditioned their own renewal by the elimination of second marriages to be started with bishops: Первѣе же вѣси твоя святиня, яко в нас мнящіися бытисвятителе сущииж по истиннѣ сквернителе иночествовати обѣщаваю 405 A message of January 1586 reads: “И молю вашея любве, да престанет умъ вашъ вогражданстве мира и угаждати человѣкомъ и пред Богомъ да устыдим ся и изгани будемъ яко обидници, понеже мы іереи соль есмы, аще же соль обуяєтъ, чим осолится. И вѣсте, яко попрана будет, тако от отречения будете во вѣчномъ мученію со дияволомъ, понеже есте преступници божіи. И мирскіи священници, аще умирают им жены и оны иныхъ взимают исвященнодѣйствуютъ, что єсть неподобнои отлучение и мученіе души. І иніи священников хиротонисаютъ законопреступныхъ, иже имѣху жены кромѣ вѣнчанія, яко же повелеваетъ церкви божія. И иныи оставляюще жены их и бываютъ священниками и служатъ законопреступне кроме страха божія уничижающе святиню и служатъ, яко же имъ являєтся и творятъ законы своя и ина многа несвященная дѣяня и чают, яко не восприимутъ смерти, се же єстъ прелест діаволя”, Altera litera graeca contemporanea verosimiliter etiam anotario patriarchae conscripta quae tamen cum originali arabico multipliciter discordat (Leopolis 16 ianuarii 1686), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis …, vol. 1, no. LXXXII (B), pp. 129–130. 406 Ibidem, p. 131. 407 Cf. Confraternitas stauropigiana leopoliensis patriarchae Ieremiae varias petitiones et quaestiones proponit(Leopolis 1591), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, vol. 1, no. DVIII, p. 872. щеся и со женами невозбранно живуще, нѣцыис же многобрачни святителствующе, прочіис же съ блудницами чада родиша. Аще сице вы святители суще священником таковым мнится пребыти. Єгдаже обличаше их на соборѣ явѣ пред всѣми митрополит, дабы священницы престали священства, священницы же отвѣщаша: да престанут первѣе святителѣ своєго святителства, послушаютъ закона, даже и мы ихъ послушаємъ, “миру горе от соблазнъ”. 408 The Patriarch of Constantinople introduced and implemented Joakhim V’s postulates and presumably removed Metropolitan Onesyfor Divochka409 from his office, as well as other bishops living in second marriages410. He strongly repeated his predecessor’s principle that those who held a priestly office and had a second or subsequent wife should be avoided “as enemies of the truth” in religious and social live as well.411 The document which the hierarch sent in 1591 408 Confraternitas stauropigiana leopoliensis refert patriarchae Ieremiae de misero statu ecclesiae ruthenicae, de conatibus ordinis s. Loiolae praecipue Petri Skarga rogatque eum, ne eos relinquat sed contra episcopum defendat (Leopolis 1592) [in:] Monumenta Con-fraternitatis…, vol. 1, no. CCXLV(B), pp. 376–377. 409 Since the sixteenth century to this day the metropolitan has been presented as the antithesis of spiritual ministry (cf. e.g. A. Borkowski, Patriarchaty…, p. 91). However, the latest research demonstrates that there is no evidence to suggest that he was deposed because of remarriage (cf. B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…, p. 285); moreover, his activities had a positive dimension for the Orthodox Church as well (e.g. defence of the calendar, confirmation of the statutes of the confrater-nity and school in Vilnius, support for the publication of the 1583 Sluzhebnyk), cf. Л. Тимошенко, “Жаль намъ души и сумнѣнья Вaшей Милости” (київський митрополит Онисифор Дівочка перед викликами часу), “Дрогобицький Краєзнавчий Збірник”, X, 2006, pp. 149–165. 410 E.g. Jeremias’ document of 21 July 1589, cf. Ieremias patriarcha constantinopolitanus presbyteros illegitimos excomunicat (Vilno 21 iulii 1589), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, vol. 1, no. (СXV), pp. 181–182. 411 “[…] всѣх предреченныхъ двоженцовъ не мѣти за священниковъ но отлученыхъ и проклятыхъ и непрощенныхъ от єдиносущныя и неразделимыя Tройца въ нынѣшнемъ вѣце и въ будущемъ и по смерти нераздрѣшеных ивнѣ Христовыцеркве християнъ непричастих яко непослушных и преступниковъ святых священныхъ правилъ апостолских и вселенских соборовъ. Тѣмже повинны вси или князеве и мѣстоначалници и протопопы и мещане и священници и просто рещи единицею вси благочестивыи to the Metropolitan of Kiev, in addition to the specific prohibition on ordaining bishops in Przemysl who had second wives and did not fulfill the other conditions for the office, contained a brief and general teaching on the consecration of worthy candidates: Принесеся пред нас по случаю от само обывателей пановъ премышлян, моляще нас, дамы изволеніе святини ти рукоположити его въ епископи под тяжестію упражненія и отлученія неразрѣшна и вѣчна. Но найпаче ниже сего, ниже таковыхъ да рукополагаеши по исповѣданію твоєм, єже сътворилъеси, и по грамотѣ съборнѣй, юже посылаю къ архіерейству ти, подобаєтъ ти тако творити, и на како хиротоничай человѣкъ недостойныхъ, или втору имущихъ жену, но священноіноковъ и игуменов и архімандритовъ. Тако и не инако твори и дабы Божія благодать была съ святынею ти.412 Despite the above mentioned interventions of patriarchs and the synodal arrangements of the 1590s, the problem of second marriages was still present in the 17th century.413 иправославныи християне отвращатис и ненавидѣти таковыхъ несвященныхъ, яко враговъ истинны и противниковъ цервковного чина, ниже ясти ниж пити съ ними ниже бесѣдовати, но бѣгати от них яко бѣсных псовъ иядовитыхъ звѣрей доты, аже покаются и обратятся от злаго разума ихъ и престанутъ священнодѣйствовати несвященне. И да живутъ со простыми людми и получатъ прощеніє. Ащеже кто от них явится противенъ нашего благословеннаго осужденія, не токмо клятвъ трех сотъ богоносныхъ отецъ иже въ Никеи и нашого отлученія власть имѣюще от Бога взятиже и решити чловеческая прегрѣшенія, но и великий гнѣвъ и негодованіє получатъ от Бога”, Ieremias patriarcha constantinopolitanus omnes fideles admonet, ne presbyteris bigamis vel non consecratis officia ecclesiastica exercere permittant, sed eos tamquam a synodo vilnensi et a Ioachimi patriacha excommunicatos habent, [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis…, no. CXXXVII, pp. 209–210. 412 1591 года м. мая. Грамота патріарха Іереміи Кіевскому митрополиту (1591), [in:] Архивъ Юго-Западной Россіи, издаваемый Комиссіею для разборадревнихъ актовъ, сосотоящей при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и Волынскомъ ГенералъГубернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 10: Акты, относяшіеся къ исторіи Галицко-русской православной церкви (1423–1714 г.г.), Кіевъ 1904, no. CLXXVII, pp. 443–444. 413 This is evidenced e.g. by the constitutions of the Orthodox Council of Lviv of 1669: “Двоженцомъ и вдовоженцомъ не повинни всякого малаго и великаго Most certainly this and other traditional and disciplinary issues resulted in the Lviv Fraternity deciding to prepare an edition of the rules of the Vilnius Council of 1509. In this edition from 1614, the prohibition on having a second wife or a concubine sounded very strong, thanks to the preaching authority and regulations of Basil the Great: “Всякій же священникъ, прилѣпляясядругой женѣ или наложници, да уже не священъствуєтъ. И святый Василій Кесарійській о томъ же свѣдительствуєтъ: Съвъкупляася не съ законною женою, да не священъствуєтъ. И ина многа правила о томъ възбранишя.”414 In many bishops’ teachings in the Kiev Metropolitanate area, the obligation to have one wife was imposed on priests by the words of the First Letter of St. Paul to Timothy (3: 2).415 As mentioned above (cf. the section “Подобаєтъ же єпископꙋ альбо свꙗщенникови быти оучительнꙋ” – Substantive Preparation for the Priesthood), this verse was often cited by the most famous teachers, moralists and authors of polemical works in the 16th and 17th centuries.416 Innokentii Gizel did not overlook this problem in his comprehensive theological treatise. Every priest should be “the husband of one wife,” wrote the archimandrite reaching for an ecclesiological inter- pretation, otherwise he would not reflect Christ, the husband of one wife, the Church: Требѣ да бы не быⷧ двоженеⷰ, по ѡвомꙋ: Подобаєтъ єпископꙋ быти, єдиноѧ жены мꙋжꙋ (1 Тим 3, 2), идеже при Єпⷭкопѣ, разꙋмѣютсѧ и всѣ инныи степени сщ҃енства. А сего свойства вина єстъ, ꙗко двоженецъ не изꙿѡбразꙋєтъ Хрⷭта, священнодѣйствія каждый з Велебных немесников въ своємъ намѣсницътвѣ допущати подвинами суровими єпископскими и неблагословенїємъ, але таковых до суду епископского отсилати”, 1669 р. Львів. – Упис у книзі Львівського духовного суду “діянь” та конституції єпарїяльного собору 1669 року…, p. 99. 414 Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, col. 11. 415 Cf. e.g. Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа...(Лвовъ 1687), p. 225. The ref-erence can also be found in a model sermon on the death of a bishop from Lazar Baranovych’s collection, cf. Трꙋбы на дни нарочитыѧ..., Kиевъ 1674, ff. 315–318. 416 Cf. e.g. Вопросы и отвѣты...(1603), col. 85–86. иже єстъ женихъ єдиноѧ невѣсты Цр҃ кви, по реченномꙋ: и бꙋдета ѡба въ плоть єдинꙋ, тайна сїѧ велїѧ єстъ, азъ же гл҃ю въ Ха҃ и въ Цр҃҃ квъ (Єфе 5).417 The Apostolic expression “husband of one wife” also mentioned in St. Paul’s Letter to Titus (1: 6) is a general principle that does not explain the complex problem of clergy entering into marriage. Over the centuries, it has became the subject of conciliar deliberations and canonical rules. That is why in the seventeenth century, records organizing information on priestly marriages are finally published. Digamy was precisely defined in a way that did not leave room for misunderstanding. For example, in accord with the recommendations of the repeatedly printed Didaskalia, an impediment to priestly ordination and the episcopacy consecration was having two wives at that time or in the past (as in the case of Metropolitan Onesyfor, who became a monk after the death of both spouses). It was not permitted for a man who married a widow to become a priest, and a licentious spouse was a serious impediment to ordination. Innokentii Gizel understood the need to discuss this issue, who included the term second marriage in a broad sense in the fourth rule of the treaty Peace with Godfor Man. The correct interpretation, ac-cording to the archimandrite, required referring not only to a second marriage, but also to the other issues addressed in the canons and catechetical teachings: Може(тъ) ли кождый члк҃ъ быти сщенникѡⷨ? Чреⷥ двоженца же разꙋмѣетꙿсѧ Не кождый бо ведлꙋг канѡновъ апⷭлскиⷯ и ст҃ыхъ зде, не точїю той, кто бы богонѡсныхъ ѡтецъ тотъ ѿ свѧщенства по см҃рти єдиноѧ жены поѧⷧ ѿдаленъ бывеєтъ, або свѧщенникомъ быти дрꙋгꙋю, но и той кто бы єдинꙋ не можетъ который бы або дрꙋгꙋю жонꙋ токмо имѣлъ, но вдовꙋ, паче же понѧлъ албо двѣ женѣ мѣлъ, так тежъ и той кто бы и єдинꙋ имѣлъ, который вꙸдовꙋ жонꙋ мѣлъ албо маетъ, алболи и не вдовꙋ, но блꙋдницꙋ.419 вшетечницꙋ.418 418 419 417 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 141 (92). 418 [Силвестер Косовъ], О Таинахъ церковныхъ вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 1642, p. 226; Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, f. 16. 419 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 141 (92). The above issues were regulated in detail by Apostolic Canon Seventeen, About those who are remarried or have concubines,420 and Basil the Great’s 12th rule from On Digamists.421 Both canons were listed under a brief ban on allowing remarried priests to perform spiritual ministry: “Двоженцѧ канонъ всѧко ѿ Cлꙋженїа сщ҃еническогѡ ѿлꙋчи” which was first placed under the figure of Basil the Great in the Kievan Sluzhebnyk in 1629, and next in several Lviv editions.422 One of the first works mentioning the not so trivial problem of multiple marriages among priests in the Kiev Metropolitanate area and discussing the context of the actual situation of the parish clergy regarding the practical possibility of morally correcting these clergymen was not printed. Yozafat Kuntsevych, the author of the manuscript Rules for Yereis, just like all other teachers, recalled and commented on the ban on ministry for priests who were in second marriages. At the same time, he was aware that removing widowed or twice married priests from the ministry, especially if they had mi- nors under their care, would put them in a difficult family situation, and so he sought to find a good solution to this situation.423 Moreover, the sudden removal of all priests who had this sin on their conscience could cause considerable difficulties in continuing the liturgical and sacramental life in many parochial churches. Therefore, despite re-peating the absolute ban on ordaining men in second marriages, he allowed those who already broke this law to remain in their parishes. 420 Canon 17 reads: “Прилѣплисѧ дъвою женитвоу по крьщени ли женимоу имѣвъ не можеть быти епп҃съ ли попъ ли диѧконъ ли всѧкъ отъ причьта сш҃теничьска”. The problem was also dealt with in Canon 18 On those marrying awidow or a wom-an of loose morals: “Иже въдовоу поиметь ли поуштеницю ли блоудьницю ли рабоу ли кѹштьницю не можеть быти еппⷭъ ли попъ ли дꙗконъ ли всѧкъ отъ причьта сш҃теничьска”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 65. Konstytucje apostolskie…, pp. 276–277; A. Znosko, Kanony..., p. 15. 421 “Дъвоженьцѧ отиноудь канонъ отъ слѫжениꙗ заключаєть”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 476. Canones Patrum...., p. 40. 422 Леітꙋргїарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1629, p. 114 (second pagination); Леітꙋргіарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1691, f. 130v; the same in an identical edition of the Sluzhebnyk (Lw 1712). 423 С. Сеник, Берестейська унія і світське духовенство..., pp. 65–66. They were to conduct the canonical hours and be ministers of certain sacraments, provided that celebrating the Liturgy and administering the sacrament of penance were handed over to the parish associate pastor, a “holy and saintly priest”: […] беручи до уваги їхнью немічність, дозволяємо, щоб вони для завершування Святой Літургії і слухання Святих Сповідей мали помічників – священників поважних і святобливих. А їм самим, доподальшого присуду, дозволяємо хрестити, уділяти Тайни Подружжя, відправляти Вечірні, Утрені, Часи та інші церковні Богослужіння – за винятком Святой Сповіді і Святої Літургії.424 Somewhat later, Petro Mohyla proposed similar solutions for priests who wrote to him and complained about their difficult life situation. By ordering an absolute removal from the ministry of every priest who had multiple marriages, at the same time he reminded parish patrons of their rights to the property they owned.425 He allowed another priest who was to be removed from ministry and his family would be left without a means of subsistence to remain in the parish until he had brought up his son to be successor. At the same time, the liturgical and sacramental ministry was to be performed by a vicar appointed for this purpose.426 It was therefore a sign of mercy, though we are not certain whether these proposed solutions had the power of system resolutions. Records form the books regulating church law, such as the no-mocanons were also excluding access to the clerical state to those in second marriages or “widowers”.427 That is why it was required of an examiner who was checking the life and morality of a candidate for the clerical state, to also pay close attention to the wife of the future priest: “Хотѧщего сщ҃енство прїати, дълженъ еси истѧзати, и женꙋ єго 424 [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції..., p. 306. 425 С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит... vol. 2, p. 478. 426 Ibidem, p. 481. 427 “Двоженеⷰ [и Вдовоженеⷰ] не бываєтꙿ поⷫ, ниже клирїкꙿ по второмꙋ на десѧть правилꙋ Великагѡ Васілїа”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ..., Киев 1629, p. 83(100); Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, f. 41. съ опасенїємъ.”428 This was important because after the ordination, her immoral life would have serious consequences, possibly even relieving her husband from spiritual ministry: “По рꙋкоположенїи же прелюбодѣйствовашꙋю, или да ѿпꙋсти(тъ), или да оставитъ сщ҃еньство, по Тринадесѧтомꙋ правилꙋ иже въ Неокесарїй събѡра.”429 In the mid-seventeenth century, the issue of ordaining candidates against these canonical principles became the subject of a famous dispute between Kasian Sakovych and probably Petro Mohyla. The author of the polemical Epanorthosis accused the vladykas of abuse and simony, which allowed unworthy priests to be ordained: “Władyka [...] pyta czy masz żonę czy dziewkeś pojął, a tak stargowawszy się z nim i wziąwszy sam pięćdziesiąt albo sześdziesiąt czasem sto dwiesci i trzysta złotych poślepi czyli poświęci go na popowstwo.”430 According to the polemist, bishops did the same in the case of men who were married twice: “A to się pokaże, że niektórzy władykowie dwużeńców i co wdowę pojął na popostwo poświecili wziąwszy symoniam ukaże się i to, że z drugich popów dwużenców na każdy rok jako bykowe biorąc pewne quote pieniędzy dopuszczają i pozwalają im celebrować.”431 The accusation was quite serious, since not only did the bishop support inadequate candidates, but he had an additional source of revenue from this practice. The famous response of the author of Lithos writing under a pen name was a confirmation of the violation of this principle in the past history which was not specified by the author. According to Euzebi Pimin, these errors were largely caused by the lack of supervision over the Church in the times of the Union of Brest, but they had al-ready been corrected by then. Whoever would dare to ordain a man in a second marriage was subject to the absolute punishment of 428 Събранїє ѿ различныхъ Правилъ, ѡ єже каѧ съгрѣшенїа возбранѧю(тъ) быти сщ҃енникꙋ. И внима(й) семꙋ съ опасенїємꙿ, ѡ дрꙋже!, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ..., Киев 1629, p. 86 (103); Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ…, Лвовъ 1646, f. 42v. 429 Ibidem. In fact, the problem was dealt with in Canon 8 not 13 of the Synod of Neocaesarea. 430 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa …, Krak 1642, p. 56. 431 Ibidem, p. 57. degradation, all the more so because in the act of consecration, every bishop undertook to obey the proper sequence of ordination:432 Unia to wasza tej swej woli namnożyła i teraz ją mnoży, ale u nas za łaską Bożą jako pasterzów swoich mamy, już się to przepleniło i zniosło osobliwie w Metropolitanskiej Eparchiej. A rozumiemy że i w episkopskich toż się dzieje, bo osobliwe przy poświęceniu w przysiędze swojej i to dołożono ich MM. Mają, że dwużeńców, wdowców nie tylko na kapłaństwo, ale na żaden stopień kapłański święcić nie mają i jeśliby, który takowy od tego inszego przed tym będąc poświęcony ważył się kapłański urząd odprawować koniecznie go degradować mają.433 Actually, Mohyla, after his accession to the position of Kiev’s Metropolitan in 1632, began a campaign against second marriages in the Orthodox church. He issued a document addressed to the clergy and faithful in the Przemysl eparchy to not accept an invitation to the council from the newly appointed Bishop Ivan Popil, who was living in his second marriage:434 Іван Попѣль […] зъ ее м. панею малжонкою своею въ двоженствѣ на тотъчасъ еще по малженску живучи, смѣєтъ и важится, противко вщеляким такъ Божому в церковныхъ каноновъ, яко исвецкому христіанскому праву, меновати и писатись Премыскимъ и Самборскимъ Епископомъ, благословенія не вѣдати яковое вамъ слугамъ Божіимъ и священникамъ олтаря Его посылаючи и ззываючи васъ на соборъ.435 432 The teaching delivered by the consecrator before episcopal ordination raises the problem of remarried men: “[…] на койждо священнаго сословія степени скоро да не возводиши. Двоженцовъ, убійцовъ и иныхъ всѣхъ безчинниковъ, ихъ же божественныхъ Апостолъ и святыхъ отецъ правилавозбраняютъ, рукополагати никакожодерзнеши”; during the ordination the appointee pledged to observe these rules, cf. А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., p. 359. 433 Euzebi Pimin, LIΘOΣabo kamień…, Kij 1644, p. 151. 434 The story of Mohyla’s fight to change the Bishop of Przemyśl is presented by С.Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила…, vol. 2, pp. 474–478. 435 Грамота митрополита Петра Могилы къ перемышльским гражданамъ съ увѣшаніемъне признавать своим епископомъ Іоанна Попеля, какъ The Metropolitan of Kiev, in the process of eradicating polygamy, focused his attention not only on the hierarchy but also on parish priests in his eparchy and in the entire Metropolitanate. Evidence of this are documents related to remarriage, for example the priest from Nemyrych in the territory of Halych436 or the letterssent to Bishop Yurii Tysarovskyi asking for intervention in the matter of breaking the canonical principle of monogamy in Lviv Diocese.437 Mohyla en-trusted the control of the state of the clergy to protopopes who were chosen from among the ranks of authoritative and experienced priests. In the issued document, he ordered them to conduct an investigation so that they could detect priests living in polygamist in the region under their custody.438 In the second half of the 17th century, the teachings in the chirotonia and synodal instructions, among others, reminded candidates and already ordained priests of the principle of having one wife. These were among others the medieval exhortations and teachings composed by Yosyf Shumlanskyi and Innokentii Vynnytskyi and published in Novhorodok by Lazar Baranovych. незаконно вступившаго на кафедру (1634 г. Іюля 9), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила…, vol. 1, Приложенія, Кіевъ 1883, no. CXIV, p. 556.436 С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит..., vol. 2, p. 478. 437 Ibidem, p. 480. 438 Ibidem. On the duties imposed by Petro Mohyla on protopresbyters, cf. Ibidem, pp. 484–485. A Priest’s Preparation for the Liturgy In the Catholic Church in Poland at the end of the sixteenth century, despite the introduction of Tridentine reforms, the lack of education was still common among the clergy. This state of affairs even affected priestly ministry in such basic matters as celebrating the liturgy. According to Stanislaw Litak, there were cases of priests who could not celebrate the Mass properly.1 The situation in Orthodox parishes on the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not much better, since endeavours for renewing the Ruthenian Orthodox Church were just being initiated at that time.2 However, we can venture to say that in parishes passed from father to son, where a priest received the initial education in his family home situation could be a little better, at least regarding the celebration of church liturgies.3 1 S. Litak, Struktura i funkcje parafii w Polsce, [in:] Kościół w Polsce, vol. 2, p. 351. 2 During the diocesan synod of 1684 parish priests were still being urged to cel-ebrate the liturgy on Sundays and feast days, which may mean that one hun-dred years after the launch of religious reforms the quality of the ministry was still far from ideal, I. Skoczylas, Sobory eparchii..., p. 64. Bishop Yakov’s conciliar teaching, which has survived in fragments in manuscript form, features a witty rhymed commentary, found on the margins, on the lack of the basic liturgical skills among the clergy: “[…] заразъ припадши, Просфор на жертовникъ накладши, не знаетъ, що з ними чинити, не будетъ ихъ тилко лѣчити. Потомъ з жертовника до торбы ихъ змыкать та пакъ на Престолѣ пакатъ доволѣ. Никто му не боронить, самъ собѣ и звонитъ, єдно вангеля читать що неделя. Ктоне такій нехъ перебачить, а кто такій, нехся оyчити рачить”, Яковъ Суша, Наука Соборовая…, p. 10. 3 The correct celebration of the liturgy did not testify to a profound understanding of the rite. As the scholar notes, the level of the clergy’s preparation depended on In Kievan Metropolitanate in the sixteenth century, according to B. Gudziak, parishioners did not require priests to do anything beyond administering the Eucharist and other sacraments.4 It seems that, for this reason, it was particularly important that at least these elements of the pastoral ministry be performed thoroughly and correctly. However, at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the situation changed because the significance of the sacrament be-came more important. According to Petro Galadza, the sacrament be-came not only the theological idea of the Orthodox or Latin Churches, but also a national and political symbol.5 For this reason, in the days after Trent council and the Union of Brest, the Ruthenian Church also become increasingly interested in the liturgy and took great care in organizing sacramental practices.6 These efforts are reflected, among other things, in the contemplations on the value and importance of the 16th and 17th century liturgical books contained in these editions’ paratext materials.7 Definitions of the Sacrament At that time, the first Ruthenian catechism teachings appeared, followed by proper catechisms in which the essence of the sacraments was defined.8 In Summariusz by Meletii Smotrytskyi, included in the polemical work ΘΡΗΝΟΣin 1610 on the Eucharist, we read in the form of a confession of faith: the pedagogical abilities of the priests and the zeal of the pupils, L. Bieńkowski, Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego w Polsce, [in:] Kościół w Polsce, vol. 2, pp. 964– 965. 4 B. Gudziak, Kryzys i reforma…., p. 127. 5 П. Ґаладза, Літургічне питання і розвиток богослужень..., p. 1. 6 I. Skoczylas, Sobory eparchii..., p. 64. 7 A. Naumow, Księgi w Ławrze Kijowskiej, Pierwsze unickie służebniki, [in:] Idem, Do- mus Divisa…, pp. 93–108, 141–158. 8 Definition of catechism cf. e.g. Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 8, ed. A. Szostek, Lublin 2000, pp. 1038–1039. On Ruthenian 16th–17th-century printed works which can be regarded as proper catechisms, cf. М. Корзо, Украинская и белорусская..., pp. 292–404. A przez godne tych najdroższych tajemnic to jest Ciała i Krwie Syna Bożego przyjmowanie, śmierć Pańską przypominać opowiadamy iwiarę naszą o daremnej grzechów odpuszczenia łasce pieczętując istwierdzając, a pochop do lepszego i świętobliwszego na tym świecie żywota biorąc, oświecenie duszy i ciał naszych i wieczne z Bogiem zjednoczenie sobie jednamy.9 According to this source, the liturgy is “służba Boża w której się tajemnica Wieczerzy Pańskiej odprawuje i sprawą świętą być przyznawam i modlitw a dziękczynienia bezkrewną ofiarą nazywam, w której mystice bywa Baranek Boży ofiarowany […].”10 This brief description of the essence of the sacrament was elaborated upon in a number of records that were published a few years later. In these, the third sacrament (after Baptism and Confirmation) is called “The Eucharist, which is the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ” or “The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper in which the body and blood present in the form of bread and wine are consecrated.”11 In the Vilnius Teaching on the Seven Sacraments, the Eucharist was presented as the eternal reminder of the passion of Christ, the sign of His love, food for the soul, and the atoning sacrifice: […] таѧ та(й)на ѿ Ха ҃ саоустановленаѧ,естъабыбылавѣкꙋистою Сп҃ ое,иегоневымовнойкꙋнамъмилостизнакомъ,идшпамѧ(т)коюмꙋкиХв҃҃ нашыхъ покаръмомъ, и хрïстïѧньского набоженьства оублагальною жерꙿтвою. Скꙋтки еи заⷭ сꙋть, дш҃ꙋ питати, посилѧти, и в ласце бж҃ой заховати, страсти оумерщвлѧти, срⷣца человѣческïе з Бг҃омъ злꙋчати, запалѧти, прибытꙿкомъ Божымъ чынити, и до жывота вѣчного провадити.12 This comprehensive Teachingattributed to Yozafat Kuntsevych and Leon Kreuza Rzevuskii described the type of person who had the right to celebrate the Eucharist (“Совершитель тое та(й)ны естъ 9 Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament…,Wilno 1610, ff. 214v-215 (231). 10 Ibidem, f. 215v (232). 11 [Силвестер Косовъ], О Таинахъ церковныхъ вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 164 2 and [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки..., Киевъ 1645, pp. 217 and 412. 12 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ковныⷯ…, Вилно ca. 1618, p. 47. ъ Свѧщенникъ каждый”), indicating its matter (“вещъ”) and form (“образъ албо съвершенее”).13 These were the first works on Rutheni-an lands that used scholastic terminology14 and rules for defining.15 These issues were also discussed in the Didaskalia by Sylvester Kos-sov, who stressed that the right and privilege of celebrating the liturgy belonged exclusively to ordained priests: “Комꙋ єстъ дана власть шафовати такъ великою тайною? Жадномꙋ свѣцкомꙋ чл҃кꙋ не єстъ дана, тылко сщ҃енникꙋ, который преⷥ рꙋкоположенїє ѿ єпⷭпа, прїймꙋєтъ тꙋю власть за призваⷩємъ Ст҃гѡ Дх҃а.”16 In addition, the separate “answer” in this catechistic dialogue re- minded the audience of the spiritual value of the bloodless Sacrifice for both the living and the dead, and explained why it is performed in the intentions of the saints; it facilitated the understanding of the propitiatory aspect of the Liturgy. Explanations were largely filled with quotations from the Church Fathers: Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian (of Carthage) and John Chrysostom.17 A section similar to one from 13 Ibidem, p. 43. The Teaching for Yereis, published earlier and attributed to the same authors, contained other terms that would later be commonly used in the Kievan Metropolitanate: “matter” and “form”. 14 In theology these terms defined constitutive elements of the sacraments; the words were the form, while the actions or objects, e.g. bread and wine, were the matter, cf. B. Brzuszek, Forma i materia, [in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, vol. 5, ed. L.Bieńkowski et. al, Lublin 1989, col. 393–394.15 The terms may have appeared for the first time in a work by Yosyf Rutskyi, Theses(Wilno 1608): “Ко соверъшенïю тайны новозаветныѧ трехъ вещей требе естъ, вещы, образа, и воле тайнꙋ действꙋющаго. Сице ꙗко недостающы, или единой о трехъ, тайна несоверъшаетсѧ. Матерыѧ естъ вещъ ко содеѧнïю тайны от бога оузаконенъна. Ꙗко вода в тайне крещенïѧ, хлебъ и вино в тайне еѵхаристии. Форъма паки. Словеса сꙋть, богомъ оузаконенъна”, Иосифъ Велѧмин Рꙋтъский, ΘΕΣΕΣсиречъ изъвѣстны предъложеніѧ ѿ оученїй еже о тайнахꙿ церъковныхꙿ, Вилно 1608, ff. 1v and 4. Other works featuring these and other terms as well as concepts new to Orthodox the-ology are discussed by M.A. Korzo, Przyczynek do badań nad wpływami katolickimi na teologię prawosławną w XVII wieku, [in:] Studia o dawnej kulturze cerkiewnej wRzeczypospolitej, ed. A. Gronek, A.Z. Nowak, Kraków 2016, pp. 149–160. 16 [Силвестер Косовъ], О Таинахъ церковныхъ вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 1642, p. 217. 17 Ibidem, pp. 219–220. For more on the subject, cf. A. Magruk, “Przeto ktokolwiek by jadł chleb i pił z kielicha Pańskiego niegodnie (…) sąd własny je i pije” (1 Kor 11, 27–29) – czyli o właściwym przygotowaniu się do Świętej Eucharystii według nauki Didaskalia was later found in the catechism by Petro Mohyla. It men- tions four principle spiritual benefits of the Eucharist, which are atonement for sin (“офѣрою беⷥкровною за ѿпꙋщене грѣхѡвъ, такъ живыⷯ ꙗкѡ и оумерлыⷯ”), makes God present within a person (“Хс҃ въ насъ мешкаєтъ, а мы въ немъ”), brings eternal life to the faithful (“животъ вѣчный”) and frees them from temptations (“иж волными зостаємъ ѿ покꙋсъ бѣсовскихъ”).18 “Ктоколвекъ маєⷮ поживати Тѣла и Крвє Гдⷭней, маєтъ найпервѣй […] приготовати себе” – General Conditions for Receiving the Eucharist The first mention of the characteristic traits and predispositions of people admitted to this sacrament was found in the Vilnius Teaching on the Seven Sacraments. These were instructions concerning all the faithful but not priests, although all the listed conditions for receiving the Eucharist also applied to the clergy. These persons should be baptised and not excommunicated. The authors prohibited giving communion to adulterers and people carrying a mortal sin. Restrictions on access to the sacrament concerned those not fully capable of rational thinking necessary to fully understand the essence of the Eucharist. These included very small children, mentally ill people and sleepwalkers.19 Instructions for spiritual preparation for receiving the Holy Gifts were present in the Kievan catechism of 1645. These included fasting, an examination of conscience, confession, and among the factors list-ed as an impediment to receiving the sacrament an anger was men-tioned. It was also necessary to believe that by eating bread and wine they were actually accepted the Body and Blood of Christ. Ojców Kościoła, “EΛПІΣ.” Czasopismo Teologiczne Katedry Teologii Prawosławnej Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku” 16, 2014, pp. 49–59. 18 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки..., Киевъ 1645, pp. 416–417. 19 Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ…, сa. Вилно 1618, pp. 43–45. Liturgiarion, Lviv 1666 Of interest to us was the last recommendation that a preparation should include, in addition to recalling one’s misdeeds and confessing them before their spiritual father, the act of sacramental individu- al self penance, a penetrating inner reflection on the words spoken by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians:20 Ктоколвекъ маєⷮ поживати Тѣла и Крвє Гдⷭней, маєтъ найпервѣй ведлꙋг порѧдкꙋ ѡписаногѡ Церковногѡ постоⷨ и набоженствомъ ѡсоблившиⷨ приготовати себе, потомъ Сповѣдь Ст҃ꙋю пристойнє преⷣ сщ҃енникомъ Православнымъ ѿправити и розгрѣшенье ѡдержати. Такъже абы жаденъ въ гнѣвѣ не былъ, на конецъ гды южъ пристꙋпꙋєтъ, до Прест҃ыхъ Таинъ, маєтъ мѣти Вѣрꙋ зꙋполнꙋю, ижъ правдивогѡ и истотногѡ Тѣла и Крве Хв҃ой поживаєтъ. Зачимъ переⷣтымъ добресѧ маєтъ зъ сꙋменємъ пораховати, ведлⷢꙋ наꙋки Апⷭла Ст҃огѡ: “Нехайже досвѣдчиⷮ самогѡ себе чл҃къ, а таⷦ нехай ѣстъ зъ Хлѣба тогѡ и съ Келиха пїєтъ, абовѣмъ который ѣсть и пієтъ негоⷣнє сꙋдъ собѣ ѣстъ и пієтъ, не разсꙋждаючи Тѣла Гдⷭнѧ”.21 In the middle of the 17th century, what we will show through se-lected examples, the mentioned truths have already been disseminated by other kinds of teachings, including those that described priests preparing for and worthily attending the Lord’s Supper. “Ꙋважай собѣ свѧтителю, свѧщенникꙋ и іеродіаконе, ꙗковомꙋ ти потреба быти!”– A Celebrant’s Spiritual Preparation for the Liturgy The above passage from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians cited in the Brief Catechism very often appeared in exhorta 20 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against them-selves”. (1 Cor 11: 27–29), NRSV (6.06.2017). 21 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки..., Киевъ 1645, p. 415. tions addressed to the clergy.22 These biblical verses quoted over the centuries in guidebooks and exhortations for the faithful and priests are also mandatory elements today.23 St. Paul’s words were also re-sounding in the proskomide prayer, which was the appropriate and direct preparation for the liturgy.24 One of the introductory prayers the prothesis25 spoken by the priest standing in front of the iconostasis 22 This fragment of the letter is referred to by, for example, Varlaam Golenkovskyi in his teaching on the preparation for the Holy Communion. He discusses at length the reasons for being subjected to “judgment”, cf. Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 1 вꙿ нейже изѧвлѧєтꙿсѧ, како кто приꙋготовлѧти себе имать ко причащенїю Пречⷭтыхꙿ и Животворѧщихъ Таинъ Хрⷭтовыхъ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 2, Киевъ 1714, ff. 76-90. 23 E.g. the guidebook from the 19th century, cf. И. Дмытревскій, Историческое…, pp. 61-62. A 20th-century example can be a guidebook for priests concerning the preparation for the Liturgy compiled by Metropolitan Ilarion (1882-1972) and published after the Second World War in Canada. In it the Metropolitan wrote: “Св. Літургія через Св. Причастя кожного разу поєднує нас з Ісусом Христом. Віддаваймо ж цьому глибокому Таїнству повно – усією своєю душею, усім своїм серцем. Пам’ятаймо, що Св. Причастя може стати нам і на суд і на осудження...Біймося цього найбільше і кожної хвилини при відправі Св. Літургії пам’ятаймо всією своєю істотою про наше скоре поєднання з Христом”, quoted after: І. Огієнко [Митрополит Іларіон], Як правити Святу Літургію..., p. 141. 24 The proskomide used to precede the liturgy of the faithful, but around the 6th-7th centuries was moved to the beginning of the service and lost its solemn character associated with the participation of the faithful bearing gifts; for more on the subject, cf. e.g. М.М. Соловій, Божественна…, pp. 151–153 (first edition Rome 1964); М. Марусин, Божественна літургія, Pим 1992, pp. 151–154; H. Paprocki, Misterium Eucharystii. Interpretacja genetyczna liturgii bizantyjskiej, Krak 2010, pp. 129-130. A brief history and symbolism of the proskomide is discussed e.g. by Г.Й. Шульц, Візантійська літургія, свідченнявіри та значення символів, Львів 2002, (transl. from the German edition Trier 2000), pp. 133–140. 25 Scholars divide the proskomide/prothesis into two or three parts: the first is the preparation of the priest, which encompasses the prayer and donning of the liturgical vestments, the secondconcerns the sacrificial gifts, М.М. Соловій, Божественна…, pp. 159–186; J. Czerski, Boska liturgia św. Jana Chryzostoma. Wprowadzenie liturgiczno-biblijne do liturgii eucharystycznej Kościoła Wschodniego, Opole 1998, p. 51; М. Марусин, Божественна..., p. 153. In some euchologions from the 13th–14th-century the description of the proskomide was limited with his head bowed includes a request to God to strengthen the one celebrating the liturgy. It contains, crucial to the issue of the celebrant’s readiness for ministry, inspired by the mentioned apostolic letter, words of hope that the one approaching the altar be “without fault” so that he will not be subject to judgment and condemnation: “Гдⷭи посли рꙋкꙋ твою, ѿ Высоты Жилища твоєгѡ, и оукрѣпи мѧ въ преⷣлежащꙋю Слꙋжбꙋ Твою, да не ѡсꙋжⷣеннѡ преⷣстанꙋ страшномꙋ твоємꙋ Прⷭтлꙋ, и безꙿкрвоноє сщ҃еннодѣйствїє съвершꙋ. Ꙗко Твоѧ єстъ сила въ вѣки вѣкѡмъ, Аминь.”26 Lord, stretch out your hand is probably the most important and oldest prayer that the priest pronounced before his entering the altar, and it appeared in the Greek liturgical recordsin the eleventh century.27 Together with the three preceding penitential troparions, it was to bring humility to the priest’s heart, repentance for sins and the hope of Divine mercy.28 Initially, the Slavic version was found in the order of the Liturgy of St. Basil, and later in the 13th to 14th centuries it was included in the text of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.29 It was preserved by the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus Kokkinos († 1376), who in the 14th century developed to the preparation of the sacrificial gifts; the authors mentioned neither the introductory prayers, nor the donning of the liturgical vestments И. Мансветовъ, Митрополитъ Кипріанъ, въ его литургической дѣятельности, Мосвка 1882, p. 16; H. Paprocki, Misterium Eucharystii…, pp. 127–171. According to the scholar, in his teaching for the clergy Bishop Yakov Susha explained the four parts of the liturgy, cf. В. Щурат, Два письмаеп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї…, p. 9. 26 Леітꙋргіаріон сиестъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1639, pp. 171–172. A Polish version of the prayer: “Panie, poślij Twoją rękę z wysokości [miejsca] Twego przebywania iumocnij mnie do Twojej, służby, którą mam sprawować, abym mógł stanąć bez winy [przed] Twoim ołtarzem i celebrować bezkrwawe święte obrzędy. Bo Twoja jest potęga, i chwała, na wieki wieków. Amen”, quoted after: J. Czerski, Boska liturgia…, p. 60. 27 М.М. Соловій, Божественна..., p. 162; Т.И. Афанасьева, Молитва Херувимской песни “Никтоже достоин”, [in:] Eadem, Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великого в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI–XV вв.), Москва 2015, p. 70. 28 М.М. Соловій, Божественна..., pp. 163–164. 29 Т.И. Афанасьева, Молитва Херувимской…, p. 71. more introductory prayers30 within the new Ustav of the Divine Liturgy.31 This diataxis was highly respected and was one of the most widespread of the ustavs, especially after Philotheus ascended the patriarchal throne of Constantinople in 1353. The Bulgarian Patriarch, St. Euthymius of Tirnovo, translated it from Greek to Slavic.32 Then his disciple, Kiev’s Metropolitan Kyprian (1375–1406), propagated this regulation throughout the Ruthenian territories along with a new type of sluzhebnyk.33 30 The introductory prayers were penitential in nature, as some of them originated in the rite of confession, H. Paprocki, Misterium Eucharystii…, p. 133. 31 The Patriarch adopted a new edition of the Divine Liturgy as celebrated on Athos and, having made sure it corresponded to the customs at Hagia Sophie, he in-troduced it to be universally used. For more on this and the earlier diataxeis, cf. R. Taft, Introduction. 4: Diataxeis, [in:] Greatentrance: AHistoryoftheTransferofGiftsandOtherPre-AnaphoralRitesofLiturgyofSt. JohnChrysostom, Rome 1978, pp. XXXV-XXXVIII; the scholar also discusses the dissemination path of the new ustav, cf. Р. Тафт, Візантійськийобряд. Короткаісторія, Львів2011, pp. 115–118; cf. on this also С. Рудь, Літургіясв. ІванаЗолотоустоговпершійполовиніXVIIст., [in:] Унійнийз’їздуЛьвові, ed. В. Кучабський, Львів1938, p. 175; И. Мансветовъ, МитрополитъКипріанъ…, pp. 1–9. A doctoral dissertation has been writtenon the ustavin question, cf. С.И. Панова, ДиатаксиспатриархаФилофеяКоккинавславянскойкнижнойтрадицииXIV–XVвв.: лингвотекстологическоеисследование,Москва2009. A summary is available on: (3.03.2016). A more recent study, cf. Т.И. Афанасьева, ЛитургииИоаннаЗлатоустаиВасилияВеликоготретьеготипа. 1: ДиатаксиспатриархаФилофеяКоккина, [in:] Eadem, Литургии…, pp. 166–186. 32 R. Taft, Introduction. 4:Diataxeis…, [in:] Great entrance…, pp. XXXVII. 33 See texts of Proskomide from this Sluzhebnyk printed in: Н. Красносельцев, Матеріалы для исторіи чинопослѣдованія литургіи святаго Іоання Златоустаго,Казань 1889, pp. 37–79. On translations of the ustavinto Slavonic, cf. Т.И. Афанасьева, К вопросу о редакциях славянского перевода ДиатаксисаБожественнойлитургии патриарха Филофея Коккина и об авторстве его древнерусской версии, [in:] Лингвистическое источниковедение и история русского языка, ed. А.М.Молдован, Е.А. Мишина, Москва 2013, pp. 67–85. Since then, the new diataxis has appeared in many handwritten sluzhebnyks,34 and as of the 16th century, it is present in all printed ones in Kievan Metropolitanate.35 This ustav, just like the above men-tioned instructions, obligated the priest who was to celebrate the liturgy, among other things, to purify his heart from bad thoughts and be at peace with his neighbors: “Хотѧ іерей, бжⷭтвенное съвершати таинство долженꙿ єстъ, первѣе оубо мирⷩе быти съ всѣми, ни имѣти что на кого, и срⷣце єлика сила ѿ лꙋкавыхъ блюстисѧ помислꙿ.”36 “Вънемли себѣ ѡ Іерею […]. Не бо землнѣй слꙋжбѣ врꙋчиⷧсѧ єси, но нбⷭнѣй, не члчⷭтѣй, но агг҃лстѣй” – On the Dignity of Serving at the Altar To encourage priests to attain the recommended spiritual state, many of the teachings focused on the mystery of the liturgy, during which the angelic choirs are present at the altar, and Jesus Christ himself rests on the prestol, the throne. This argument was already present in medieval Ruthenian teachings for the clergy. Examples include works most likely from the thirteenth century that were preserved in the kormchaia books in the Bishop’s Teaching for the Parish Clergy Council or the exhortation by Metropolitan Petro Ratenskyi (1308–1326) addressed to hierarchs, diocesan priests, monks and deacons: Слыште ерѣйскый преподобный[…] како начнется въ церквиизборе, къ вамъ ми слово. По-Божіи пѣти на оба лика, сканеже вы нарекостеся земни анге-жемъ вкратцѣ. Игнатій Боголи и небеснии человѣци. Вы соносецъ, иже третій по апосангелы предстоите оу престолатолѣ Петрѣ епископъ бывъГосподня, вы съ серафимыАнтіохіи Сирійстѣй, тотъубо 34 Cf. e.g. М. Марусин, Божественна…, p. 8. 35 Н. Красносельцев, Матеріалы…, p. 30. 36 Ꙋставъ Бжⷭтвъныѧ слꙋжбы въ нейже и дїаконства, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620, pp. 1–2 (first pagination); cf. also Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1637, f. 1; Леітꙋргіаріон сиестъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1639, pp. 165–166 (first pagination) and other sluzhebnyks. носите Господа, вы сводите Духъ видѣ ликъ ангельскій на оба Святый съ небесе и претворяите лика поюще хвалу трисвятѣй хлѣбъ въ плоть и вино въ кровъ Тройцѣ, и образъ тотъ видѣнный Божию, человѣкомъ невидимо, Антіохійстѣй церкви предаде, и мнози же святии видѣша и нынѣ оттуду преданіе ово во вся церкви достойни видять.37 распростреся.38 37 38 In the introductory sections of the 16th and 17th century liturgiarions, before the Mass section and immediately preceding the preface, the already popular in Medieval times “teaching for yereis” by Basil the Great was printed.39 It contained recommendations on internal readiness for celebrating the Mass and procedures during and after its proceedings. This text by the Cappadocian Father intended to awaken a priest’s sense of responsibility for his “angelic, not earthly service,” to which he was called: “Вънемли себѣ ѡ Іерею, и тѣⷨ ихъже хощеши оучити и блюди слꙋжбꙋ юже прїалъ єси, да съвершиши ю. Не бо землнѣй слꙋжбѣ врꙋчиⷧсѧ єси, но нбⷭнѣй, не члчⷭтѣй, но агг҃лстѣй. Поспѣши себе преⷣставити Гв҃и дѣлателѧ непостыдна, правѣ правѧща слово Єго истинное.”40 This canon was last printed in the 1641 Vilnius Liturgiarion, but simi-lar contents were also provided to celebrants in prefaces and special teachings on the ministry of the altar and other works. Among them were those written by contemporary as well as earlier authors and also valuable sources of translated literature, especially the works of John Chrysostom, which became more and more accessible thanks to new translations and prints. One of the most important works on the priest’s ministry in the history of Christian writing was the Dialogue on the Priesthood. It was translated, as we mentioned in the previous chapter, into the Slavic language by Havryil Dorofieievych and published in the typogra-phy of the Lviv Brotherhood in 1614. On the pages of this work, the 37 Епископское поученіе собору епархіальнаго духовенства, [in:] RIB 6, no. 8, col. 111. 38 [Петръ Ратенский], Поученіе Петра Митрополита Кіевскаго всея Русіи Господи благослови къ єпископомъ, и попомъ..., p. 188. 39 Сf. Chapter One. 40 Иже въ Ст҃ыⷯ Оц҃а нш҃еⷢ Васілїа Великаго, архієпⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа поꙋченїє къ іереѡмъ, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620, f. [4]; Canones Graecorum..., p. 70. Golden Mouth Father repeatedly reflected upon the issue of worthily celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice, often painting the picture of the heavenly liturgy. As a researcher on this work pointed out in his writing, the bishop or priest is presented as one “who performs the sacred mysteries, the mysteries of the heavens, these dignified, horrifying mysteries, the one who enters into a sanctuary where he is surrounded by angels, and next, by the power of invoking the Holy Spirit, God himself descends on the altar as a sacrifice”:41 Єгда бѡ оувидиши Га҃ закалаєма, и Ст҃лѧ стоѧща надъ жрътвою и мл҃ѧщасѧ и всѣхъ оною чⷭтною очръвленѧѫщиⷯ сѧ кръвїю, єда ли єще съ чл҃кы быти себе непщоуєши, и на земли стоѧти. Но не абїє ли на Нб҃са преселѧєшисѧ и всѧкꙋ плътьскꙋю мысль ѿвръгаа, нагою дш҃ею и оумомъ чⷭтнымъ обзираєши Нбⷭныѧ вещи, ѡле чюдесе!, ѡле чл҃колюбїа Бж҃їа! Иже горѣ съ Оц҃емъ сѣдѧй, въ часъ онъ всѣхъ съдръжимъ бываєтъ рѫками и даєтъ себе хѡтѧщимъ и объѧти и облобызати. Твѡрѧтꙿ же сіє вси очевиднѣ ѿвръстома ѡчима. Єда ли тебѣ єже пренебрещисѧ симъ достойна ꙗвлѧю(т)сѧ или сицевымъ быти. Ꙗкоже възмощи комоу възгръдѣтисѧ и въстати противꙋ имъ. Хощеши ли и ѿ дроугаго чꙋдесе сщ҃еннодѣйства сего видѣти преизѧщъство. Пропиши ми Илію ѡчесемъ и безꙿчисленный нарѡдъ объстоѧщїй и жъртвꙋ на каменехъ лежащꙋю […] Прейди оубо ѿ ѡнѣхъ на нн҃ѣ съвершаємаа и не чюдеси оузриши токмо, но и въсѧкїй оужасъ превъсходѧща. Стоитъ бо Ст҃ль не огнь съводѧй, но Дх҃а Ст҃го и млъбꙋ на мнозѣ творитъ, не да лапмада каѧ свышше спꙋстившаасѧ, потребитъ предлежащаа, но да блгⷣть нападши на жрътвѫ оною всѣхъ въспалитꙿ дш҃а и сребра свѣтлѣйшаа покажетъ раждеженна. Сеѧ оубо зело грознѣйшеѧ и прчⷭстныѧ жрътвы кто кромѣ неистовъствоующагосѧ и истꙋпленнаго оумомъ пренебрещи възможетъ. Или не вѣси, ѧко никогдаже бы члчⷭкаа дш҃а огнь оноѧ жрътвы понесла, но внезаапꙋ вси исчезнꙋли бы, аще не мнѡгаа Бж҃їа блгⷣати была бы помощъ.42 In the fourth subsection of the sixth part of the quoted work entitled Ꙗкѡ въселенныѧ предъстательство оувѣренно єстъ Ст҃лю и дроугыѧ 41 In describing the priestly office, John Chrysostom uses the Greek term hierosyne, with the priest being referred to as hiereus, H. de Lubac, Wstęp. Teologia “Dialogu o kapłaństwie”, [in:] Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, p. 32. 42 Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ…, Лвовъ 1614, pp. 55–56. вещи грѡзныѧ сѫтъ ѡ немъ, one of the then most often quoted Fathers of the Church wrote about priestly commitment to purity and piety. Whoever offers the most horrifying sacrifice and dwells at the altar among the heavenly Hosts must surpass in virtue the faithful for whom he prays: […] ємоу подобаєтъ толико въсѣхъ ѡнѣхъ ѡ нихъ же мл҃итъсѧ всѣми превъсходити, єлико междꙋ настоѧтелемъ и начальствоуємыми различїю лѣпо єстъ быти. А єгда и Дх҃а Ст҃аго призывати бѫдетъ и зело грознѣйшꙋю и прчⷭтнꙋю навръшати Жрътвꙋ и общемꙋ въсѣхъ частѣ рѫками касатисѧ Влⷣцѣ, то въ коємъ чиноу сътвѡримъ и рц҃и ми. Коликыѧ же ѿ него истѧжеⷨ чⷭтоты. И коликаго блⷢговѣнїѧ. Помысли бо какѡвѣмъ слꙋжащаго подобаєтъ быти рѫкамъ, ꙗковомꙋ ѧзыкꙋ, иже оныѧ проливающемꙋ гл҃ы. Или надъ что чистѣйшей и ст҃ѣйшей, ꙗже толикъ дх҃ъ поⷣємшей не быти дш҃и оной. Тогда и Агг҃ли предъстоѧтъ іерею и нбⷭныхъ силъ весъ чинъ въпїєтъ. И мѣсто єже окрⷭтъ Олтарѧ въ чⷭть предълежащїа Жъртвы Агг҃льскими лики исплънено єстъ.43 Reference to this passage was an appeal to “those enlightening bishops, priests and hierodeacons” formulated by Zakharia Kopystenskyi in the work The Book about the Faith (Kiev 1620). It was a call to be prepared for this honorary ministry, demanding of them chastity, justice, an immaculate life and full awareness of the dignity of this spiritual mission: [...] в той часъ и аггели предстоят іерею, и небеских силъ весь събор въпіетъ, и мѣсце, которое есть около олтаря для учтивости предлежачей офѣри, аггелским полкам наполнено естъ. Уважай собѣ святителю, священнику и іеродіаконе, яковому ти потреба быти! Якуюсь повиненъ мѣти чистость, справедливость и житіе непокаляное, и розума устроеніе. Не самъ бовѣм там предстоишъ, але Христосъ и Духъ Св. тамъ дѣйствуючій все, а агг҃ ели предстоячіи слуги.44 43 Ibidem, pp. 174–175. 44 [Захарія Копыстенский], Книга о вѣрѣ Єдиной, Святой, соборной, Апостолской Церкве, которая под розсудок Церкве Всходней поддaется (ca. 1619 year), [in:] Архивъ Юго-Западной Россіи, издаваемый Коммиссіею для разбора древнихъ актовъ, состоящей при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и Волынскомъ Генералъ Other teachers also resorted to the teachings of John Chrysostom concerning the “heavenly liturgy.” The hieromonk from Pechersk, Tarasii Zemka, in his second foreword to the Kiev Liturgiarion (1629) appealed for the conscious participation of the priest in the Eucharistic sacrifice and for him to reflect on the truth that during the Mass, we will consume Him before whom the angels bow down. This truth has been expressed in reference to the third teaching of St. John, commenting on the apostle Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. The Kievan scholar already had at his disposal its Slavic translation, because the monumental edition of Homilies on the 14 Letters of St. Paul was printed with his participation in typography at the Kiev–Piechersk Lavra in 1623:45 Златоꙋстꙿ, гл҃ѧ: єлици причащаєⷨ сѧ Тѣла, єлици Кръве въкꙋшаеⷨ сеѧ, помышлѧйте, ꙗкѡ ничиⷨже онаго разиствꙋющаго, ниже раⷥстоѧщагѡ Причащаєⷨ сѧ, развѣ онаго горѣ сѣдѧщаго, ѿ Агг҃лъ покланѧємагѡ, блиⷥ Нетлѣⷩныѧ силы сꙋщаго, сегѡ въкꙋшаєⷨ. [...] Раⷥсꙋжⷣенїю же искꙋшенїє нꙋжⷣнѡ приложисѧ. Вѣрꙋѧй бо Хꙋ҃ прикоснꙋтисѧ, въкꙋсити, и поⷣ видимыми лицами ꙗвѣ єго прїѧти, всѧкѡ да потщитсѧ достоиⷩ тогѡ ꙋчрежⷣенїа ѡбрѣстисѧ. Єже искꙋшенїє ничтоже єстꙿ иное, развѣ опасное совѣсти испытанїє, єже въ сей высочайшей вещи и къ спⷭнїю ꙗкѡ найпаче рꙋководствꙋющей зѣлѡ єⷭ(тъ) прилагателно.46 The Liturgy was presented by the Fathers of the Church as be-ing concelebrated by men and angels, including John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus in his sermonsor Theodore of Mopsuestia († 428) in his catechetical homilies (On the Eucharist, No. 15–16).47 This was also reflected in architecture and sacral art, and above all the very prayers of the liturgy from the V–VI centuries, such Губернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 8: Памятники литературной полемики православныхъ южно-руссовъ съ прoтестантами и латино-уніатами въ Юго-Западной Руси за XVI и XVII ст., Кіевъ 1887, pp. 231–232. 45 Cf. Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий, Нравѡꙋченїє 3. О дарѣ Влⷣчнѧгѡ Тѣла, и ꙗкѡ не причащающемꙋ сѧ сегѡ недостои(тъ) ниже при мл҃твахъ быти иже въ приносѣ бываємыхъ, [in:] Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623, col. 1599. 46 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ, (Киевъ 1629), f. 11v. 47 In his instructions, written towards the 4th century, Bishop Theodore of Mop-suestia was apparently the first to combine two motifs in his interpretation of as the Cherubim’s Hymn.48 This was how the Byzantine commentator Maximus the Confessor († 660) interpreted the liturgy in Mistagogia,49 and later Simeon of Thessalonica († 1429) as well in reference to his writings.50 Excerpts from these works were later found in many books. Separate articles called the Tolkovaia sluzhba appeared that were liturgical commentaries also compiled from apocryphal sourc-es, included in the manuscript books used in the Orthodox Church (e.g. in kormchaia51 and euchologions52) and in homiletic collections of mixed composition.53 The themes of Christian iconography were used to popularize this vision in such Christian iconography as The Communion of the Apostles, The Liturgy of the Church Fathers and The Divine Liturgy,54 which the liturgy: the history of Christ’s sacrifice and the heavenly liturgy, cf. P. Тафт, Візантійський обряд…, p. 68. 48 Ibidem, pp. 52–57. 49 PG 91, 664–684, cf. Ibidem, p. 54, fn. 39. G. Minczew, “Cała świątynia staje się mieszkaniem Boga”. Bizantyńskie mistagogie – wykładnia i komentarz liturgii niebiańskiej, [in:] Symeon z Tessaloniki, O świątyni Bożej, Krak 2007, pp. 16–22. 50 Two works by Simeon of Thessalonica, On God’s Temple and On the Sacred Liturgy(PG, vol. 155, chapters 697–749 and 253–304)], cf. Г.Й. Шульц, Візантійська літургія…, pp. 194–199. 51 Cf. e.g. the article Ст҃го Васілїа толкъ сщ҃енническаго чинꙋ что є(сть) ерѣй in Ephrem Kormchaia cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, pp. 128–129. 52 For example the Euchologion Slavonicum 15 features John Chrysostom’s com-mentary on the Divine Liturgy (f. 453v); table of contents of the manuscript, cf. М.Марусин, Чини Святительських Служб..., p. 203. 53 Cf. e.g. the article Слово о преcвитерѣ с ним же аг҃ гли служаху from the 16th-cen-tury Izmaragd cf. Кириличні рукописні..., Львів 2007, no. 199. The latest research on the Slavic liturgical commentaries, Т.И. Афанасьева, Древнесловянские толкования на литургию в рукописной традиции XII-XVI вв., Москва 2012; Eadem, Толкование на литургию как разновидность толковых текстовв древнеславянской письменности и его история в славянской рукописной традиции XII–XVI вв., [in:] Письменность, литература, фольклор славянских народов. История славистики. XV международный съезд славистов (Минск 2013), Москва 2013, pp. 37–51. 54 Г.Й. Шульц, Літургійні теми пізньовізантійської іконографії як пояснення літургії, [in:] Візантійська літургія…, pp. 177–192; Ch. Walter, Sztuka i obrządek in time also included the presentations of celebrating bishops.55 As Georgie Minczew noted, folk Christianity adopted from the official ritual and pseudo-canonical and orthodox iconography the belief in the real presence and the participation of the heavenly hosts in the liturgy, interpreting and developing it over time in its own way.56 The belief in that when the sacrament of the Eucharist is being celebrated in the earthly shrine, Christ in heaven, together with the angels and archangels, is celebrating the liturgy is a characteristic element of both the official and folk Orthodox spirituality. Proof of this is the fact that the Bishop of Chernihiv, Yoanykii Galatovskyi, in the 1665 printed collection of The New Heaven (Нб҃о новоє зꙿ новыми звѣздами), when describing the miracles of the Mother of God, included the fragment that referred to the popular among the Slavs pseudo-canonical text known in Ruthenia as A Word about the Sacred Liturgy of St. Paul the Apostle:57 Анфилогъ царъ Сараценскїй поганин въ Іер҃҃ лимѣ пришолъ до цркви на слꙋжбꙋ Бж҃ꙋю и в(ъ) той часъ видѣлъ Ха҃ ꙗкѡ дитѧтко малоє, котороє свѧщенникъ на олтарѣ зарѣзалъ. Длѧ тогѡ поставилъ сторожꙋ ѡколо того сщ҃енника, жебы не оутеклъ. Гды мовилъ сщенникъ: Претꙋю, чистꙋю ҃҃и пребл҃гословеннꙋю славнꙋю Вл҃дчицꙋ нашꙋ Бг҃ородицꙋ и проч., в(ъ) той часъ Kościoła bizantyńskiego, Warszawa 1992, pp. 232–240. Cf. also R.F. Taft, Through their own eyes. Liturgy as the Byzantines saw it, Berkeley 2006, pp. 145–153. 55 Ch. Walter, Sztuka…, pp. 235–237. A discussion about the link between these representations and canonical and pseudo-canonical texts, with examples of illustrations, cf. G. Minczew, Święta księga – ikona – obrzęd. Teksty kanoniczne ipseudokanoniczne i ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorzeprawosławnych Słowian na Bałkanach, Łódź 2003, pp. 86–89. 56 G. Minczew, Święta księga…, p. 61. On pseudo-canonical texts functioning in southern Slavic regions, often also in Ruthenian land, and containing a vision of the “heavenly liturgy”, cf. Ibidem, pp. 61–96. 57 Ibidem, pp. 68-69. The text of the work, known in southern Slavic lands as The Vision of King Amphilokh, in a version from the National Library in Sophia, cf. Ibidem, pp. 97-113. Ruthenian text in: I. Франко, Апокріфи і леґенди з українських рукописів, vol. 4: Апокріфи есхатольоґічні, Львов 1906, pp. 92-98, 99-102, Ivan Franko also reprinted here the version from Yoanykii Galatovskyi’s printed book, cf. pp. 98–99. пришло множество аг҃глѡвъ, которыи поⷣнесши рꙋки, за весъ мїръ хртїѧнскїй ҃молилисѧ Бг҃ꙋ.58 The quoted collection of “miracles” was reprinted in Mohylev in 1699 by Maksym Voshchanka, and the specific text of the “vision” known as the story of Amphilokh can also be found in other manu-scripts and printed Ruthenian records.59 In addition, the presence of Jesus on the altar during the liturgy was depicted by an icon representing the vision of St. Peter the Alexandrian. The picture with this theme was found in the edition of the Triodion distributed in Kiev in 1642.60 These are not the only references to the “vision” texts in the teachings for priests, which we will present later in this chapter. Proof of the belief in true participation of the representatives of heaven in the earthly liturgy was also depicted in the story of the angelic service (sluzhba) in the book by Atanasii Kalnofoiskii entitled ΤΕΡΑΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑlubo cuda (1638), printed in Kiev Lavra. In addition (parergon) to Miracle XXXII, the testimony of two gentlemen was recounted who, on September 6, 1626, on their way to Kiev and before dawn stood at the Golden Gate when they saw a brightness hovering over the Cathedral. As they approached the shrine, they also heard wonderful singing and the smell of wax from the many lit candles.61 In the seventeenth century, what moulded people’s imaginations of the “heavenly liturgy” was the work of Feodosii Sofonovych re-printed many times constituting a compilation of the mentioned mystagogical works, including many other liturgical explanations.62 For example, in the section on liturgical vestments, following the work of 58 Іоаникій Галѧтовский, Нб҃о новоє зꙿ новыми звѣздами сотворенное то єстъ Преблⷭвеннаѧ Дв҃а Мрїа Бца з Чꙋдами Своими, Лвовъ 1665, ff. 52v -53v. ҃҃ 59 E.g. in Dmytro Tuptalo’s menaion-chetii, cf. Н.Ф. Сумцов, Очерки исторіи южно - русскихъ апокрифическихъ сказаній и пѣсенъ, “Кіевская старина” 6, vol. 19, 1887 (сентабръ), pp. 51–54. 60 On this icon, M. Janocha, Unia brzeska a malarstwo ikonowe. Dialog wyznań czy dia log kultur?, [in:] Sztuka i dialog wyznań w XVI i XVII wieku, ed. J. Harasimowicz, Warszawa 2000, pp. 405–409. 61 Atanazy Kalnofojski, ΤΕΡΑΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑlubo cuda…, Kij 1638, pp. 195–196 (235–236). 62 On the sources of inspiration for Sofonovych’s work, cf. Chapter One. Varlaam Golenkovskyi, Spiritual Dialogism, Kiev 1714 Simeon of Thessalonica, we read in The Divine Sanctuarythat the sticharion worn by priests envisioned the bright clothing of the angels and the purity and unblemished state of the priesthood: [Стїхаръ] значитъ свѣтлꙋю ѡдеждꙋ агг҃лскꙋю и сщ҃енникъ бовѣмъ вꙿ Писмѣ агг҃ломъ называєтсѧ, а вꙿ бѣлыхъ ѡсобливе ѡдеждахъ агг҃ли ꙗвлѧютсѧ, ꙗкъ и на гробѣ Хв҃оⷨ бѣлый стихаръ и длѧ тогѡ, абы бѣлыми то єстъ чⷭтыми ѿ вшелѧкой змазы Іереи и дїаконы были. Ѿтоль и шатою спⷭенїѧ называєтсѧ и радость иⷯ справꙋєтꙿ, ꙗко вкладаючи стихаръ мовѧтъ: возрадꙋєтсѧ дш҃а моѧ ѡ Гдⷭѣ, ѡблече бо мѧ вꙿ ризꙋ спⷭенїѧ.63 These depictions of the sacred liturgy celebrated by men accompanied by the heavenly hosts were invoked in various contexts, and in the teachings for the priest, they most often served as a starting point for reflecting on the need for purity and the celebrant’s conscientious preparation for it. According to Kuntsevych’s principles, there was a condition for the state of conscience for those who wished to purify and sanctify others: “бутисвященником – значить, насамперед самому бути чистим, а відтак очищувати; Насамперед самому бути святим, а вже тоді освячувати.”64 Golenkovskyi spoke in a similar fashion about the unblemished purity of the yereis who are the instruments for the transformation of the Eucharist: “Ієрей же всѧкꙿ ѿ беⷥзаконїѧ зачинаєтꙿсѧ въ грѣсехъ родитꙿсѧ и всема подобострастенъ прочїимꙿ чл҃кѡмꙿ єсть. Въ сщ҃еннодѣйствїй же чистотою своєю долженъ всѣхъ чл҃вѣкъ чистотꙋ превосходити и всеⷢда чиⷭ(т) и беⷥпорочеⷩ быти.”65 Such commitment to sanctity of life, as we read in the article by Yosyf Tryzna in Trebnyk (1652), is due to the fact that during the liturgy, the priest is the “image” of Christ Himself, and hence it is necessary that his daily conduct would bear witness to the Gospel, by being a constant struggle for his own salvation, and most of all, his neighbor’s salvation: 63 Феодосій Софонович, Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой и ѡ церковныхъ речаⷯ, ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой…, Ꙋневъ 1670, ff. 5v-6 (268).64 [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції…, p. 299. 65 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 7 о Чистотѣ. Вꙿ нейже пребывати должеⷩ Іерей, въ времѧ са маⷢ Ст҃агѡ Слꙋженїѧ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)…, part 1, Киевъ 1714, f. 46. The prob lem of the celebrant’s humility takes up the entire chapter seven, cf. ff. 45v-48v. Высокихъ заисте, а надⷣер великихъ дарѡвъ Бозскихъ оупоминокъ єстъ, такъ высокимъ саномъ оучтенымъ быти, але немнѣй великаѧ речъ єстꙿ вꙿ так высокомъ поволаню Бозскомъ годныⷨ сѧ знайдовати. Персонꙋ абовѣⷨ не члчⷭкꙋю, але Ха҃ Сп҃сителѧ самогѡ (вꙿ которогѡ ѡсобѣ и оныи слова: “Прїймѣте, ꙗдѣте, си єстъ Тѣло мое” на Бжⷭтвенной Лѵ҃ргїи мовитъ) кажⷣый Сщ҃енникъ на собѣ носи(тъ). Теды конечне потреба, абы ꙗко персонꙋ, и такъ житїе, при вшелѧкихъ иншиⷯ добродѣтелехъ, Хв҃о на собѣ по силѣ выображаⷧ. Затыⷨ идетъ, же ꙗкъ Ха҃ Сп҃сителѧ нш҃го всѣ на свѣтѣ вꙿ тѣлѣ поⷣнѧтыи працѣ и трꙋды, не до ꙗкогѡ иншогѡ целю стѧгалисѧ, тылкѡ абы всѣхъ спⷭти и до познанѧ Бозкогѡ привести моглъ, ведлꙋг ѡного: “Сн҃ъ члов҃еческїй непришолъ дꙋшъ члчⷭких погꙋбити, но спасти”. Такъ и сщ҃енника чꙋлого, а побожногѡ, все старанє и трꙋды, беⷥ вшелѧкиⷯ дневныⷯ и нощныⷯ ѿпочинкѡвъ, на том маютъ засажоны быти, абы всѣхъ ѡвечокъ своиⷯ, собѣ ѿ Бг҃а повѣроныхъ на паствискꙋ збавенных Єѵⷢлскиⷯ лꙋкаⷯ, словоⷨ и житїемъ побожныⷨ добре оупасши Бꙋ҃ ꙗкъ бл҃говонный запаⷯ вꙿ чистꙋю офѣрꙋ принести могъ, а жадноѣ з нихъ не погꙋбилъ.66 The truth that the hierarch, the servant of God, wearing the omo-phorion and offering the Horrifying Sacrifice depicts the very person of Christ breaking and distributing the bread, was also proclaimed by Father Feodosii in the first liturgical treatise printed in Kievan Metropolitanate: Оказовалъ себе [свѧтитител], знѧвши омофѡръ, же естъ слꙋга Хрⷭтѡвъ вꙿ справованю Єгѡ таемницъ. А кгды оуже всю справꙋ таемницъ Хрⷭтѡвыхъ ѿправилъ, а маетъ Ст҃ый Хвѣбъ подносити и ламати, знѡвꙋ знакъ ст҃ителства своегѡ беретъ на себе, которымꙿ ѡсобливе естъ омофоръ. Тамъ слꙋгою Хв҃ымъ ѡказовалъсѧ, даючи знати, же сам Хрⷭтосъ таемницы свои справꙋє(тъ), а ст҃итель толко ꙗкъ слꙋга, а тꙋтꙿ зновꙋ Хрⷭтѡвꙋ ѡсобꙋ самꙋю починаетꙿ выражати, гды ꙗкъ Хс҃ маетъ хлѣбъ ламати и давати.67 66 До чителника дꙋховнаго (Требникъ сирѣчъ Мл҃товникъ имѣѧй в себѣ Црковнаѧ҃послѣдованїѧ Іереемъ подобающїѧ […] повеленїемъ ꙗсне в Бз҃ѣ Превелⷧ Єго Млⷭти Ѡц҃а Іосифа Тризны, Архимандрита, Киевъ 1652), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли..., p. 376. 67 Феодосій Софонович, Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой и ѡ церковныхъ речаⷯ, ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой…, Ꙋневъ 1670, f. 18v (274). The explanation is a reference to two fragments of Sime-on of Thessalonica’s work, cf. O świątyni Bożej, Krak 2007, pp. 65, 84. This truth was expressed by the consecrator in an instruction for a newly ordained bishop pronounced during the nomination: “Виждъ превозлюбленнѣйшій брате, и опасно внимай, каковый санъ воспріяти имаши. Превышшій бо всѣхъ The Bishop of Lviv, Arsenii Zheliborskyi, in the preface to the Liturgiarion (1646) addressed a teaching about the dignity of the Divine Liturgy to the representatives of the upper and lower clergy. Through this instruction, he reminded the users of the sluzhebnykthat the Orthodox Church considers the Divine Liturgy to be the most im-portant of all ceremonies and rites, as it contains the greatest Mystery of our salvation: Ижъ Єѵгарістїѣ Ст҃оѣ Сакраментъ є(сть) речъ вꙿ Цр҃кви Хв҃ой такъ великаѧ, же є(сть) правдивыⷨ Тѣломъ и правдивою Кровїю Єгѡ, теды такъ великой речи великїѣ тежъ пристоѧтꙿ речи. Длѧ чогѡ Цр҃҃ коⷡ Стаѧ наⷣ всѣ ѡбрѧды, наⷣ всѣ церемонїѣ найбоⷧшїй и найзнаменитшїй, ѡколѡ ѡномꙋ ѹслꙋгованѧ, постановивши заховꙋетꙿ и заживаєтъ то є(сть) Лѵтꙋргію Ст҃ꙋю, вꙿ которойсѧ всѣ, и самый Агглⷭкїй розꙋмъ превосходѧщїй збавенѧ нш҃егѡ Мѵстирїа, або Таємницѣ ѿправꙋю(тъ).68 сановъ и чиновъ есть не точію человѣческихъ, но и самыхъ ангельскихъ, понеже образъ самого Господанашего Ісуса Архіерей есть. Подобаєтъ тебѣ, елико мощно человѣческой немощи, подражателемъ во всемъ ему быти”, quoted after: А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., p. 359. The subject was tackled by Kyryl Stavrovetskyi: “[…] єгда бо єреѧ оувидиши тебѣ подающа тѣло и кровъ Хв҃оу, тогда не єреѧ просто мнѣмай быти, но самого Ха, рꙋкꙋ невидимо простирающе, ҃и тѣло и кровъ свою тебѣ подающе въ снѣдь, да ꙗдши єго в немъ пребиваєшъ и живешъ вѣчнымꙿ животоⷨ. Такожде и въ кр҃ щенїи разꙋмѣй, ꙗко не єрей тѧ крещаетъ но самъ Бг҃ъ невидимо держитъ главꙋ твою, и дѣйствꙋетъ невидимою силою, и нѣже аг҃глъ и архаг҃глъ дерзаетъ прикоснꙋтсѧ, но точїю самъ Бг҃ъ поражⷣаетъ тѧ въ животъ вѣчнѣй. Тако и зде въ прчⷭтыхъ таинахъ, не єрей нѣже агг҃лы, но самъ Влⷣка и Архїерей грѧдꙋщихꙿ бл҃гъ сими дѣйствꙋєтъ и прчⷭтое тѣло и кровъ свою вѣрнымъ даетъ невидимою рꙋкою, на ѹврачеванїє всѧкого недꙋга дш҃евного и на въспрїатїе живота вѣчного и на соєдиненїє зꙿ Бг҃омꙿ”, Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 9 ⷯы(по ВсѣхъСт҃ ), [in:], Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 250v. Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цр҃ кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ...(Лвовъ 1646), f. 5. “Пресвитере бꙋди смысленъ, разꙋмѣй что єси, или ѡ чемъ слꙋжиши” – Conscientiously Approaching the Liturgy In the Teaching for Yereis,the first written treatise in Kievan Metro-politanate about preparing to serve at the altar, four mandatory skills are given as required from each priest: celebrating the hourly canoni-cal services, celebrating the liturgy, administering the sacraments and teaching the faithful. The most important of these, according to the authors of the work, was Serving God by celebrating the glory of God for the spiritual good of the priest and the faithful: Четыри речы сꙋть головнѣйшые, которыє сщ҃енꙿникъ оумѣти повиненъ єстъ.а҃ ҃҃ Правило црковноє ѿпровова(тъ), бСлꙋжбꙋ бжⷭтвенꙿнꙋю слꙋжыти. г҃ ҃ Тайнами црковꙿными, которыє Сакраменꙿтами называємо шафова(тъ). д҃ Людей што повинꙿни Бг҃ꙋ самымъ собѣ и ближнемꙋ наꙋчати. Стыхъ напреⷣнѣйшаѧ єстъ Лѵторꙿгіѧ, алꙿбо Слꙋжба бж҃аѧ. Потребно тогды абы каждый сщ҃енꙿникъ наꙋчылꙿсѧ Лѵторгїю ст҃ꙋю ѿправовати, такъ ꙗкобы было зꙿ хвалою Бж҃ою, с пожыткомъ єго дꙋховнымъ, и тихъ всѣхъ за которыхъ тꙋю бжⷭтвенꙿнꙋю жерꙿтвꙋ прыноситъ [...].69 Many of the works of that time written by clergy emphasized the fact that a priest, in order to undertake and evaluate his dignified liturgical ministry, had to possess the appropriate mental abilities. Zakharia Kopystenskyi in the above quoted passage from the Book on the Faith described this cognitive potential of the priest and the ability to consciously participate in the mystery as “розума устроеніе.”70 Father Varlaam Golenkovskyi made an appeal to the priests at the beginning of the eighteenth century for responsible and conscientious service at the altar: “Тѣмже Пресвитере бꙋди смысленъ, разꙋмѣй что єси, или ѡ чемъ слꙋжиши, и разꙋмѣвъ, работай Гдⷭви со страхомъ и любовїю, и всѧкїѧ нравы пꙋстошныѧ ѿвержи. Да Агг҃лскꙋю слⷤꙋбꙋ прїимъ, и тꙋ со 69 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [4]. For more on the subject, cf. also И. Дмытревскій, Историческое, догматическое…, pp. 59–60. 70 [Захарія Копыстенский], Книга о вѣрѣ Єдиной..., (ca. 1619), pp. 231–232. страхомъ, любовїю, говѣніеⷨ державы(й), бꙋдеши на нб҃си ликовствꙋѧ(й) со Аг҃глы вꙿ безконечныѧ вѣки [...].”71 In order for this condition to be fulfilled, the celebrant had to have as a resource basic knowledge about the liturgy, priestly duties and vocation. These were needed in order to understand the essence of Eucharistic transubstantiation, the meaning and the efficacious power of this and the other sacraments, the meaning of the words spoken during their administration and the gestures made. All this makes it possible for him to teach and explain to the faithful the meaning of these rites. The above obligations were imposed on priests, among others, by the Kremenets synod teaching. Atanasii Puzyna argued that every minister of the sacraments must know the number, purpose and circumstances under which he can administer them: “До того та(й)нами Цр҃ ковными порѧⷣне абысте справовали, которїй соуⷮ сроⷣкованемꙿ збавеⷩѧ нш҃го и беⷥ тыⷯ жадеⷩ збавеⷩ быт(и) не можеⷮ. Прето знаючи ѡ ниⷯ, знайте ꙗⷦ иⷯ єстꙿ много и нащо котраѧ єстꙿ потреⷠна и ꙗⷦ иⷯ оуживати и вꙿ котрїй чаⷭ хто оуживати можетꙿ, того пиⷧне наꙋчеⷩми сѧ постерѣга(й)те.”72 Fulfilling such an obvious condition was not a common thing at that time. Tarasii Zemka, in the second preface to the first edition of Mohyla’s Sluzhebnyk (1629), explicitly acknowledged that his intro-duction as a liturgical commentary was a teaching addressed to a very numerous, which he sadly stressed, group of uneducated clergy with which “the Ruthenian Orthodox Church abounds in this bad time.”73 It is worth recalling that this was not the only self-critical statement about the intellectual level of the clergy.74 The need to explain the meaning of Divine Liturgy (Толкова Служба) to priests was obvious to teachers as early as the Middle Ages. As mentioned above, special commentaries on this topic were 71 Варлаам Голенковский, Предисловїє ѿ слова Іоана Златоꙋстагѡ къ Читателю бл҃гочести вомꙋ Дх҃овномꙋ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., Киевъ 1714, p. [5v]. 72 Атанасій Пꙋзина, Синод ведле звичаю дорочного, Кремѧнецъ ca. 1638, p. 95. 73 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 5v. 74 Criticism of the clergy can be found in the writings of e.g. Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi and Zakharia Kopystenskyi. For more on the subject, cf. the previous chapter, section “Подобаєтъ же єпископꙋ альбо свꙗщенникови быти оучительнꙋ” – Substantive Preparation for the Priesthood. included in the Ruthenian books, trebnyks and other collections, including excerpts from the works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus the Greek or Pseudo-Germanos.75 Descriptions of Orthodox rituals were also contained in monasteries and church diataxis, typicons and other books.76 A characteristic feature of the East Slavic tradition was the large diversity of pseudo-canonical explanations of the Orthodox ritual.77 Old Rus’ attached great importance to the rite, but the existing translations, often coming from the most famous sources, were fragmentary and contained inserts of unknown origin (apocrypha).78 It was quite different in the case of the quoted preface by Zemka. According to researchers, the text of the Kievan scholar and editor of numerous editions should be regarded as the first professional, though small, liturgical treatise.79 The comment concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was divided according to the announcement into several parts.80 The first concerned Service to God and the meanings of such terms as the Eucharist, Thanksgiving (Благодаренїє), Prosfora (Приношенїє), Sacrifice (Жертва), Community (Общенїє), Sacrament (Тайна) and the Celebrant (Слꙋжитель) were presented.81 75 М.М. Соловій, Божественна…, pp. 121–123. The sources are discussed, with references to the scholarly literature on the subject, by G. Minczew, “Cała świątynia…, pp. 12–15. 76 On the subject, cf. G. Minczew, “Cała świątynia…, p. 15. 77 G. Minczew, Święta księga…, p. 69. Referring to Bulgarian writings for his examples, the scholar demonstrates that copyists often failed to see the difference between Byzantine mystagogies and pseudo-canonical texts, and included excerpts from the latter in books to be used in the church, cf. Ibidem, pp. 73–83. 78 Н. Красноселъцев, “Толковая служба” и другія сочиненія…, pp. 3–4; cf. also Idem, О древнихъ литургическихъ толкованіяхъ, Одесса 1894; Т.И. Афанасьева, Древнесловянские толкования на литургию…, Москва 2012; Eadem, Толкование на литургию…, pp. 37–51. 79 Cf. Chapter One. 80 “Первѣє: оубѡ Слꙋжба бжⷭтъвнаа, ꙗже єстꙿ Литꙋргіа, коими нарицеєтꙿсѧ имены. Второє: Коликоє є(сть) єѧ преизѧщество и достоинство, и съ коликою чтⷭїю и преⷣꙋготованїєⷨ къ ней пристꙋпателно є(сть). Пр҃ чее: ѿ кого изѡбрѣтена є(сть) и преданна въ кратцѣ изѧвити”, Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 5v. 81 Ibidem, ff. 5v-9. In the last part, Zemka outlined a brief history of the origins of the liturgy, naming its three authors, and next he pointed out the main ways of how the Greek sluzhebnyk reached the Slavic lands and the reasons for issuing another, second version of the Kiev edition.82 The treaties, therefore, provided essential knowledge for the clergy. In the seventeenth century sluzhebnyk editions, there was no other equally rich in contents preface or dedication with an explanation of the liturgy. In spite of this, the texts placed in the publishing scope of this Orthodox position (sometimes also other liturgical books, e.g. trebnyks) contributed to a certain extent to expanding a priest’s knowledge on the important spiritual dimension of ministry. For example, in the preface of the first liturgiarion at the Kiev-Pechersk typography, Elisei Pletenetskyi presented a new edition of the book as a worthy and recommendable source of the three liturgies created and handed down by the saintly Fathers: Се стꙋденецъ блг҃очестивыхъ храма Прест҃ыѧ Бц҃а, ѡ блг҃одати Гн҃и, изводитъ и произноситъ книгꙋ ст҃ыхъ бжⷭтвенныхъ Литꙋргїй, иже въ Ст҃ыхъ Ѡц҃ъ нашихъ ст҃го Іоанна Хрѵсостома, вселенскаго оучителѧ, ст҃го Василїа Великаго Архїепⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа, Ст҃го Григорїа Двѡеслѡва Папы Римскаго. Сице же ѡ Хѣ҃ тщахомъсѧ издати, ꙗкоже Ст҃аѧ Кафолическаѧ Апⷭлскаѧ Въсточнаѧ Цр҃съдержи(тъ), и ꙗкоже ѿ премꙋдрѣйшихъ кви и извѣстнѣйшихъ ѡноѧ пастырей, всестѣйшихъ гл҃ю четырехъ патрїархѡвъ: Константинополскаго, Алеѯандрійскаго, Антїохійскаго и Іерⷭлимскаго прїахѡмъ и наꙋчихѡмъсѧ.83 In the Vilnius Sluzhebnykfrom 1617, printer Leon Mamonуch in the dedication for the patron of the edition described the works in Slavic as being liturgical, presenting the problems Cyril and Methodius had with the Latin clergy and Pope Hadrian II favoring their apostolic ideas: 82 Ibidem, ff. 12v-20v. 83 Єлїссей Плетенецкїй, Пресвѣтлымъ въ блг҃очⷭтїи, Апⷭлскихъ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ ѡц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемъ, ст҃ыа съборныѧ апⷭлскїа въсточныѧ Цркве,҃ѡсщ҃еннаго каталогꙋ ѿцѡмъ и братїаⷨ нашимъ, смиренный Єлиссей Плетенецкїй, Архїмандритъ Лавры Печерскїа Кіевскїа, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620, , ff. 2v-3 (first pagination). Cf. also a reprint of the preface in: Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, pp. 29–30. На заходѣ и на полъночъ латинъскимъ, пры тыхъ помененыхъ ꙗзыкаⷯ не безъ ѡсобливого спораженьѧ Бж҃го, презъ ст҃ыхъ мꙋжовъ, апⷭловъ словенъскихъ, Кирилъла и Мефодїа, правило цр҃҃ ковъное ѿдаваньѧ хвалы Бгꙋ на кождый дн҃ь. И слꙋжба бж҃ствеънаѧ Тѣла и Крови Хв҃оє преложена єстъ зъ кгрецкиⷯ книгъ на ꙗзыкъ словенъскїй. […] зъ Кгрецыи ѿкꙋль родомъ были, вышовъши пошли в Рыⷨ. Тамъ же Адрыѧнови второмꙋ, который на тотъ часъ былъ папежомъ тꙋю справꙋ преложили и подъ розъсꙋдокъ подали, и кгды мнѡгїе зъ клиросꙋ папежъского томꙋ противъни были, важными доводами, ꙗко то ѡбъширъней въ книгахъ нашихъ словенсъкихъ цр҃ ковнихъ єстъ описано. […] Виденїємъ бозъскимъ папежъ ꙋтверъженый, вырокъ ꙋчинилъ, же ꙗзыкомъ словенъскимъ, слѹжба бж҃ественънаѧ, и всѧкоє пенїє цр҃84 ковноє, ѿправоватисѧ можетъ. The problem of the Slavic liturgical language was very contro-versial in pre-Tridentine Poland, which is particularly evident in polemical literature.85 The dedication in the preface contributed to the growing interest on the Cyril-Methodian issue in the sixteenth century including discussions undertaken, in the spiritual and intel-lectual circles of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra’s, on the dignity (dignitas) of the Slavonic language as being liturgical.86 The work of the Solunian Brothers was also the subject of dis-cussion by Metropolitan Kyprian Zhokhovskii in the preface of the Uniate Liturhikon published in Vilnius-Suprasl (1692–1695):87 омъКрещенїиДхАꙗкожеѿродителїєвъст҃ ҃гочестїємъистыйКирїллꙿиМефодїйАпⷭлскоюревностїю,блст҃ ҃҃ овныи Славенскихъ странъ аѧ два Брата, 84 Леон Козмичъ Мамонич, Ꙗсне Вельможномꙋ Панꙋ єго млⷭти Панꙋ Леонови Сапезе… (Вилно 1617), ff. [2]. 85 J. Stradomski, Spory o “wiarę grecką”…, pp. 113–125; cf. also О.Б. Неменский,Свв.Кирилл и Мефодий как крестителиРуси в православной и униатскоймысли Речи Посполитойв первой половине XVII в., “Славянский альманах” 2013, pp. 78–86. 86 A. Naumow, Język – deklaracja przynależności czy narzędzie?, [in:] Domus Divisa…, pp. 38–44; Idem, Utwory południowosłowiańskie w cerkiewnosłowiańskim piśmiennictwie w Rzeczypospolitej, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, 2011, vol. 2: Kościół prawosławny na Bałkanach i w Polsce – wzajemne relacje oraz wspólna tradycja, p. 30. 87 On Cyril and Methodius themes and pope-centrism in Kyprian Zhokhovskii’s preface, cf. A. Naumow, Pierwsze unickie służebniki, [in:] Idem, Domus Divisa…, pp. 146–154. ѣйшагоАрхїереѧРимскаго,вꙿтовремѧНіколаѧперваго,Троиственною властїюст҃ ргіеюстЛѵ҃ ҃ наꙋчиша вѣры, обратиша народы къ повиновенїю Римови приведоша.ою и книгами въ славенскїй ꙗзыкъ ѿ Греческаго преведенными, 88 Both authors of these prefaces by mentioning the Slavic Teachers were trying to accomplish various expedient goals, but it cannot be ruled out that, since directed to the simple clergy, these texts served not only as propaganda or an agitational element, but also as substantial informative medium. Of a similar function could be the illustrations found in the liturgical books with full-figured images of the Fathers of the Church accompanied by laudatory poems.89 From one of such poems under the image of Pope Gregory the Dialogist in the Kievan Sluzhebnykfrom 1708, we can learn a lot about the author of the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts: “Григорїй Бесѣдовникъ, ветха Рима бѧше // Папа, вꙿ єднꙵствѣ Вѣры, єгда пребываше, // Сꙿ новымꙿ Прежⷣесщ҃еннꙋ онъ тогда состроиⷧ, // За то себѣ вꙿ Нбⷭныⷯ, жизнь вѣчнꙋ оусвоилъ. “90 Similar poems praising the saints were printed earlier in the Kievan sluzhebnyk under the images of John Chrysostom91 and Bas- il the Great.92 Meletii Smotrytskyi briefly mentioned the authors of the liturgy in the The Catechism in Summary, with a recommendation about the order of its celebration,93 and Mykhailo Slozka, the printer 88 Ципрїанъ Жоховскїй, Читателеви ієрееви спⷭнїѧ вѣчнаго, Жертвою Гд҃а нш҃его Іи҃с Хртⷭа кроⷡною, и безкровною, ѿ оусердїѧ желаєтъ, [in:] Леітоургікон..., Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692– 1695, [f. 7]. 89 On the poems from the oktoikhs, cf. A.Z. Nowak, “Co za rozum zamyka w sobie ta księga”…, pp. 177–193. 90 Леітꙋргіаріон сі єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1708, f. 185v. 91 “Се Златоⷭꙋ(тъ), изрѧдный Цркве оукраситель // Се всеѧ Вселенныѧ Спсенный Ꙋч҃тель // ҃҃Кꙿ семꙋ бл҃гохоⷣно вси роди притѣка(й)те, // Сего ꙋченꙿми, тѣла и дш҃и спасайте”, Слꙋжебникъ Бжⷭтвенныхъ лѵ҃ргїй, Киевъ 1692, [f. 12v]. 92 “Се Ст҃ль Великїй се Cтолпъ є(сть) ѡгнеⷩны(й), // Сиⷨ ѿ тмы на свѣ(ть) нароⷣ мноⷢ є(сть) настаⷡлеⷩны(й). // Вꙿ свѣⷮ жизни ѿ тмы грѣха за(й)ти кто змѣраєⷮ, // На сейже Cтолпꙿ огнеⷩный всѧко да взыраєⷮ”, Ibidem, f. 41v. 93 “[…] pobożne odprawowanie [liturgii] przez Jakuba Apostoła Brata Pańskiego podług ciała Biskupa Hierosolymskiego przez Bazyliusza Wielkiego i przez Jana Złotoustego podane pochwalam i przyjmuje i aby co dzień była odprawiana pilnie potrzebna powiadam”, Melecjusz Smotrycki [Theophil Ortholog], ΘΡΗΝΟΣ to jest Lament…, Wilno 1610, f. 215v (232). Liturgiarion, Kiev 1708 Sluzhebnyk, Kiev 1692 of Liturgiarion from 1637, who pointed to the formation of the Divine Ministry by Christ and the participation of the saintly Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great in its development.94 In the above cited preface for the clergy of the Uniate Metropoli tanate, we can find themes typical to the opening articles of the book. Zhokhovskii included his thoughts about the dignity of the Eucharist, emphasizing the need for priestly purity by not only referring to the authority of the Bible, but also by citing two Roman poets, Publius Papinius Statius and Albius Tibullus, in Latin and their Slavic translations.95 In many introductory texts, the role of the sluzhebnykin the liturgical, sacramental, religious, and spiritual life of the priest and the faithful entrusted to him is discussed, which we will address hereunder.96 However, we will try to show that most of the teachings in the first pages of this book were supposed to instruct priests how to internally prepare for the liturgy. 94 Мїхаилъ Слозка, Преосщ҃еннымъ єже о Хрⷭстѣ, и въ Бл҃гочестїи Апⷭлскиⷯ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ оц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемꙿ, ст҃ыѧ соборныа Апⷭлскїѧ восточныѧ Цр҃҃҃҃ кве, Архїєреємъ и Пастырємъ, и всего чинꙋ црковного ѿцемъ и братїѧⷨ дховнымъ, ѿ всесилнаго Бг҃а въ Трⷪци славимаго миръ, здравїе, долгоденьствїє, провоправѧщиⷨ и дш҃євное спасенїе, [in:] Леітꙋргіаріон…, Лвовъ 1637, ff. 2v-3. 95 Ibidem, p. 148. Cf. poems with the commentary: “Аще же въ конецъ недовлѣєтꙿ вамꙿ ыхъизѧвленноєблвъприкладахъст҃ ҃ гоговѣнїє, како пристꙋпати имамы къ Жертвѣ безꙿкровной, и Тайнамъ Хв ҃ Тівꙋллѧ словеса: Вамъ далече быти повелѣваю, ѿстꙋпѣте ѿ олтарей. Имже принесе ымъ, воспрїймѣмъ оубѡ ѿ ада, стіхотворца ꙗзычника вчерашныѧ нощи оутѣшінїѧ нечистота. Чистаѧ бл ҃ пристꙋпа(й)те, И рꙋками чистыми ѿ источника воды воспрыймайте. И дрꙋгїй ꙗзычникꙿ Стацїꙋсъ возгласиⷧ къ своимъ си жерцемъ идолослꙋжителнымъ: Далече ѿсюдꙋ, далече ѿидѣте сквернавыи. Непорочныхъ и чистыхъ азъ призываю”, Ципрїанъ Жоховскїй, Читателеви ієрееви спⷭнїѧ вѣчнаго...(Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695), f. 5v. Cf. A.Z. Nowak, “Księgi cerkiewne” w pouczeniach dla kapłanów (XVII-wieczne starodruki w metropolii kijowskiej, [in:] Starodruki cyrylickie w zasobach parafialnych pogranicza polsko-słowackiego, ed. J. Grycz, Gorlice 2014, pp. 32–41. гоугоⷤдаю(тъ) Боговъ, съ чⷭтою мыслїю “Ꙗдый бо и пїѧй недостойнѣ сꙋдъ себѣ ꙗсть и пїетъ” – A Priest’s Sins In the treatise by Fr. Tarasii, the most important information on this subject was laid out in the second part of the work in the form of a warning, thus unlike what was found in the above-mentioned sources. At the same time, this moralist, pointing to the dignity of the priestly ministry surrounded by the heavenly powers, tried to make the audience aware of the enormous responsibility that rests on the shoulders of those who decide on properly preparing for the liturgical celebration. This scholar from Kiev reminded priests that the great-est spiritual threat to the celebrant was to approach the “Horrifying Divine Altar” with grave sin on his soul, so “for judgment,” as we have already read in the above-mentioned proskomide prayer. “Какѡ преⷣстанеши сꙋдищꙋ Хв҃ꙋ, скверъныма рꙋкама и оустнама дръзаа на Єго Тѣло, и Царѧ ꙋбо не бы еси изволилꙿ ѡблобызати, смръдѧщимꙿ ꙋстомꙿ. Цр҃ ѧ же нбⷭнаго смердѧщею дш҃ею ѡблобызаєши ли, досада вещꙸ є(сть). Мнози ꙋбѡ пристꙋпаютъ, но єдини на Ѡс҃ щенїє инїи же на ѡсꙋжⷣенїє, се же Раⷥсꙋжⷣенїє и искꙋшенїє, онѣхъ ꙋбо ѡпаснє, сихꙿже лѣнивоє съдѣловаєтъ.”97 The words from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11: 27– 29) about unworthily consumption of the bread and drinking the cup were cited and commented on by Kyprian Zhokhovskii in the preface for yereis of the Uniate Liturhikon in Vilnius. Опасно оубо ти подобаєтъ съ Лѵ(т)ргїею Ст҃ою съблюдатисѧ и съ великимъ вниманіємъ и всегдашнымъ совѣсти очищенїємъ. Аще бо ти недовлѣетъ оувѣщанїє, Ха҃ Гд҃а Сп҃сителѧ нашего о Хлѣбѣ семъ животномъ Фарисеомъ оставленоє. Аще не довлѣютъ прѣщенїѧ оучителѧ Народѡⷨ Павла Ст҃го. Иже аше ꙗсть Хлѣбꙿ сей или пїетъ Чашꙋ Гн҃ю недостойнѣ, повиненъ бꙋдетъ Тѣлꙋ и Крови Гн҃ей. Да искꙋшае(тъ) же чл҃къ себе и тако ѿ Хлѣба сего 97 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. [12]. Zemka refers to the third instruction from John Chrysotom’s speeches commenting on St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians; the fragment in question in the Kiev edition, cf. Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий, Нравѡꙋченїє 3. О дарѣ Влⷣчнѧгѡ Тѣла (Киевъ 1623), сol. 1601. да ꙗсть и ѿ Чаши да пїєтъ. Ꙗдый бо и пїѧй недостойнѣ сꙋдъ себѣ ꙗсть и пїетъ не рaзсꙋждаѧ Тѣла Гн҃ѧ.98 Warnings against eternal damnation, which will inevitably befall unworthy celebrants, were made by Petro Mohyla in the Eucharistic commentary in the Trebnyk. Although the sinfulness of a priest did not affect the value of the sacrificial gifts, and Holy Communion given to the faithful did not lose its saving power, yet he emphatically stated that they will be severely punished at the end of time: “Ибѡ и аще Тайны ст҃ые ѿ нечистыхъ сквернитисѧ немогꙋтъ, ниже лꙋкавыми и нечестивыми слꙋжителꙿми, ихъ дѣйство запинаетсѧ. Но оубѡ нечистѡ и недостойнѣ сіѧ дѣйствꙋющїй, въ вѣчныѧ смерти казнь вꙿпадаютъ.”99 The problem of worthily service at the altar returned a few decades later, among others in the work Spiritual Dialogism by the Pechersk’s monk, Varlaam Golenkovskyi. In the ninth “conversation” (“бесѣда”) of the collection, a depressing picture of an evil yerei was presented who celebrated the liturgy and then ate the Body and Blood of Christ, before whom the hosts of the sinless and holy angels trembled. This idea, however, was different from those used in many other teachings. The author did not settle on just warnings of condemnation, as most of the moralists at the time. He tried to act more subtly and, showing the sorrow of the Creator caused by the celebrant’s misconduct, appealed more to their conscience:100 О несмысленны(й) таковы(й) Іерею! Какѡ дерзаєши предⷣ Прⷭтоломъ стоѧти. Очима взирати на предивнꙋю и чреⷥ єствественнꙋю сїю тайнꙋ въ 98 Ципрїанъ Жоховскїй, Читателеви ієрееви спⷭнїѧ вѣчнаго..., (Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695), f. [6]. 99 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ Тайнахъ ѡ вещехъ, ꙗже въ слꙋженіи и ѡ дѣйствїи Ст҃ыхъ Таинъ, обще храними быти имꙋтъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., Киевъ 1646, pp. 1–2. 100 On the basis of an analysis of Sunday and feast day sermons, Margarita Korzo has noted that moralists in the Kievan Metropolitanate were more likely to provoke remorse in the faithful (“evangelism of shame”) and rarely resorted to methods characteristic of the “evangelism of fear”, so popular in the West, М.А. Корзо, Образ человека в проповеди XVII века, Москва 1999. The term “evangelism of fear” was introduced and analysed by J. Delumeau, Grzech i strach. Poczucie winy w kulturze Zachodu XIII–XVIII w., transl. A. Szymanowski, Warszawa 1994. грѣсѣ смертноⷨ сꙋщ(и). Какѡ беⷥ оужаснѡ на рꙋкахъ своиⷯ нечистыⷯ полагаеши сего, єгоже оужасаютсѧ Агг҃ли, и всѧ Воиⷩства єстⷭтвеннꙋю ст҃ость и чⷭтотꙋ имꙋще. Ѡ поистиннѣ! толико кратъ срⷣцꙋ Хв҃ꙋ печали и скорби твориши, єликѡ по осщ҃енїи дарѡⷡ сквеⷬныма иⷯ ємлешис(ѧ) рꙋкама. И кто иⷥрещи може(тъ), коⷧ превеликꙋю бѣдꙋ наноси(тъ) развращеⷩны(й) свѧтости вꙿ себѣ неимѣющїй Іере(й)! Которїй неточїю десницею своею мерзкою касаєтсѧ Тайны сеѧ, но и беⷥсовѣстно дерзаєтъ ꙗсти Хлѣбъ сей, и пити ѿ Чаши сеѧ осщ҃енныѧ.101 The grim tone of this vision found a counterpoise in the second argument from the Dialogueby Fr. Varlaam. The author continued his persuasive approach, this time using a topos of inexpressibility, in order to state his own inability to describe the joy of Christ the Lord experienced from a liturgy celebrated by a holy priest: Сказати тебѣ оумъ и ѧзыкъ мой совершеннѡ ѡ семъ не доꙋмѣєтъ, коль бл҃гопрїѧ(т)но, и коль радостно Хрⷭтꙋ Гдⷭꙋ вꙿ то времѧ, єгда види(тъ) себе чистыми рꙋкама бл҃гочестнагѡ и ст҃оговѣ(й)нагѡ Іереѧ держимаго, и не скверными оустнами ꙗдомаго никогдаже снѣдаємаго, по истиннѣ тогда превеликою паче же неиⷥгл҃анною серⷣце Хв҃о изобилꙋєтъ сладостїю и радостїю!102 This example demonstrating the results of being well prepared had an optimistic tone and surely an argumentative value. Yet most of the teachings focused on denouncing reprehensible behaviour and on describing the negative effects of approaching the altar with a heart burdened by guilt. As we read in the very popular in Kievan Metro-politanate since the thirteenth century bishop’s instruction to a newly ordained priest, only the celebrant who did not feel any resentment or hostility towards anyone could hope for the help of angels and the presence of the Holy Spirit during the liturgy. Therefore, during its celebration, it was necessary to abandon all earthly criteria of conduct resulting in a spiritual perdition: Вонꙿже день слꙋжити ти бꙋдетъ, тогда молвы не твори, ни препирайсѧ, ни стани враждꙋ имѣѧ на кого, да не проженеши Ꙋтѣшителѧ. Въ страсѣ й трепетѣ преⷣстой олтарꙋ, не мысли земныⷯ, ни ѡзирайсѧ камѡ, но къ 101 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 9 о бл҃гости, и ст҃ости вꙿ нейже Ієрєй ост҃ивши жертвꙋ доⷧженъ пребывати, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 1, Киевъ 1714, ff. 58v-59.102 Ibidem, ff. 59v-60. єдиномꙋ преⷣлежащемꙋ нбⷭномꙋ Цр҃ ꙋ, и стоѧщыⷨ окрестъ Єгѡ безплотнымъ силамъ. Да не ѹходїѧ ради чл҃вкъ потщишисѧ съкратити мл҃твы, таковымъ бо раⷥсыпаєтъ Бг҃ъ кѡсти, по прⷪркꙋ.103 An almost identical formula concerning the Paraclete being absent from a liturgy celebrated by a priest harboring hostility towards his neighbors was found in the teachings of Basil the Great printed in the introductory articles of the Sluzhebnyk.104 Therefore, the fundamental condition for approaching the altar was the proper condition of the soul: the celebrant had to be free from feelings of hostility, otherwise he blighted the gift of the Eucharist. Such enmity that was called “unfriendliness” (“враждаилинепрїѧзнь”) according to the classification made in the treatise by Innokentii Gizel was the most severe form of anger. Because this feeling was generally accompanied by the desire for revenge, it was placed in the category of mortal sin. Archimandrite Innokentii also distinguished two of its lighter forms: anger (“ѧрость”) and obstinacy or remembering evil (“памѧтозлобїє”).105 He also precisely defined situations that made it only a venial sin, and even cases where it was justified, and therefore did not burden the conscience of an angry person (a so-called righteous or just anger).106 The “fruits” or “daughters” of anger were called repulsion/contempt (“негодованіє”), jealousy/harboring grudg-es (“надменіє мысли”), an inclination to yelling (“вопль”), insulting/ 103 Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви... (Лвовъ 1642), p. 208; Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧщенномꙋ..., [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, ff. 90v-91; A medieval version, linguistically slightly different from the 17th-century version of the instruction, cf. Святительскоепоученіе новопоставленному священнику (13th century), [in:] RIB 6, no. 7, p. 106; the 17th-century version, cf. Поученіе Кіевскаго митрополита Сильвестра новопоставленному іерею, [in:] Акты, относящіеся къ исторіи западной Россіи, vol. 3: (1556–1557), Санктпетербургъ 1848, p. 116. 104 “Ниже когⷣа станеши въ събранїй имїѧ вражⷣꙋ на кого, да не ѿженеши Оутѣшителѧ”, Иже въ Ст҃ыⷯ Оц҃а нш҃еⷢ Васілїа Великаго, архієпⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа поꙋченїє къ іереѡмъ (Киевъ 1620), f. [5]. 105 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 304–305 (173–174). 106 Ibidem, pp. 296–302 (169–172) swearing (“досада”), cursing (“проклинаніє”), blasphemy (“хꙋленіє”) and quarreling and fighting (“возмꙋщеніє или мѧтежъ”).107 It seems that the second type of anger was mentioned by Petro Mohyla in the commentaries on the sacraments in the Trebnyk. Any hostility kept in the heart against one’s neighbor, as long as it did not stem from the desire to seek revenge, was considered to be a venial sin. This was most often a sin of the heart since it did not enter into the realm of word and deed.108 The Metropolitan tried to explain in his many teachings to parish priests what he meant by saying that it was impossible to celebrate the liturgy in a condition termed in many teachings for priests as holding a “grudge” and resentment towards a neighbour. He explained that a priest who was guilty of quarrel with his neighbour should not serve at the altar, but what is also im- portant, neither could someone who was under attack and harboured anger, resentment and regret in his heart: Препинаетъ же къ достойномꙋ слꙋженїю и Прⷭтыхъ Таинъ Причащенїю и сіє зѣлѡ, аще когѡ Іереѵ оуничижилъ єстъ, ѡскорбилъ же или вꙿ чесомъ ѡнеправдовалъ, и вѣсть ꙗкѡ гнѣваетсѧ и скорбитъ нань, или аще самъ Іереѵ ѡнеправдованъ, или ѡскорбленъ сый ѿ когѡ гнѣваетсѧ и скорбитъ, да не дерзнетъ Лѵтꙋргисати, но шедъ прежде по Гд҃҃ню повелѣнїю да смири(т)сѧ съ братоⷨ своиⷨ, и такѡ да Лѵтꙋргисаетꙿ.109 Such a classification of “received” and “inflicted” anger also occurs in the section describing the sins of the clergy (Грѣхи дꙋховнаго сана) in Gizel’s treatise.110 Responsibility for the faithful required priests to be spiritually vigilant, especially service at the altar required a special commitment to constantly control one’s conscience: Сщ҃енницы ꙗковыи либо [...] доⷧжни истѧзати себе ѡ грѣхи, раⷥвѣ иныⷯ, сій: [...] Аще пристꙋпаютъ къ Бжⷭтвенной Літѵргїи безꙿ подобающаго приготованїѧ, не очищающе совѣсти своеѧ чрезъ исповѣдь часто, чрезъ 107 Ibidem, pp. 308–316 (175–179); Наꙋка о Тайнѣ С(вѧ)т(ого) Покаѧнїѧ тоєстъ о прав дивой и Сакраменталной исповѣди…, Киевъ 1671, pp. 504–505. 108 Ibidem, pp. 309–310 (176). 109 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 221. 110 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 383 (213). сокрꙋшенїе же серⷣца непрестанно, паче же и сꙋще скимъ въ гнѣвѣ прїѧтомъ или заданомъ.111 These rules for the clergy also mentioned the heaviest manifestation of anger, beating one’s neighbour. Celebrating the liturgy with this sin on one’s conscience, according to the Twenty Ninth rule by Yozafat Kuntsevych and the Twenty Seventh entry in the Apostolic Canon, simply demotion of a priest.112 Hatred could also be the effect of anger and it appeared in the heartwhen reluctance began to turn into hostility. Gizel called it “a hateful anger” in order to distinguish it from one that was the result of another mortal sin, envy.113 Hatred and carnal sin, according to Arsenii Zheliborskyi, were the two biggest obstacles hindering the reception of the Most Sacred Blood and the Body of Christ. The bishop acknowledged both kinds of sins as equally indecent and crippling body and soul. Both caused that the bread eaten would turn into poison: Двѣ абовѣмꙿ сꙋтꙿ наѡсобливей злости, которыѣ набарзѣй чл҃кови до Причастїа Бжⷭвенныхъ Тайнъ перешкажаю(тъ), то є(сть) змаза грѣха телесногѡ, и ненавиⷭ(тъ) ближнегѡ. Заровнѡ то двое ѡнечищае(тъ), заровнѡ спросныⷨ чинитъ и на тѣлѣ и на дш҃и. Ѿколь Аѵгꙋстіⷩ: Єсли, мови(тъ), ѿпꙋщаєшъ дрꙋгиⷨ, хлѣбъ є(сть), не трꙋтизна, ꙗкѡбы реклъ єсли не ѿпꙋщаешꙿ, то трꙋтизна є(сть) не хлѣбꙿ.114 111 Ibidem. 112 [Йосафат Кунцевич],Правила і конституції…, p. 308; Canon 27 in the version from the Ephrem Kormchaia reads: “Єппⷭа ли попа ли диꙗкона биюшта вѣрьныꙗ съгрѣшаюшта ли невѣрьныꙗ обидѣвъше и сими оустрашити хотѧшта изврѣшти повелѣваємъ никъдеже бо насъ Гд҃ семоу не наоучи, противоу семоу тъ самъ в нємъ не отъражааше, оукарѧємъ не оукарѧаше, стража не прѣштааше”, Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, pp. 66–67. Cf. also the canon in Greek and Polish, Konstytucje apostolskie…., p. 278; other translations into Polish, cf. A. Znosko, Kanony kościoła prawosławnego, Hajnka 2000, p. 17. 113 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 310 (176); Gizel writes separately on hatred as a product of envy on p. 292 (167); cf. also Наꙋка о Тайнѣ С(вѧ)т(ого) Покаѧнїѧ…, Киевъ 1671, p. 503. 114 Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цр҃ кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ...(Лвовъ 1646), f. 5. A priest preparing for the liturgy should steadfastly strive to over come conflict through reconciliation. If, however, a person with whom the priest remains in disagreement lived far away, then, according to Mohyla, he may as an exception serve at the altar, however, under the condition that he purifies his heart by forgiveness. In cases where the priest himself was the cause of the anger among his neighbours, he must sincerely repent for his actions.115 For priests who, despite these rules, stood at the altar with anger, hatred and enmity towards their fellow Christians, the law of the Or-thodox Church prepared appropriate sanctions. Kuntsevych believed that a priest celebrating the Mass with serious guilt on his conscience should be punished with all severity: “нехай він будепокараний, як найтяжчий грішник.”116 For such an offence, Church law ordered a 60-day expulsion from Serving the Lord. In Kiev’s Nomocanonof 1629 we read: “Аще ли сщ҃енникъ съ враждою Лѵтꙋргїсаєтъ, да бꙋдетъ празденъ шестьдесѧтъ дній.”117 The problem of a celebrant’s sinfulness was one of the most thoroughly discussed issues found in the teachings for priests at the time. According to the article On the Sacramentsintroducing the first part of the Trebnyk (1646), a priest in mortal sin was obliged to leave the altar, thus avoiding another sinful act, and then take care of his own purification. Сщ҃енникъ оубѡ, аще съвѣсть себе вꙿ грѣсѣ смертномъ быти, (еже не бꙋди,) къ дїйствїю Таинъ, никакоже пристꙋпити да дерзнетъ, аще не первѣе вꙿ срⷣци своемъ поболѣетъ, и жалѣетъ си ѡсемъ, и раскаетꙿсѧ. Но оубѡ, аще абїе имѣти тꙋ можетъ Исповѣдника, и мѣсто, и подобное времѧ, всѧкѡ долженъ єстъ исповѣстисѧ ємꙋ, и ѿ негѡ раздрѣшенїе прїѧти, и посемъ къ съвершенїю Тайны пристꙋпити.118 115 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 221. 116 [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції..., p. 308 117 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 69 (86). 118 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ Тайнахъ ѡ вещехъ, ꙗже въ слꙋженіи и ѡ дѣйствїи Ст҃ыхъ Таинъ, обще храними быти имꙋтъ (Киевъ 1646), p. 2. Mortal sin on a pastor’s conscience resulted in serious spiritual danger to the sheepfold entrusted to him. In the event of a sudden call to visit a dying person, he could not administer the sacraments necessary for salvation.119 The Bishop of Lviv described this problem in the context of drunkenness among the clergy and reminded them that a priest was responsible for the souls of the faithful, therefore, he would be punished if he contributed to a Christian’s spiritual death: Придастьсѧ ꙗкїй въ парохїи чїєй на когѡ наглїй припадокъ, же треба въ ночи, ѡ полночи порватисѧ, встати и пойти, альбо дитѧ крестити, альбо рождшꙋю, любъ тамъ когѡ иншогѡ нагле безъгодне оумираючогѡ диспоновати, а свꙗщенникъ на ногахъ не въстоитъ, ѡ собѣ не памѧтаєтъ. Нехай же тамъ кто зъ таковыхъ припадкѡвъ оумретъ въ грѣхꙋ смертельномъ безъ сповѣди, безъ раздрѣшенїѧ, а за твоимъ, ѡ їерею, пїанствомъ, вѣдай же, вѣда(й) запевне, же згиненѧ егѡ зъ рꙋкъ твоихъ ѿ тебе реквѣровати бꙋдꙋтъ, бо самъ Господъ Богъ ѹ пророка Іезекїилѧ мовит: Крови же єгѡ ѿ рꙋки твоєѧ възищꙋ.120 Drunkenness among the clergy was already mentioned on the pages of medieval teachings: in the 12th century instruction by Archbishop Elias of Novgorod121 and two centuries later by Metropolitan Petro Ratenskyi.122 In the documents of the Vladimir Council (1273), the decision could be found that priests who often abused alcohol and did not regret their bad deeds thus did not performed a penance, 119 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 221. 120 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа… (Лвовъ 1687), p. 231. A 13th-cen- tury instruction on the subject reads as follows: “Боуди сторожь день и ночь съ крщениємъ и съ покаяниємъ, и съ причащениємь и твори достойное правило съ любовью, тихо, не бързяйся [...] Аще ли кого изгубишь лѣностью и неродством мука ихъ на тобѣвъзискома боудетъ”, Святительськое поученіе новопоставленному священнику, [in:] RIB 6, no. 7, pp. 107–108. 121 After receiving the tonsure the bishop assumed the name of Ioan. His instruction is in the form of disciplinary precepts presented in a speech. In his warnings against drunkenness, the author cited as his argument the priestly duty of being an example, cf. G. Podskalsky, Chrześcijaństwo i literatura…, pp. 269–270. 122 [Петръ Ратенский], Поученіе Петра Митрополита Кіевскаго всея Русіи Господи благослови къ єпископомъ, и попомъ..., p. 186. were demoted.123 According to the revised Lviv (1614) edition’s principles of the Vilnius Synod in 1509, drunkenness among the yereis was one of the reasons why they could be dismissed from their ministry at a parish.124 Sins such as hatred, anger and especially impurity or drunkenness were found in sets of questions for confessors addressed to the penitent, as well as in the so-called ponovlennia which are lists of sins confessed by a person receiving penance that are contained in the description of the order of the sacrament of reconciliation in trebnykmanuscripts from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. These very popular articles125 in the Ruthenian lands and the versions in-tended for the clergy discussed all sins in reference to the liturgical, sometimes even the sacramental ministry of a priest, confronted with the need to lead a pure life and give witnesses to the faithful.126 In the “talk” concerning preparation for Holy Communion in the Spiritual 123 Cf. The fifth conciliar principle, Правило Кюрилa…, p. 97. 124 Lay persons may not deprive priests or hegumens of churches without the bishop’s consent and without the clergymen’s guilt having been proven during adiocesan synod. The causes specified in the Orthodox Church law are neglect of the household and the Divine Service by the priest as well as his drunkenness, as a result of which he must be temporarily removed from the ministry, and if he does not repent, he must be deposed, cf. Іосифъ Солтан, Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, pp. 12–13. 125 The lists of sins were few and far between in Greek or south Slavonic books, and enumerated sins of men only. The ponovlennia occur sporadically in these regions. In Rus’, from the 15th century onwards, these were popular articles, and in the 17th century they listed sins not only of men and women, but also of repre senatives of various estates, cf. А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, Одесса 1894, pp. 318–320, 337–339.126 On anger, cf. e.g. Исповѣданіе сщ҃ енническоє(15th century): “Сварився игнѣвався на брата своєго и не простився слоужихъ”, Исповѣданіе дїакономъ и поповьско(16th century): “Враждовах на брата и гнѣвъ держах литургисах, ас ним не простялся на многи дни”; on impurity in the last article cited here, cf. e.g. “В пїанствѣ сотворих блуд с мужеским полом и съ женским и в рукоблудїе впадох и вхожах въ церковъ и в олтарь и ризъ не измѣнивъ и скверными руками ст҃҃ ыню црковную прїимах”, А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894, pp. 230, 236. Dialogism collection, clerical impurity was found to be a particularly hideous sin: Междꙋ же грѣхами всѣми, грѣхъ пло(т)скїй сладострастный найболѣє срⷣцꙋ Гдⷭню мерзостенъ є(сть). Ничтоже такѡ Пречⷭтомꙋ Тѣлꙋ Хв҃ꙋ и Крови Єгѡ осщ҃енной єстꙿ противно, ꙗкѡ мерзость тѣла грѣхоⷨ нечистыⷨ растлѣннагѡ. Ѡ любителю! Аще бы єси вꙿнимателнѡ размышлѧлъ коль гнꙋшаєтсѧ Гдⷭь плотоꙋгодными и сластолюбными чл҃вѣки, єй, вꙿ весъ во оудивленїе пришелъ бы єси, зрѧщ(и) на приходѧщихъ къ Бжⷭтвенно(й) трапезѣ, плотꙿскими нечистым(и) грѣхами ѡсквернꙿшихсѧ, сїѧ видѧщи, ѿ страха ѡмертвѣлъ бы єси, иный бо грѣх(и) калѧю(тъ) точїю дш҃ꙋ, грѣхъ же плотскій и дш҃ꙋ и тѣло ѡсквернѧєтъ.127 Seventeenth century and subsequent printed sources also devoted considerable space to the issue of drunkenness.128 This was a moral problem which spiritual teachers and reformers had to confront129. It was mentioned in many teachings, just as in the ponovlennia, as the main reason for neglecting pastoral duties.130 For example, the bishop 127 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 7 о приꙋготовленїи седмомꙿ ко причащенїю Cт҃ыⷯ Бж҃ественныхꙿ Таинъ Хрⷭтовыхъ, [in:], Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 2, Киевъ 1714, ff. 131v-132. 128 For more on the subject, cf. A.Z. Nowak, O grzechu pijaństwa w ruskich naukach dla kapłanów (metropolia kijowska od XI – do pocz. XVIII w.), “Studia Wschodnio-słowiańskie” (to be published). 129 Cf. e.g. Susha’s teaching: “Кто бы […] піятикъ пилновалъ, и непристойное сваволне въ станѣ єрейскомъ жилъ, того пречестныи отцеве немесники нашѣ, зъ совѣтниками нашими, и вязенями и винами грошовыми карати будутъ”, Яковъ Суша, Наука Соборовая…, p. 9; in Golenkovskyi’s work: “[...] слꙋжителю Хрⷭтовъ хранисѧ ѿ питїѧ, серафімъ бо єси плотѧный, и нелѣпнѡ ти єсть прилѣжати питїю кꙿ семꙋ же єще, и любоимѣнїю, гордости, ѡсꙋжденїю, славохотїю, и гнѣвꙋ и блꙋдным помышленїамъ”, Варлаам Голенковский, Предисловїє ѿ слова Іоана Златоꙋстагѡ къ Читателю…, p. 5; on problem of drunkenness among priests, cf. also Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi’ sermons: Нравоѹченїє ѡ ѹчителехъ лѣнивихъ и ѡ оупивающихъсѧ (Поꙋченїє в нлⷣю 16 (по Всѣхъ Ст҃ых), [in:], Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное… , part 1, Рохмановъ 1619, ff. 290-299;part 2, f. 3. 130 In the questions from the article Вопрос игуменом и сщ҃енноинокомъfrom ahandwritten Trebnyk (16th century): “Не престоупил ли сщe҃ нства своєго и поученїа ст҃ льских и хиротонїй или въ питїи или въ трезви? Не оупиваллы ся еси беспамяти да пѣвъ обѣднюю?”, “Или пѣвъ оупился безпамати или блевалъ?”,“Не пил лы єси рано въ ст҃ ыа дни или въ праздникы людми съблажняа?”, “Не оставил лѣ єси цр҃ кви без пѣнїа пїаньствомъ или of Lviv, Yosyf Shumlanskyi in his teaching, presented a saddening picture of drunken priests who, not being properly prepared to celebrate the liturgy, often abandoned the very Service of God or, worse still, stood at the altar not even being sober: И то єстъ поприсѧженаѧ свꙗщенника повинност молитисѧ вынꙋ, тоєстъ найменшогѡ церковнагѡ набоженъства не ѡпꙋстити, а пїѧній мꙋситъ и великоє ѡпꙋстити, бо Вечерни, Павечерни не прочитаєтъ, на Полꙋнощницꙋ нє встанєтъ, Оутрню хочъ то и въ церкви спѧчи ѿправитъ, а що найстрашнѣйшаѧ на свѧщенника длѧ нецнотливогѡ пїанства, Слꙋжбꙋ Божїю не тылько в повшедный, але и въ недельнїє и в свꙗточнїи дни частокроть ѡпꙋскаєтъ, альбо тєжъ зъ великою неспособностю и пїанстомъ поскверненногѡ тѣла своєгѡ ѿправꙋєтъ […].131 A similar testimony was delivered by the Bishop of Przemysl, In- nokentii Vynnytskyi, when he acknowledged, like the above quoted vladyka of Lviv, the spiritual danger that a drinking priest brings into the flock, depriving it of spiritual care: […] Duchowni podczas Praźników bawiąc na ucztach, mimo swoiej Kapłańskiej vocacij, o trzeźwości zachowania szlubu, tak sobie podpijają, że nie tylko do odprawowania nazajutrz Nabożeństwa, ale ani chorych dispositij, incidente Casu, sposobni bydź; owszem podczas ani o sobie pamiętać mogą. Przez co i sami Ciało i Krew Pańska небреженїємь?”. In a handwritten Trebnyk from the 15th-16th centuries, in the article: Исповѣданїє попомъ и дьякономъ: “Не пѣл ли єси литоргїи в трезвѣ или впитїи”, “Или поздно пил, а заутра служил похмеленъ”, “Не оупивал ли ся єси бес памяти, а на оутріє служил”, “Или служих опился бес памати и блевал и пси полизахомъ”. In Поновленїє свяшенникомъfrom a handwritten Trebnykfrom the 16th century: “Гд҃ не отче обьяденїем и пьянством иж до обѣда и часов не отпѣвъ и многажды во пиръ не званъ ходих и оупився бесчинно валяхся и спах на земли и блевах”, “Обѣдню похмеленъ служих правила не отправливая многажды сполна і въ службе грубо сотворихъ”, “Многажды оставих церковь бес пѣнїя, во многиа дни лѣностїю и небреженїємъ паче же и пьянством, просыпах заутрени и часы прогулях и вечерню оу пива прoсидѣлъ и в соуботы и в недели и въ нарочитых ст҃ ых дни не служилъ”, А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894, pp. 181–186, 185–186, 232. 131 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), p. 230. bez należytego przygotowania celebruiąc, na potępienie sobie pożywaią.132 Dmytro Tuptalo’s warning was made in a similar tone. In his Third Preparation for the Liturgy, he condemned those priests who deserved eternal damnation for being a source of scandal to the faithful: Не мнѣє же ѡ семъ болѣзнꙋю сердцемъ, ꙗкѹ ѡ нѣкїихъ попахъ (по достовѣрномꙋ намъ доношенїю) слышꙋ, что по вчерашнемъ пьѧнствованїи, не потрезвившесѧ, и похмельемъ ѡдержимїи, ни прїꙋготовльшесѧ къ слꙋженїю, дерзаютъ лїтꙋргисати, єже людмъ єсть на соблазнъ, а самѣмъ таковымъ іереѡмъ на вѣчнꙋю погибель.133 A priest must live a sober and pure life, and if he happened to get drunk or commit another disgraceful act, he must immediately undertake the sacrament of penance. Kuntsevych angrily exclaimed that “in the name of the living God [...] may he not dare to perform the liturgy or other services with burdened conscience and without holy confession.”134 Especially since a sin of a clergyman was not only his personal fault but also often became the cause of sins committed among the faithful.135 In accord with the classification introduced by 132 Innocenty Winnicki, Ustawy Rządu Duchownego…, Cracoviae 1694, pp. 51–52. 133 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє [Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю], p. 140. 134 “В ім’я Бога Живого, заклинаємо всіх наших священників жити в тверезості й чистоті. Коли б вони були свідомі яких-небудь тяжких своїх гріхів, тобто якщо привелося їм упитись абов чомусь іншому провинитися, треба їм тоді якнайскоріше приступити до Святої Сповіді, і нехай вони не наважуться зобтяженим сумлінням, без Святої Сповіді, відправляти Літургію або інші Богослужіння”, [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції…, p. 308. 135 “[...] гріхи священників є не тільки перешкодою для них самих в осягненні Божої ласки, але також і для всіх світських людей”, Ibidem. The formula of the confession of priests Исповѣданіе сщ҃ енническоє from the Trebnyk (15th century) reads: “о всѣхъ пороученых моих словесных овец отБа҃ не наказах ни наоучихъ от ст҃ ых писанїй неродствомъ, лѣностию и недоумѣнїемъ ипъанствомъ, печельми житейскыми. Aще же оучити ст҃ ыхъ писанїй, но слышаще и видяще дѣла моя грѣховна и всѣхъ паки ослаблене и лѣности грѣховнѣи погыбоша”, “Или будоу крстьянъ и детей дх҃ овныхъ на слабость оучилъ боуду на обядение и на пианъство и на похоти телесныя”, cf. also Petro Mohyla in the preface to the Nomocanon (1629) and Yoanykii Galatovskyi in the treatise on hamartiology (1685), it was an overt sin which can induce others to perform evil deeds, therefore he ought to be punished with the “great epitimia.”136 As we read in the medieval bishop’s exhortation, a clergyman may expect a double punishment: first for drunkenness, laziness, dissoluteness and other grave sins, which scandalize those under their care; next he should be punished for neglecting his sheepfold and bringing upon them spiritual ruin.137 Hence, many instructions at that time calling for purity in life and diligence in the teaching ministry and when administering the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ.138 Hatred, anger or drunkenness are the sins that were broadly discussed in the teachings. Known since the Middle Ages but popular for a long time afterwards in synodal teachings and instructions for newly ordained priests were lists of the most serious sins which should not be committed by a representative of the clergy. Texts sometimes called chirotoniawere given to the priests before their departure to a parish that served as textbooks and information guidebooks. Such a list of sins and lots of disciplinary advice were included in a very popular version of priestly teachings printed twice in the Ru Поновленїє свяшенникомъ(16th century) [in:] А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894, pp. 230, 232. 136 Cf. Петръ Могила, енныⷨАрхіепⷭпѡⷨ,Митрополитѡⷨ,БгПреосщ҃ ҃ овникѡмъ… (Киевъ 1629), p. 8 (9); Іоаникій Галѧтовський, Грѣхи розмаитїи, олюбезнѣйшиⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, и всѣмъ Дх ҃ вократцѣ написанные, дѡ сповѣдника и до сповѣдаючагосѧ належатъ...(Чернѣгѣвъ 1685), p. 381. 137 “Простець бо сгрѣшивъ за свою душу єдину отвѣтъ Богу дасть. Іерѣй же сгрѣшивъ, съблазнить многы, и за тѣхъ душа осуженъ будетъ от Бога. Отселѣ блюдѣтеся всякого грѣха и не работайте плоти. Отверзите от себе пъяньство и обьяденье, лишитеся тяжь и сваровъ, вражды, хулы на друга, сквернаго рѣзоиманья и порукъ, гордости и многорѣчья, мерзости и ярости, клятвы лжа, скупости, немилосердья,зависти и ненависти, льсти и лукавьства”, Епископское поученіе собору епархіальнаго духовенства, p. 118. 138 Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цр҃кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ...(Лвовъ 1646), ff. 2v-3. thenian lands at the initiative of Arsenii Zheliborskyi.139 The bishop, in a special supplement to the instructions delivered for newly ordained priests, recommended the use of texts that gave them written teachings for their weekly examination of conscience: “Блюди іерею, да не тѣмъ самымъ точїю доволенъ быти въсхощеши, ꙗкѡ стѧжалъ и приѡбрѣлъ єси ѿ насъ поꙋченїє сіє, но и на кꙋюждѡ седмицꙋ, поне єдинощи въ то приникъ, разсмотрѧй свою совѣсть, аще тѧ въ чемъ, противꙋ завѣщанїѧмъ симъ съгрѣшивша, не ѡбличаєтъ.”140 The role of these teachings was impor-tant for their spiritual formation and this was confirmed by manu-script sources. Many articles concerned confession and the question whether the priest adheres or not to the principles described in the teachings of the bishops, especially the chirotonia’sinstructions: “азъ же окаянный не исповѣдався чисто дх҃ овному отцу, прїях чинъ сщ҃eнства и что ми предалъ прос҃҃҃ щенный архиеппъ сщенство ст҃ ую херотонїю по ней же ми велѣл ходити, и не сохранилъ, сщ҃ енство моє не соблюдох чисто, но оскверних многими грѣхи.”141 It can be assumed that they served a similar function to the bishop’s teachings and were also good material for supporting priests, who 139 “Не бꙋди кощꙋнниⷦ, ни игрець, ни срамословецъ, ни бꙋи, ни гордъ, ни величавъ, ни гнѣвливъ, ни ꙗръ, ни напрасенъ, ни безстꙋденъ, ни пїѧница, такожде и склады пировны не точїю сам не твори, но и инѣмъ та възбранѧй, ни лихоимецъ бꙋди, ни наклаⷣ ємлѧй. Да не бꙋдеши мѧтежникъ, ни ротникъ, ни порꙋчайсѧ за когѡ, ни бїй вѣрнаго съгрѣшающаго, ни невѣрнаго ѡбидѧщаго. Найпачеж своима рꙋкама никогоже оудари, ни лѡвъ твори, ни закалай животна брашна и питїѧ без времени не прїемли, но въ подобно времѧ, въ закоⷩ и въ славꙋ Бж҃їю”, Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви...(Лвовъ 1642), pp. 207-209; Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧщенномꙋ..., [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, ff. 79v-80; Поученіе Кіевскаго митрополита Сильвестра, p. 116; Святительское поученіе новопоставленному священнику, pp. 103–104; Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, ff. 2v-3; cf. also Правило Кюрила..., pp. 90 (incorrectly 80)–91. 140 Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви...(Лвовъ 1642), p. 210; Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧщенномꙋ..., [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, f. 82v; Іннокентій Винницкий, Нравооѹченіе іереемъ подобаетъ…, p. 88; for more on this also another fragment of the teachings, cf. p. 87. 141 Поновленїє священникомъ(16th century), cf. А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894, p. 182. were both penitents and the ministers of the sacrament of penance at the same time. According to the recommendations contained in the texts, a priest should abstain from sin, not only by not committing evil acts, but not even think about them, especially since he was a person preparing for Holy Communion and ministry at the altar and therefore must carefully examine his conscience: Долженъ єси приꙋготовлѧще себе, или къ сщ҃еннодѣйствїю, или къ причащенїю Бж҃ественномꙋ меⷬзѣтисѧ всѣми грѣхами своим(и) такѡ, ꙗкѡ оуже неточїю творити но ниже помышлѧти ѡ нихъ кꙿ семꙋже долженъ єси ѡпаснѡ истѧзати совѣстꙿ свою и єлико моⷳно истинныⷨ сокрꙋшенїєⷨ и смиреⷩным покаѧнїєⷨ ѡмыт(и), ѡчистити и паче снѣга оубѣлити всю нечистотꙋ и весъ калъ грѣхѡⷡ своиⷯ, да бы нн єдинъ грѣхъ препатїѧ тебѣ, къ Прⷭтолꙋ Бж҃їю пристꙋпити хотѧщемꙋ возмоглъ сотворити. Сегѡ ради вꙿ тайнѣ срⷣца твоєгѡ исповѣждъ преⷣ Бг҃оⷨ всѧ страстей твоихъ бѣды и ѡ всѣхъ сихъ воⷥдыхай, жалѣй и плачисѧ горцѣ.142 Innokentii Vynnytskyi in his pastoral letter also recommended that priests read his message or their own chirotonia every Friday, probably in order to make an examination of conscious before the Sunday liturgy.143 [...] возлюбленнїи мои честнїи свѧщенници, пишꙋ до васъ сїє моє посланїє, с писма свѧтого, и харитонїй вашихъ їерейскихъ выписавши зачала, прилежно желаю вамъ, нелѣнѣтесѧ своѧ харитонїѧ на кождꙋю пѧтницꙋ читати, албо сїє моє посланїє въ кротцѣ собранноє читати, и тꙋю наꙋкꙋ свою їерейскꙋю хотѣйте памѧтати а памѧтаючи творити [...]144. It seems that a similar role to the text of the mentioned teaching on consecration could be fulfilled by the section of the talk between the personified characters of “Love” (“Любовъ”) and “the one who 142 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 1 вꙿ нейже изѧвлѧєтꙿсѧ, како кто приꙋготовлѧти себе имать ко причащенїю Пречⷭтыхꙿ и Животворѧщихъ Таинъ Хрⷭтовыхъ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)…, part 2, Киевъ 1714, ff. 81v-82. 143 Іннокентій Винницкий, Нравооѹченіе іереемъ подобаетъ…, p. 88; cf. also a fragment of the teaching p. 87. For more on this, cf. Chapter One, section Bishops’ teachings for priests. 144 Ibidem. The same topic cf. also p. 87. loves” (“Любитель”) in the work Spiritual Dialogism. Golenkovskyi urged priests to eagerly examine the state of their consciences before the Mass, and he cleverly added a list of transgressions that require sincere repentance, regret and grief in tears to the first “dialogue” of the second part of his work: Плачисѧ же и ѡ семъ ꙗко єще толикѡ плотѧⷩ и сꙋетенъ єси, толикѡ невоⷥдержеⷩ ѿ страстей и тоⷧ исполнеⷩ єси сластолюбїѧ неꙋгасающиⷨ пламенеⷨ, толь прекланѧешисѧ ко внѣйшныⷨ мїрскимъ, пренебрегаєши вꙿнꙋтрнѧѧ дх҃овнаѧ. Толикѡ скоръ єси къ смѣхꙋ и къ смѣхотворенїю и своєй тинности и распꙋстѣ. Толикѡ жестокъ єси къ пролїѧнїю слезъ и сокрꙋшенїю срⷣца. Толикѡ оудобенъ творити оугодїѧ плотꙿскаѧ, толикѡ лѣнивъ къ боⷣрости и теплотѣ дх҃а. Толико любопытливъ єси, новаѧ и странⷩаѧ слышати и на краснаѧ взирати, толь неприлѣженъ єси ко смиреннымъ и оуничиженнымъ и презрѣннымъ. Толь похотлиⷡ єси мнѡга имѣти. Толь скꙋпъ ко подаѧнїю, толь нераⷥсꙋдливъ вꙿ гл҃анїи. Толь невоⷥдерженъ вꙿ моⷧчанїи, толь скоръ на баснѣ, тоⷧ глꙋхъ слышати слово Бж҃їе, толꙿ борзъ ко оупокоенїю, толь косеⷩ къ трꙋдѡмъ, толь лѣниⷡ вꙿ званїи и воисполненїи правила, и молитѡвъ своихъ. Толь хладенъ во сщ҃енноѣйствїи, толь сꙋхъ во причастїи, толь теплъ ко сластолюбїю. Толь скорѡ возбꙋдливъ ко гнѣвꙋ, толь мощенъ къ наказанїю, тоⷧ преклоненъ сꙋдитꙿ, толь жестоⷦ ко ѡбличеннымъ и ѡбвиненнымъ быти, тоⷧ радостеⷩ бл҃гополꙋчїѧ ради, толь много частнѣ много ѡбѣщаѧй, маложе дѣломъ воⷥдаваѧй.145 A bit further down in the same text is a carefully prepared set of detailed questions about the behaviour, thinking and formation of the will of the priests approaching the altar. Both letters probably improved the verification of their internal readiness to celebrate the liturgy: Но да сохранѧє(тъ) и пꙋти своѧ и раⷥсꙋждаєтъ всѧ шествїѧ своѧ. Подобаєт прежде даже непрійде(тъ) къ трапезѣ ст҃ой, да воⷥметъ свѣтилникъ 145 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 1 вꙿ нейже изѧвлѧєтꙿсѧ, како кто приꙋготовлѧти себе имать...(Киевъ 1714) ff. 82-83. ногама своима, не точїю законъ Гдⷭнь но да воⷥметъ и свѣтилниⷦ великагѡ ѡпаства и всѧ клѣти и таинаѧ мѣста срⷣца своєгѡ симꙿ ѡсвѣтивши, да види(тъ) прилѣжнѡ. Нѣⷭ(ть) ли червїѧ коєгѡ ꙗдовитагѡ, или єхідны лютыѧ въ оуглѣ срⷣчномъ крыющыѧсѧ, и оутробꙋ совѣсти не беⷥ болѣзни снѣдающыѧ оувидѣⷡши же аще є(сть) сей неꙋкротимый вꙿ лютости звѣрь, абїє да иⷥждене(тъ) и ногама же своима на сего аспида и василиска настꙋпивши, поперетъ, и посемъ тщателнѡ да раⷥсмотри(тъ), не има(тъ) ли праха гоⷬдыни вꙿ очесехꙿ своиⷯ, вꙿ срⷣци же не ѡбрѣтаєтꙿлисѧ каковꙿ смрадный сластолюбїѧ и блꙋдодѣйствїѧ калъ, на ѧзыцѣ же не пребываєтъ ли оболганїє, осꙋдⷤенїє, роптанїє, хꙋла, праⷥднословїє, срамословїє, и прочаѧ. Аще рꙋцѣ чисты ѿ осѧзанїѧ сквернагѡ, ѿ бїенїѧ братнегѡ, и ѿ всѧкагѡ злодѣйства. Аще нозѣ нескверны и неповинны ѿ хожденїѧ пꙋти нечестивыⷯ. Всѧ сіѧ добрѣ да раⷥсмотри(тъ) и гдѣ либо на коєй частинцы тѣла и дш҃и скверна бꙋдетъ, абїє да очиститъ ю слезнымꙿ прежде покаѧнїємъ. Бꙋде(тъ) ли вꙿ памѧти ненавидѣнїє, памѧтозлобїє, вꙿ разꙋмѣ заблꙋжденїє. Волѧ же аще бꙋдетъ оукращенна златою любве Бж҃їѧ ризою аще оубѡ принесеши даръ твои ко олтарю сам Гд҃ь ншъ Ісъ изрече и тамѡ помѧнеши, ҃҃ꙗкѡ братъ твои имать нѣчто на тѧ, ѡстави преⷣ олтаремъ даръ твой, иди преⷤде смирисѧ сꙿ братомъ твоиⷨ ѿ коⷧ ненавиди(тъ) дш҃а Гдⷭнѧ дꙋшꙋ тꙋю, ꙗже дерзаетъ ко олтарю Бж҃їю пристꙋпати, зла же нѣкоєго желаєтꙿ братꙋ своємꙋ!146 A priest who dared to celebrate the mass with mortal sin on his soul was called “sacrilegious,” was like “God’s murderer and became like the Jews who ordered sentencing Him to death.”147 He was exposing himself to be “judged” and doomed, hence such numerous appeals to perform a thorough check of their conscience.148 The above described 146 Ibidem, ff. 87v-88v. 147 Наоука іереомъ... (Вилно 1617), f. [5]. Sylvester Kossov’s Didaskalia(first edition1637) highlights the spiritual and material, i.e. “with the mouth only”, Judas-like, reception of the Eucharist, which occurs when someone does it while persisting in sin: “Веліоракоє є(сть) поживанє Єѵхаристїи. Троѧкое, єдино єстъ оустами толко, ꙗкѡ то бываєтъ, кгды хто зъ нечистыⷨ срⷣцемъ, прїймꙋєтъ Тѣло и Кровъ Сп ҃”, исвоєйпрїймꙋєтъꙗкоІꙋдабеззаконныйнаѡстатнейвечери,алетаковыйназгꙋбꙋдш҃ тлѧ нашего, [Силвестер Косовъ], О Таинахъ церковныхъ вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 1642, p. 218. 148 T. Zemka urged that the liturgy be celebrated “[...] да съ велїимъ подробнꙋ испытанїемꙿ своєѧ кожⷣо совѣсти, сіѧ Дх҃овномꙋ Ѿцꙋ цѣлымꙿ ѿкровенїємꙿ срⷣца situation could be prevented by parish clergy regularly going to confession. It was not enough for a priest to repent, which was only allowed in cases where he had difficulty with access to aconfessor, for example due to distance, in which case according to the Vilnius source he could celebrate the liturgy without cleansing his conscience, but right afterwards proceed to the sacrament of penance.149 A similar situation was permitted by the bishop of Lviv in his word to parish clergy, at the same time instructing them that in such exceptional situations where a priest who did not go to confession had to have sincere repentance for his sins and a strong will to go and cleanse conscience as soon as possible: Аще бо прилꙋчитъсѧ комꙋ ѿ ѡсвꙗщенныхъ, въ прегрѣшенїи нѣкоемъ, безъ исповѣданїѧ до Божественныѧ пристꙋповати Лѵтꙋргїи, то таковомꙋ конечне потреба смиритисѧ даже до зѣла въ съкрꙋшенїи сердца, жалꙋючи за своє прегрѣшенїє, и маючи намѣренїє волѣ своей исповѣстїє своемꙋ ѿцꙋ дꙋховномꙋ. Але мовитъсѧ то ѡ тыхъ, которим длѧ настꙋпꙋючогѡ набоженства альбо далекость мѣйсца, альбо короткость часꙋ не позволитъ розмовитисѧ зъ ѿцемъ дꙋховнымъ.150 Mohyla also accepted sacramental ministry by a priest in the state of mortal sin, but only in sudden instances and when his conscience was burdened with sins that could be categorised as permissible. According to the instructions in the Vilnius teaching, he should at such moments perform his ministry with great sorrow for his sins and a firm decision to immediately repent.151 If, however, he did this оумиленїємꙿ, и покаанїємꙿ къ симъ Бжⷭтъвнымъ Тайнамъ Тѣла и Кръве Хв҃ы пристꙋпаете, извѣщающесѧ ѿ всѣхъ Бжⷭ Писанїи, ꙗкѡ инако творѧще, Сꙋдъ себѣ ꙗсти и пити бꙋдетъ, не разсꙋжⷣающе Тѣла и Кръве Гн҃ѧ”, Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), ff. 12-12v. 149 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [5]. 150 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), p. 233.151 The guilt of such a priest is defined e.g. in the second rule from Yozafat Kuntsevych’s work: “Ми ж, пам’ятаючи про наші обов’зки перед Господом, не погоджуємося з тим, що нібито не має провини той із вас, хто з нечистим серцем наважиться відправляти Службу Божу і прийматиНепорочного Агнця, споживаючи і п’ючи Його собі на осудження”, [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції написані святим Йосафатом…, p. 299; cf. also Варлаам without repentance, and his sins were of an unacceptable nature for ministry, then after this act the priest was in danger of being relieved from the spiritual ministry.152 Not all teachers allowed for deviations from the principle of absolute purity of conscience. Tuptalo categorically stated that a yereis who would commit a grave sin by accident or due to diabolical temptation could not celebrate the liturgy until he cleansed himself of sin through the sacrament of penance. For the reason that, by performing his ministry in the state of sin, he is evoking the wrath of God. The Metropolitan of Rostov referred to the authority of John Chrysostom: [...] ничтоже такѡ раздражаєтъ Бг҃а, ꙗко єже чрезꙿ недостоинство свѧщенствовати. Таковый іерей недостойнѣ Лїтꙋргію Ст҃ꙋю слꙋжай наводитъ гнѣвъ Бж҃їй не токмѡ на єдинаго себе, но и на весь народъ, согріщающꙋ бо тѧжцѣ пастырю, страждꙋтъ овцы мнѡгаѧ злаѧ, ꙗкоже и Дв҃дꙋ согрѣшившꙋ найде на народъ Іи҃льскїй нечаѧнное всегꙋбительство смертное.153 The Archimandrite of Pechersk, Innokentii Gizel, in his work on moral theology discussed the issue of sinfulness in the context of a sacrificial ministry mission. He argued that a priest must value the spiritual benefits of his parishioners more than his own comfort.154 For “the Divine Service is so great a good when the priest intercedes for the people,” as we read in the teachings of his predecessor in this dignity Yosyf Tryzna’s, he should proceed so as not to deprive parishioners of this valuable source of salvation: Зри Їерею, коль великѡ єстъ добро Слꙋжбы сеѧ Бжⷭтвенныѧ дѣйствѡ кѡлъ спⷭнїю вѣрныхъ ходотайственнѡ, блюди да не нерадиши ѡ немъ. Блюди да нелишиши вѣрныхъ спⷭнїѧ, толикїѧ тайны пренебреженїемъ. Нѣсть Голенковский, Бесѣда 1 вꙿ нейже изѧвлѧєтꙿсѧ, како кто приꙋготовлѧти себе имать... (Киевъ 1714), f. 77. 152 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 221. 153 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Митрополітъ Ростовскїй и Ꙗрославскїй честнымъ Іереомъ, по всѣхъ паствы нашеѧ градѣхъ и весѣхъ сꙋщымъ, благословеніе и миръ ѿ Гд҃а нашего Іи҃са Хрⷭта (further О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю), p.134. It is a fragment of John Chrysostom’s word on the Gospel of Matthew. 154 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 384 (213). бѡ такѡ Їерею подобающїй принѡсъ дрꙋгїй ꙗкѡ єже ѡ людскихъ добрихъ, прежде своихъ въ Бг҃ꙋ пристꙋпати.155 Similar exhortations can be found in other sources. For example, Metropolitan Kyprian Zhokhovskii in his preface addressed to the clergy referred to the authority of Athanasius of Alexandria and pointed to the Eucharist as the gift everyone needed on their way to salvation, both for those who are living in sin or in false beliefs, as well as the dead.156 Church law assumed that every bishop and priest regularly go to confession to a designated spiritual father, which was necessary in order to celebrate the liturgy.157 The Bishop of Polotsk have been setting the date of the sacrament on the major feasts of the liturgi-cal year and he listed ten of them.158 At the same time, he obliged priests to much more frequent, even weekly cleansing of their hearts, because “an angel must have an angelic conscience.”159 There are also 155 Іосифъ Тризна, Читателю Дх҃ѡвномꙋ: мира, здравїѧ и сп҃сенїѧ (Леітꙋргіаріон сієстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1653), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли..., p. 221. 156 “Вѣс(т)но бꙋди, не ради нѣкоего прибы(т)кꙋ къ олтарꙋ ст҃омꙋ пристꙋпати, но самыхъ себе Бг҃ꙋ приобрѣтати, и важностю беⷥконечной мꙋки Спⷭтлѧ нш҃го, оупротреблше сокровища неиждивꙋщаго заслꙋгꙿ єго, и заслꙋгъ Матере Бж҃їѧ и ст҃ыⷯ Бж҃иїхъ воздвигнꙋти дꙋшѧ, инныѧ ѿ пламенїй чистителныхъ, инныѧ ѿ грѣховъ, инныѧ же ѿ заблꙋжденїѧ вꙿ вѣрѣ ст҃ой Кафолической Аплⷭкой Риⷨской. Безꙿ неѧ же, ꙗко въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃ъ нш҃ъ Афанасїй Патрїарха Алеѯандрїйскїй поꙋчаєтъ, ни єденъ возможетъ быти спасенъ”, Ципрїанъ Жоховскїй, Читателеви ієрееви спⷭнїѧ вѣчнаго...(Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695), f. 7. 157 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 106 (123). 158 “Кожен [священник] повиненсповідатися перед своїм сповідником,визначеним Архиєпископом, якнайчастіше, але передусім у визначені дні:на Різдво Христове, на Стрітення Господнє, в Першу неділю Великого посту,у Великий четвер, на ВознесінняГосподне, у день святих апостолів Петраі Павла, на Преображення Господне або Успіння Божої Матері, на РіздвоПресвятої Богородиці, у день святого архангела Михаїла, у день святого отцанашого Миколая [...]”, [Йосафат Кунцевич], Правила і конституції…, p. 299. 159 “[...] буде краще, якщо кожен робитиме це частіше, навіть коли Сповідь буде перед кожною Святою Літургією, бо ангелом називає кожного священника Святе Письмо, і передусім Малахія – у 3 главі. А треба, щоб ангел мав ангельське сумління, якщо він бажає в майбутньому життi панувати в небі зангелами”, Ibidem, p. 299. other records of a different category on rules concerning this Church discipline, such as the Lithos, a polemic text most probably written by Petro Mohyla, or a document in which the Metropolitan gave teachings to a certain priest about confession: [...] zawsze nowo poświęconych przy [...] не мней теж и сам то, под утраpoświęceniu, jako i wszytkich na Syтою, благословенства и достоинства nodach Swiaszczenników uczą, i im священническаго, в пилной памети koniecznie przykazują, aby każdy Spoмѣти, абы если не болей (штобы wiednika osobliwego miał, i oprócz се власне годило), то принамней przypadków dwanaście razy do roku дванадцат раз до року сповѣд zprzygotowaniem się i porachowaпред досвѣдчоным и побожным niem sumienia Spowiedź odprawoсвященником сповѣдником отправиwał.160 въшы [...].161 160 161 The order for the clergy to receive the sacrament of penance and reconciliation from a predetermined confessor twelve times a year was also included by Yosyf Shumlanskyi in part six of the Mirror con-cerning “Church Organization.”162 In the Metrics, he advised them to go to confession every 2-4 weeks, or at least once every six weeks. The bishop not only set the frequency of confessions but also the quality that determines its spiritual fruits: А исповѣданїє ваше повинно быти съ съкрꙋшенїємъ сердца, и съ всѧкимъ смиренїємъ, истинное, не лестоное, не оутаєнное, але що сѧ комꙋ, где ꙗкѡ, на ꙗкимъ мѣйсцꙋ, з кимъ придалѡ погрѣшити, -все то порѧдне, а скромне, долъженъ исповѣсти и по разъсꙋжденїю дꙋховнагѡ ѿца єпитемїю долженъ исполнити. А такъ ѡчистивши дꙋшꙋ и тѣло ѿ всѧкоѧ скверни, съ чистою совѣстїю, и съ всѧкимъ тѣла ѡпаствомъ до Божественной Лѵтꙋргїи маєтъ пристꙋповати.163 160 Euzebi Pimin, LIΘOΣ abo kamień…., Kij 1644, p. 34. 161 Петръ Могила, Грамота священнику Болячевскому о обовязанностях 1633 г.(fragm.), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Приложения, doc. XIII, Кіевъ 1898, p. 54. 162 Іосифъ Шꙋмлꙗнский, Ꙗкосѧ маютъ Ѿц҃еве протопопове, а ꙗк сщ҃енници и весъ клиръ дх҃овный вꙿ порѧдкахъ црковнихъ заховати҃ (Ꙋневъ 1680), p. 3. 163 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), pp. 233–234. In a pastoral letter, Bishop Innokentii Vynnytskyi indirectly point-ed to the same number of confessions for priests during the year. By stigmatizing the conduct of the presbyters, he addressed them with deep reproach asking why they who called themselves “purifiers” did not receive the sacrament of penance on a monthly basis.164 Ja- kov Susha mentioned especially mortal sins: “Кождый священникъ частокротне предъ службою Божею повиненъ сповѣдатися, звлаща въ грѣху смертелномъ почуваючися”165. Tuptalo noted in a similar tone that even if the priest’s conscience was not burdened by mortal sin, he should often visit his spiritual father because “there are no sinless people.” It is therefore necessary to take care to be cleansed of all sins caused by deeds, words and evil thoughts. The bane of many lay people, and especially of clergymen, is the fact that they do not consider themselves sinful in minor offences. These venial sins accumulate like fine sand and become a stone of great weight and a spiritual burden on one’s conscience.166 That is why priests in par-ticular must outrank their laity’s purity167 by more frequently going to confession168 and then exhorting the faithful to follow in their foot- steps, since a filthy soul is far from God and cannot attain salvation: 164 Іннокентій Винницкий, Нравооѹченіе іереемъ подобаетъ…, p. 88. 165 Яковъ Суша, Наука Соборовая…, p. 9. 166 “Мнози бо сꙋть, иже малаѧ прегрѣшенїѧ ниже въ грѣхъ себѣ вмѣнѧютъ, а и малыє грѣхи, аще оумножатсѧ, такожде отѧготѧтъ совѣсть, и погꙋбѧтъ дꙋшꙋ человѣческꙋю, ꙗкоже и єдинъ кій грѣхъ смертный, по подобїю песка и камени. Камень єдинъ велїй бꙋдетъ ли привѧзанъ къ выи человѣкꙋ, погрꙋзитъ єго въ водꙋ, песокъ же аще собою и малъ єсть, обаче бꙋдетъ ли насыпанъ полнъ мѣхъ, и къ выи привѧзанъ, такожде погрꙋзитъ въ безднꙋ человѣка, ꙗкоже и велїй камень. Сице и ѡ малыхъ прегрѣшенїѧхъ оумножающихсѧ разꙋмѣти єсть”, Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю, p. 134. 167 “Ієрей же всѧкꙿ ѿ беⷥзаконїѧ зачинаєтꙿсѧ въ грѣсехъ родитꙿсѧ и всема подобострастенъ прочїимъ чл҃вкѡмꙿ єсть. Въ сщ҃еннодѣйствїй же чистотою своєю долженъ всѣхъ чл҃вѣкъ чистотꙋ превосходити и всеⷢда чи(сть) и беⷥпорочеⷩ быти”, Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 7 о Чистотѣ. Вꙿ нейже пребывати должеⷩ Іерей, въ времѧ самаⷢ Ст҃агѡ Слꙋженїѧ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 1, Киевъ 1714, f. 46. 168 “Вѣстно оубо вамъ бꙋди ѡ Іереи, частымъ исповѣданїємъ грѣховъ съвѣсть свою очищати”, Ципрїанъ Жоховскїй, Читателеви ієрееви спⷭнїѧ вѣчнаго... (Вилно–Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695), ff. 6v-7. А понеже іерей долженъ єсть частѣ лїтꙋргисати и причащатисѧ Бж҃ественныхъ таинъ, подобаєтъ оубо ємꙋ, да исповѣдаетсѧ частѣ аще и малыхъ своихъ прегрѣшенїй, ꙗкѡ да достойнѣ возможетъ соѡбщатисѧ Хрⷭтови [...] дꙋша бо не ѡчищающаѧсѧ частѡ покаѧнїємъ, чꙋжда єсть Бг҃а, ниже спасенїє полꙋчити можетъ.169 It is worth emphasizing that in the 17th century, regular check of the documents confirming the cyclic confessions of the parish clergy became a part of the permanent program of synodical activities per-formed by protopopes.170 The priest had to take care of his internal preparation, yet his family could also be an obstacle in celebrating the liturgy.171 Tuptalo spoke extensively on this subject, reminding the parish clergy that a spouse must also be advised about the need to receive Communion at least four times a year during the season of Lent. A wife who rejects the Eucharist is crippling the marriage, and her infidelity and godlessness insult the priest himself.172 Priests had similar duties towards their children and all the other members of the household. In no instance could he allow his immediate environment, especially at home, to host any people who were 169 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю, pp. 134–135. 170 In the 1633 document Petro Mohyla demanded that the priest “[...] сповѣд пред досвѣдчоным и побожным священником сповѣдником отправивъшы, намъ (митрополиту) на соборѣ от него тоей таковой сповиди своее свѣдоцтво показалъ”, Петръ Могила, Грамота священнику..., p. 54; Metrics contains a similar precept: “Кождый ѿецъ протопопа зъ своєй протопопіи нехай презентꙋєтъ сповѣдниковъ на соборѣ завше дорочномъ єпископскомъ, который свꙗщенникъ сповѣдалъсѧ до рокꙋ разовъ дванадцѧтъ, на кождомъ мѣсѧци по разꙋ”, Іосифъ Шꙋмлꙗнский, Ꙗкосѧ маютъ Ѿц҃еве протопопове... (Ꙋневъ 1680), p. 3. 171 “Блюдѣте же чадъ вашихъ, родившихся от васъ, да до жены не осквeрняться блудомъ, и дѣвица до мужа. Илии бо жрець, безъ грѣха бывъ предъ Богомъ, за сыновьни грѣхы посланъ бысть въ муку”, Епископское поученіе собору епархіальнаго духовенства, p. 116; “Чада своѧ наказꙋй, и оучи томꙋжде благомꙋ пꙋти”, Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви... (Лвовъ 1642), p. 208; Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧщенномꙋ..., [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ..., Лвовъ 1646, f. 80v. 172 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю, p. 135. hostile towards and disrespectful of God. The moralist warned that anyone who did not accept Christ in the Eucharist was not a Chris tian, and all his good deeds were nothing before God because he would be condemned. Thus, a priest guilty of spiritual negligence towards the immediate family and the faithful is the one who, on the Day of Judgement, will be forced to explain his conduct or omissions in teaching the faith.173 “Никтоже достоинъ ѿ свѧзавшихсѧ плотскими похотьми и сластьми […] слꙋжити, тебѣ Цр҃ю” – Fasting before the Liturgy and other Conditions In the Vilnius teaching “on the seven sacraments” and “for yereis,” which inspired the article in the Mohylan Trebnyk, other rules were also brought up that dictated whether a priest was allowed to serve at the altar. For example, an obvious principle was recalled that the liturgy could not be celebrated by someone deprived of the right to receive Holy Communion (oтлучунїє), a priest excluded from the clerical state (изверженїє) or temporarily suspendedfrom fulfilling the duties of ordained ministers (запрѣщенїє), and above all, anyone who was excommunicated (клятва).174 There were probably violations of ecclesiastical law in this regard, since the discussed sources correctly recalled that celebrating the mass in such cases was indeed a sin. The authors of the Vilnius study, interestingly, took into account a situation in which the Mass was celebrated by someone who forgot about these regulations. If such a celebrant remembered what his spiritual status was during the liturgy, he should depart from the task before blessing the gifts, but only if he was certain that it would not cause unnecessary agitation and scandal among the faithful. Otherwise, he 173 Ibidem, p. 135. 174 Наоука іереомъ... (Вилно 1617), f. [6]; Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ⷯ ковны…, сa. Вилно 1618, pp. 43-45; [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 219. On these punishments, cf. Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 564 (incorrectly 565)–578 (303–310). must avoid the ferment and finish the liturgy sincerely regretting his conduct.175 Many recommendations on preparing for the liturgy concerned the period immediately preceding the mass. The ustav of Philotheus Kokkinos considered a fast lasting from the eve of the service accompanied by a vigil: “Въздръжати же сѧ малѡ сꙿ вечера, и трезвитисѧ, даже и до времене слꙋжбы.”176 According to the instructions in the Mohylan Trebnyk, obstructions to celebrating the Mass included: binge feasting in the evening before the liturgy, sharing a bed with his wife, and other minor things such as sadness and impure thoughts.177 All sources agree that during this time, it was necessary to refrain from eating and drinking, and to keep abstinence in this matter throughout the day.178 Considering the instructions placed in the Nomocanon, the faithful may not receive the Eucharist and blessings from a clergyman who did not observe the fast.179 A priest should be pure, and so he did not share a bed with his wife for three days before the Liturgy.180 The need for abstinence was established at the Council in Trullo, and since the canons did not specify the length of the liturgical fast, the Eastern Churches subsequently developed various practices and the one introduced in Ruthenian 175 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [6v]. 176 Ꙋставъ Бжⷭтвъныѧ слꙋжбы въ нейже и дїаконства, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620, p. 2; cf. also Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1637, f. 25; Леітꙋргіаріон сиестъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1639, p. 165. 177 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222. 178 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [5v]; [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222; Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), p. 244; Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 2 вꙿ нейже второє приѹготовленїє преⷣлагаєтꙿ Любовь Любителеви, къ причастїю Бж҃ествеⷩныⷯ Дарѡвъ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 2, Киевъ 1714, f. 92. 179 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 95–96 (114–115). The ar-ticles preparing a priest for confession contain numerous questions concerning excessive drinking and eating on the eve of the liturgy and immediately after the Mass, cf. А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, pp. 182–242. 180 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222. lands was among the mildest.181 Priests were reminded of these rules during the diocesan synods.182 Tuptalo, who also ordered priests to keep a three-day fast, at the same time softened this recommendation by instructing them to fast for at least two days, and in an emergency just one day. Most certainly, however, on the day preceding the liturgy, he should not lie in bed with his wife. If this practice was not kept, and yet he dared to serve at the altar, he fell into serious sin.183 The Bishop of Rostov, in support of his teachings, provided examples from the Bible and hagiography. From the life of Bishop Ephiphanius of Salamis, he quoted the story of the saint receiving aspecial grace of a vision of the Paraclete descending on the sacrificial gifts. One day, during the liturgy, the Holy Spirit did not descend on the altar, and this explained that the cause was a deacon holding the ripidion, the sign of Seraphic assistance. He spent the night before the liturgy in the same bed with his wife, so the saint saw him as: “лицемъ черна сꙋща, скаредна, проказꙋ на челѣ имꙋща, вземъ оубѡ ѿ негѡ рипидꙋ, рече къ немꙋ съ кротостїю: чадо, не прїємли нынѣ причащенїѧ Бж҃ественныхъ дарѡвъ, но иди въ домъ твой. Ѿстꙋпльшꙋ же дїаконꙋ ѿ Бж҃ественнагѡ олтарѧ, абїє оузрѣ преподобный Єпифанїй бл҃годать Дх҃а Ст҃агѡ на предложенные дары пришедшꙋю.”184 After the liturgy, Ephipha-nius called for the deacon, priests and rest of the clergy and preached to them about the proper reverence for the altar and the necessary purity required of those who touch upon the holiness: “ѿрѣшите сапоги плотскихъ безсловесныхъ страстей, ни входите къ Бж҃ественномꙋ олтарю свѧзаны любосластными похотьми, послꙋшайте Ст҃агѡ Апⷭла глаголющагѡ: Имꙋщїи жены ꙗкѡ не имꙋще да бꙋдꙋтъ.”185 181 G. Ryś, Celibat, Krak 2002, p. 82. 182 The need to cleanse one’s conscience of sin, need for appropriate intention and “abstaining from marital duties” for three days was reiterated e.g. at the 1684 synod, cf. I. Skoczylas, Przepisy liturgiczne: służba Boża i nabożeństwa paralitur giczne, [in:] Idem, Sobory eparchii chełmskiej XVII wieku..., pp. 64–65. 183 A priest’s confession includes the following question: “Или в суботу и въ недѣлю или в празникъ з женою былъ єси” (Исповѣданїє попомъ и дьякономъ), А.Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, p. 185. 184 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ..., p. 136. 185 Ibidem. The second example from the teachings On Preparations for Yereiscame from the Old Testament tale from the Archangel Rafael about the sinful passions that the spouses fell into. Tuptalo emphasized that they were not acceptable in relation to a consecrated person who was committed to particular sanctity in life. As an argument the Cherubim’s Hymn was recalled which reminds during the liturgy about the dignity and honour of those who have received the gift of communion with Christ himself in the form of bread and wine: Здѣ всѧкъ іерей да внемлетъ, аще неѡс҃ щенномꙋ человѣкꙋ сꙋпрꙋжество невоздержноє вмѣнѧєтсѧ въ грѣхъ, и демѡнской власти подпадаєтъ, кольми паче ѡсщ҃енномꙋ велїй бꙋдетъ грѣхъ, аще безꙿ воздержанїѧ и страха Бж҃їѧ, блꙋдствꙋ своємꙋ настоѧти бꙋдетъ ꙗкѡ конь и мескъ безразꙋмный. Таковый нѣсть достоинъ Бж҃ественнаго слꙋженїѧ, ꙗкоже и въ молитвѣ Херꙋвімской чтетсѧ: Никтоже достоинъ ѿ свѧзавшихсѧ плотскими похотьми и сластьми приходити, или приближитисѧ или слꙋжити, тебѣ Цр҃186 ю славы. As the Bishop of Rostov ascertained every priest and deacon must abstain from the marriage bed before and for some time after serving at the altar: “Всѧчески оубо іереови мїрскомꙋ, такожде и дїаконꙋ подобаєтъ пред слꙋженїємъ воздержатисѧ ѿ плотскагѡ, сꙋпрꙋжескагѡ совокꙋпленїѧ. [...] Такожде и по причащенїи Бжⷭтвенныхъ таинъ всѧкъ воздержатисѧ имать ѿ жены своєѧ, да не ѡскорбитъ въ себѣ Дх҃а Ст҃агѡ, и да не абїе проженетъ єго ѿ себе.”187 In his teachings, Tuptalo cited many Old Testament examples of the pious treatment of holy objects and places. These were supposed to embarrass or motivate Christian priests less zealous in this matter. The first regarded the habit of avoiding their wives for three days before entering Mount Sinai and the second the holy bread that David received from the hands of the priest Ahimelech after three days of being away from his wife (1 Sam 21: 2–7). The conclusion was that Christian priests are doubly committed to the indicated preparations, since this bread that they receive is not only sacred, but changes into the very Body of Christ.188 186 Ibidem, pp. 136–137. 187 Ibidem. 188 Ibidem. From the evening of the eve of the liturgy, one should remain focused on prayer and not fall that night into a long or deep sleep, avoiding temptation in this matter.189 If during his sleep a priest experiencedsomething sinful, which filled him with disgust and was not provoked by him, then according to the authors of the Vilnius teaching, he did not have to feel guilty because of this190 and he could, as we also read in another source, after fervent prayer, with tears in his eyes, serve at the altar.191 The trebnyks contained a special prayer prepared for such situations,192 which Metropolitan Petro decided to transfer onto other Church books (kanonarii, molytvoslov).193 If, however, as Mohyla specifies, “carnal excitement from impurities in a dream” were the result of evening talks and thoughts, excessive eating and drinking or long sleep, then a priest could not celebrate the liturgy until confessed and repented.194 Gluttony was treated as 189 Ibidem, p. 139. 190 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [5v]. 191 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222. 192 Cf. e.g. [Послѣдованїє] наⷣ Іереѡмꙿ во снѣ соблазнившиⷨсѧ, [in:] Єꙋхологіон си естъ молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1645, p. 282; The prayers were recommend ed already by Metropolitan Kyprian, cf. Кипріан, Смѣреннагомитрополита Киевскаго ивсея Руси отвѣтъ ко Афанасію, въпросившему о нѣкоихъ потребныхъ вещѣхъ (1390–1405), [in:] RIB 6, no. 1, p. 249. A priest’s morning prayer dealing with sin after diabolical temptation was part of the order of preparation for the Holy Communion and was included in the Complete Psalter and a book known as Pravylnyk, К. Никольский, Краткое обозрѣніе богослужебныхъ книгъ православной церкви, по отношенію ихъ къ церкoвному уставу, съ приложеніемъ таблицъ, изображающихъ вседневныя службы, и словаря названій молитословій и пѣснопѣній церковныхъ, Санктпетербург 1895, pp. 57–58. Cf. e.g. Правило къ Бж҃ственномꙋ причащенїю, во Свѧтой Кїєвопечерской Лаврѣ, Киевъ 1760, ff. 133v-135. 193 Е.М. Крыжановский, О Требникѣ Кіевского Митрополита Петра Могилы, [in:] Собраніе сочиненій, vol. 1, part 1: Очерки и изслѣдованія по Русской церковной исторіи, Кіевъ 1890, p. 127. 194 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд ҃ ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222. The problem was tackled also by the authors of medieval instructions. In his message concerning priests and monks Metropolitan Kyprian said that if the sin was a result of a long sleep, excessive eating and was committedpartly owing to the weakness of the flesh and diabolical temptation, this constituted a source of many other, often deadly sins.195 The works of Innokentii Gizel at that time were a confirmation of Mohyla’s warnings. In his treaties for the clergy, he mentioned among others the effects of glut-tony the so-called “crops”, including mental stupor and bodily im-purity, which make it impossible to celebrate the liturgy.196 The same “daughters” of gluttony were listed in the Teaching on the Sacrament of Penanceattributed to him.197 Church law forbade clerics from participating in lay feasts, games and tournaments that could have been a source of temptation.198 an extenuating circumstance. Nevertheless, a priest could not commune with the sacred: “Аще ли же будетъ попъ, никакоже ему священническая дѣятитого дни, и ни къ чему же прикоснутися отъ священныхъ [...] не годится емуслужити того дни [...]”, Кипріан, Смѣреннаго митрополита Киевскаго..., p. 249; on divergencies in this matter, cf. А. Петровский, “Учителное извѣстіе” приславянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 236, part 1, pp.922– 923. The formula for a priest’s confession (Исповѣданїє попомъ и дьякономъ, 15th– 16th centuries): “Не пѣл ли єси литоргїю а той нощи истеченїє во снѣ падсяа на оутрїє служилъ?”, А. Алмазовъ, Тайнаяисповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, p. 185. 195 The authors writing about this included the Kievan Metropolitan Kyprian: “обьяденіа же и питіа лишнего, и сіа многа, достоить удалятися истинному иноку, не хотящему впасти въ скверныя помыслы”, Кипріан, Смѣреннаго митрополита Киевскаго…, p. 248. As we can read in the ponovlennia for priests (Исповѣданіе сщ҃҃ енническоє,15th century), “Oтче гне объядениемъ ипіанствомъеда до обѣда ялъ или пилъ, а часовъ не отпевъ, и до блевания или в пиръ боудоу ходил не званъ или со женою пался единъ день пропоустивъ, а въ дроугый пѣлъ или пѣвъ, а на тую нощъ пался или кто мл҃ стню послалъ роздаяти или слоужбы, а то все за собою поустих”, А.Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, p. 231. 196 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 271–274 (157–158). 197 Наꙋка о Тайнѣ С(вѧ)т(ого) Покаѧнїѧ…, Киевъ 1671, pp. 505–507. 198 The prohibition on taking part in feasts and games was reiterated in the rules of the Ruthenian hierarchs, cf. e.g. Іоана митрополита русскаго нареченаго пророком Ха҃ ҃҃ написавшаго правило црковноє от Стыхъ книгъ въкратцѣ къ Якову черноризцу, [in:] Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, p. 86. Confession articles in manuscript form, too, condemned the participation of priests in secular festivities; it was unacceptable especially on the eve of the liturgy, cf. e.g. Поновленїє священникомъ(Trebnyk, 16th century): “На бесѣдах въ день и долго в вечере седѣх с простыми людьми, срамно гл҃ ахъ и кащунах In Basil’s instructions, priests were being dissuaded from excessive and distracting talkativeness before the mass, especially if it could start a conflict. It was rather recommended to stay in devout focus and recite all prayers in a way worthy of serving the altar, with-out hurry: “Въ днь събранїа, да не пришисѧ, ни прекословꙿствꙋй ѿнюдъ. Но на особнѣ помл҃исѧ и прочитай, даже до часа слꙋжбы, и тако съ страхомъ преⷣстани ст҃омꙋ жертовникꙋ. Не обзирайсѧ, ни спѣхомъ мл҃твы съкращай.”199 The order contained in the medieval bishop’s teachings was to celebrate the “Horrifying service” – “with trembling” and “not looking behind”, thus abandoning temporal things, while simultaneously rising to the heavens.200 Clergymen seeking inner piece should speak in restrained man-ner. According to Dmytro Tuptalo, in the evening, conversations should be limited to a few necessary words, and from dawn to the Service of God, as far as possible, they should keep absolutely silent.201 Mohyla advised staying away from unnecessary thoughts hindering the inner focus by means of fervent prayer and contemplation of the Passion of the Lord.202 It is worth emphasizing that this is the sub-ject of the pious meditations in the canonical hours which priests are словесы неподобными бесовьскими и бесней слушахъ и самъ баяхъ и всѣх пересужая в грѣсѣх, а оутре служих или ково до крови бих”, А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, p. 232. 199 Иже въ Ст҃ыⷯ Оц҃а нш҃еⷢ Васілїа Великаго, архієпⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа поꙋченїє къ іереѡмъ (Киевъ 1629), f. [4]. 200 “Службу страшную съ трепетомъ стваряйте, николиже внидите въ святый олтарь, вражду имуще съ кимъ, николиже въ мнозѣ глаголаньи до обѣда пребывъ, принесеши жертву пречистую, но внуши въ мысль молитву, восли къ Господу своєму, и не озирайси назадь, нъ оумъ весь имѣй горѣ съ ангелы бо служиши, и не мысли земныхъ въ тъ часъ, небеснаго бо Царя приємлеши въ сердце и весь освящайся имъ”, Епископское поученіе собору епархіальнаго духовенства, pp. 114–115. 201 “Ѿ оутрени даже до слꙋженїѧ дабы всѧчески тщалсѧ соблюсти молчанїе, и ни къ комꙋже бесѣдовати кромѣ нꙋжды. Аще же не возможно соблюстисѧ молчанїю, то дабы понє многоглаголивъ былъ, но малѡ и вкратцѣ глаголалъ бы та, ꙗже нꙋждна сꙋть глаголати”, Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє…, p. 139. 202 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222. obliged to celebrate. The Metropolitan of Rostov, who also warned priests about mental distractions, reminded them that this rule also apply during the liturgy. It should be celebrated with faith and love, trembling and with a fear of the Lord, being fully aware that this was being done at the service of God surrounded by the cherubim: Къ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧй [...] со страхомъ же и благоговѣнїємъ многимъ, дабы совершалъ слꙋженїє своє съ вѣрою и любовїю, имѣѧ собраны всѧ помишленїѧ своѧ, а не разсѣѧни и разсторгнени повсюдꙋ, но весь оумъ свой вперилъ бы въ Бг҃а, ємꙋже предста слꙋжити съ Херꙋвімами невидимѡ присꙋтствꙋющими и слꙋжащими, и былъ бы ꙗкѡ агг҃лъ предстоѧй престолꙋ Бж҃їю, и приносѧй теплыѧ мольбы ѡ всемъ мірѣ.203 The problems with attaining this proper spiritual state (fear of the Lord, staying focused and being of clean conscience) for a yerei com-ing to celebrate the liturgy were discussed extensively by Mohyla. In a commentary in the Trebnyk, there were also three minor impediments mentioned for celebrating at the altar, which could easily be removed through available penance practices. Mental powers and reason can be stupored by spiritual dilemmas, burdening a man’s heart, which causes, as Gizel wrote, that there is no “will to do good deeds and no desire to serve God.”204 This was probably the state of mind that Petro Mohyla was thinking of when he said that priests whose hearts were full of inner anxiety and melancholy should not approach the altar (“смꙋщенїє внꙋтрнее”, “цкливость”).205 The Metropolitan advised them 203 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє..., p. 139. 204 “Каꙗ тщеты наноси(тъ) смꙋщенїє совѣсти? Мнѡга зла смꙋщаємомꙋ творитъ. Первѣє, миръ внꙋтрнїй изгони(тъ), вꙿмѣстоже єгѡ наноситъ мѧтежъ и боѧзнь, и аки безчеловѣчный мꙋчитель ꙋмъ мꙋчитъ [...]; Второє, ꙋмъ помрачаєтъ, ꙗко ниже истиⷩны познати, ниже ѡ познанной право сꙋдити можетъ. Пачеже и безꙋмїѧ слѣдъ наноситъ [...]; Третєє, притворѧєтꙿ грѣхи тамо, идѣже ихъ нѣсть [...]; Четвертоє, непостоѧннымъ творитꙿ чл҃вка, єдиною бо начатоє дѣлѡ, ради коєго недоꙋмѣнїѧ таковый оставлѧєтъ и посемъ паки ради коєго недоꙋмлѣнїѧ таковый оставлѧєтъ и посемъ паки ради надходѧщагѡ противнагѡ сомнѣнїѧ, тоєжде начинаєтъ. Пѧтоє, наводи(тъ) тꙋгꙋ и скорбꙿ ѡтѧгощающꙋю срⷣце, да бы ничтоже творити доброє блг҃оволиⷧ. К семꙋ творитъ чл҃вѣка малодꙋшнымъ и къ бл҃гомꙋ недерзновеннымꙿ”, Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, pp. 596–597 (319). 205 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646) p. 222. to dispel doubts and let the hope of accepting God’s grace enter in. Fatigue and a depressed spirit should be prevented by alertness, men-tal agility and remaining vigilant in prayer.206 It seems, however, that the conscientious recitation of the recommended canonical liturgy of the hours before serving at the altar should effectively prevent these spiritual problems. This was all the more so since the evening, night and daytime prayers contained many passages on spiritual alertness, watchfulness and interior readiness for the coming of Christ, helping to reach the state of pious anticipation recommended by the teachers. Mohyla continued his reflections on the inner attitudes of a priest preparing for the liturgy, and, like the other cited authors of the teachings, noted that a priest must have great respect towards and at the same time deep humility before the Eucharist. According to the Metropolitan, an extremely effective spiritual practice in cultivating this attitude is to recall two truths. The first concerned the unspoken heights, glory and dignity of Christ the Lord and his infinite puri-ty, which surpasses the purity of the stars. The second was making people aware of their own weaknesses, powerlessness and impurity.207 The Metropolitan’s recommendations were supported by corresponding helpful texts. Both of these attitudes were awakened by his prayer book Canon before Holy Communion, intentionally placed in the Trebnyk directly after the teachings concerning the celebrant and the liturgy. Priests reading the canon recited the troparion’s words and declared unwavering faith in the real presence of God in the gifts of the sacrifice: “Вѣрою твердѡ оувѣщаваюсѧ, поⷣ видимыми Хлѣба и Вина виды, истинноє быти Тѣло, и истиннꙋю Сп҃сителнꙋю ти Хє҃ Сп҃се мой Кровъ, ꙗкѡже Апⷭломꙿ своимъ подаваѧ реклъ єси.”208 At the same time, a priest prostrated himself in front of majesty, recalling his own imperfection and vanity, which the yerei proclaims in the words of the liturgical 206 Ibidem. 207 Ibidem, p. 223–224. 208 [Петръ Могила], Канонъ, къ Причащенїю Сщ҃енникомъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн…, part 1, Киевъ 1646, p. 284. Cf. A. Naumow, Twórczość liturgiczna w kręgu Mohylańskim, [in:] Wiara i historia. Z dziejów literatury cerkiewnosłowiańskiej na ziemiach polsko-litewskich, Krak 1996, pp. 154–158. song “No one who is bound to carnal desires and pleasures is worthy to come to You, the King of Glory”209: Срⷣце чⷭто съзижⷣи въ мнѣ Бж҃е. Вѣрою несꙋмѣнною, съ страхомъ ѡбаче, надѣѧсѧ на словеса Твоѧ сіѧ: грѧдꙋщагѡ къ мнѣ не изженꙋ вонъ, дерзаю приближитисѧ, и слꙋжити Ст҃омꙋ ти Жертовникꙋ, но аще и недостоиъ єсмъ, Ты мѧ самъ, ꙗкѡ бл҃гоꙋтробенъ, ст҃ыⷨ Твоиⷨ достойнѡ слꙋжити ꙗви Таинамъ. Не ѿвержи мене ѿ лица Твоєго, и Дх҃а Твоєгѡ С(вѧтого). Никтоже достоинъ нарещисѧ можетъ предꙿ твоимъ величествомъ, (всѧ бо правда наша ꙗкоже рꙋбище повержено, єстъ преⷣ Тобою,) аще Твоѧ блгⷣть тꙋнє ѡправдитъ насъ. Самꙿ оубѡ чл҃колюбче, по бл҃гоꙋтробїю твоємꙋ, сътвори мѧ достойнѡ Ст҃ъмъ Твоимъ слꙋжити Тайнамъ.210 A humble attitude was an indispensable element of preparing for the Eucharist, as pointed out by Father Varlaam in the third “dialogue” in Spiritual Dialogism. First, he defined this virtue,211 and then pointed out ways to awaken it, among others based on the example of the life of Christ, God and Creator, who became man.212 This dimension of preparing for the Eucharist was also reflected upon by other teachers. Dmytro Tuptalo pointed out that fear, trem-bling and humility somewhat naturally accompany the conscious reception of the Immaculate Mysteries of the Body and Blood of 209 Divine Liturgy: Entire Text of St. John Chrysostom, (7.06. 2017). 210 [Петръ Могила], Канонъ, къ Причащенїю Сщ҃енникомъ (Киевъ 1646), p. 279; cf. also the various exhorations from this canon: “Не на достоєнство моє єгѡже не имамъ, но на пꙋчинꙋ твоєгѡ блг҃оꙋтробїѧ взираѧ [...]”, “Не по моємꙋ достоинствꙋ, но по твоємꙋ бл҃гоꙋтробїю [...] преⷣстати Жертовникꙋ сподоби”, “Пренепорочнаѧ Дв҃о [...] мл҃исѧ Сн҃ꙋ и Бг҃ꙋ Твоеємꙋ [...] причастника мѧ достойна Бж҃ственнымъ своим ꙗвити Таинамъ”, “Ісусе Бж҃е въплощенный, недостойного мѧ, достойно Ст҃омꙋ ти жертовникꙋ слꙋжити сътоври”, Ibidem, pp. 278–294. 211 “Истинноє смиренїє Любителю оутверждаєтсѧ на раⷥсꙋжденїи самагѡ себе. Аще кто себе раⷥсꙋждаєтъ быти ничтѡ, но єдинъ калъ, єдини оумєты, прахъ, и пепелъ. Послѣднѣйшего же паче всѣхъ презираѧй и оуничтожаѧ себе преⷣ лицеⷨ Бж҃іимъ, и преⷣ Величествомꙿ Прⷭтола єгѡ превысокаⷢ исповѣдающь себе недостойна не точїю ꙗсти Тѣло и пити Кроⷡ Гдⷭню, но ниже возрѣти и поне оумомъ коснꙋтисѧ сей предивной и преєстественной Таинѣ єⷢ Ст҃ой”, Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 4 о приꙋготовленїи къ Трапезѣ Ст҃ой, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 2, Киевъ 1714, ff. 110v-111. 212 Ibidem, ff. 106-110. Christ.213 During the liturgy, the sign of the celebrant’s humility is the kiss a priest gives on the cheek of the hierarch (and of the priest when a deacon is the one celebrating the service) in memory of the humil iation Jesus Christ suffered when he was struck in the face: “Ижъ Ха҃ вꙿ лице ꙋдарено, а Хс҃ покорне знеслъ, абы теды и ст҃итель, прїймꙋючи вꙿ лице поцѣловане ѿ менших іереовъ, смиренїѧ Хв҃а образꙿ припоминал, а своєи ст҃ителꙿства годности, не возносилсѧ, также и іерей.”214 According to Kyryl Stavrovetskyi, God wanted to have humble shepherds and therefore chose his disciples from among the uneducated, the poor and the simple.215 Golenkovskyi, who dedicated a separate teaching for priests about humility during the liturgy, expressed his conviction that this is the virtue which spiritual ministers should particularly love: Смиренїє [...] є(сть) всѣхъ добродѣтелей ѡснованїє, найпаче же (гл҃ющꙋ Златоꙋстꙋ) сана Іерейскагѡ и тогѡ ради Іерей найпаче сїю добродѣтель воⷥлюбити долженъ. Ибо ꙗкѡ доⷨ єлико вꙿ высотꙋ болѣе зижде(т)сѧ, толикѡ глꙋбочайшее основанїє имѣти долженъ, и древо толико нижае къ земли прекланѧєтꙿсѧ, єликѡ боⷧшими ѡбложеⷩно и ѡтѧгощенно бывеє(тъ) плодами. Сице єликѡ преизѧщнѣйшее є(сть) сщ҃енническое достоинство, толикѡ болшее и глꙋбочайшее єгѡ иматꙿ быти смиренїє.216 213 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Второє прїꙋготовленїє. В началѣ пред причащенїємъ да предидꙋтъ троє сїє: Вѣра, Надежда, Любовь, p. 138. 214 Феодосій Софонович, Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой и ѡ церковныхъ речаⷯ, ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой…, Ꙋневъ 1670, f. 20 (274v). This fragment is borrowed from On God’s Temple by Sim-eon of Thessalonica. 215 “Почтоже Хс҃ изꙿбра апⷭлѡвъ нищихъ, хꙋдороⷣныхъ, безꙿкнижнꙿыхъ, простакѡвъ, бꙋѧ бо мира сего избра Бг҃ъ и немоⷰныхъ, да посрамитъ премꙋдрыхъ по плоти, и да преодолѣю(тъ) крѣпкымъ”, Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 2 по Всѣхъ Ст҃ыⷯ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 211v; the same topic, cf. also: “[...] єсли бы оучоныхъ и мꙋдрыхъ, або славныхъ зꙿмежи Жидѡвъ, и богатыхъ мꙋжей былъ выбралъ Хс҃ , и тыхъ своей наꙋки проповѣдниками и оучителѧми оучинилъ былъ, здалъбысѧ то нѣѧкїй людемъ приподобаючїйсѧ постꙋпокъ быти. […] Не таковыхъ прето оученикѡвъ выбраⷧ Хс҃ , але противнымъ способомъ оубогихъ и не славныхъ, неꙋкихъ простакѡвъ. Сирѧнъ в ѧзыкꙋ, а поставою покорныхъ и скромныхъ”, Наꙋка в неделю 18 по Сошествїи Ст҃го Дх҃а, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное..., Євє 1616, ff. 105v-106 (305). 216 Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 8 о смиренїи Іерейскоⷨ, во времѧ слꙋженїѧ каково има(тъ) быти, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 1, Киевъ 1714, ff. 48v-49. As can be seen from the quoted example, the humble shepherd’s service is inseparably connected with his dignity,217 and therefore only the humble priest, according to Mohyla, will be able to grasp his own exaltation, and at the same time also understand that Eucharist is a great source of sanctification: [...] ибо достойнѣ слꙋжай и Причащаѧйсѧ Бжⷭтвеннымꙿ Тайнамъ, не точїю ѡставленїє грѣхѡвъ полꙋчаетъ, но и освѧщенїѧ и благодати изрѧдныѧ сподоблѧетъсѧ. Приѡбщаетъ бо сѧ Хрⷭтови иже єстъ неисчерпаемый источникъ освѧщенїѧ и блгⷣти. Второє нищети своєѧ недостатчествомъ и требованїємъ, всѧкъ бо къ съкровищꙋ семꙋ прибѣгаѧй, въ истиннꙋ Бжⷭтвенныхъ дарѡвъ богатства изꙿѡбилїє прійметъ и лишенїє дꙋховныѧ своєѧ нищеты неѡскꙋднѡ исполнитъ.218 Religious Pratices Zemka in the introduction to the Kiev Liturgiarion recommend ed that every celebrant practice spiritual preparation for the liturgy, which helped them obtain, among others, humility. This was to be adeep, engaging the imagination, mind and memory reflection on the humiliations which Christ met on his way of the cross: Єгда бо дійствꙋє(т)сѧ Бжⷭвнаа Слꙋжба, всѧ Стрⷭти Спⷭтлѧ нш҃гѡ ѡчесемꙿ, оумѡмꙿ, и памѧтеⷨ нш҃иⷨ Въспоминателнѣ преⷣлагаю(т)сѧ ѡплеванїа, заꙋшенїа, 217 In the letter of dedication from the Pentecostarion, priestly dignity and humility are reflected upon in the context of Atanasii Zhelyborskyi’s elevation to episco-pacy: “А претожъ Превелебность Вашꙋ Хс҃ вознеслъ на Престолъ Паст҃ирꙿской Годнѡсти. […] Що день видимо, ижъ жаденъ не можетъ повстати, хиба напередъ лѧжетъ, албо сѧдетъ, так и на годности правдивыє встꙋпити, хиба презъ покорꙋ зꙿстꙋпитъ. Бг҃ъ который Превелебность Вашꙋ изъ чрева Матере выбралъ на такꙋю Годность, ꙋрѧдꙋ пастырꙿскогѡ, той длѧ Покоры Превелебности Вашой даровалъ ю Превелебности Вашой”, Михаил Сліозка, Ꙗсне Превелебномꙋ вꙿ Бг҃ꙋ Єго Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿтцꙋ Аѳанасїю Желиборскомꙋ Млⷭтїю Бж҃їею, Православномꙋ Єпⷭкопꙋ, лвовскомꙋ, галицкомꙋ и Камєнца Подолскагѡ, администраторови Метрополїй Киевской и прочаѧ, Ѿцꙋ, Панꙋ, Пастыреви, и Добродѣеви моемꙋ велце милостивомꙋ, [in:] Триѡдїѡнъ си єстъ трїпѣснецъ, Лвовъ 1664, f. 4v. 218 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), pp. 223–224. порꙋганїа, по ланитоⷨ ꙋдаренї(ѧ), оуѧзвленїѧ, на Крⷭтѣ пригвожⷣенїє, оцтомꙿ и желчїю напоєнїє, тръновыⷨ вѣнцеⷨ ꙋвѧзненїє, копїєⷨ въ Прчⷭтаа ребра прободенїє и см҃рть.219 Golenkovskyi in his spiritual guide also recommended meditating on the Lord’s Passion. He dedicated one of the ten “conversations” concerning proper preparation for Holy Communion to this problem. In it, Father Varlaam not only included an incentive for this enriching inner reflection, but at the same time he assisted in its implementation by providing quite extensive and ready to use during prayer descriptions of the Way of the Cross.220 Just a few decades earlier, Mohyla wished to facilitate the above spiritual practices for yereis, including articles in the Trebnyk which contained extensive commentaries mostly concerning the Lord’s torments for liturgical prayers in the daily cycle, preparing them for “worthy ministry” during the liturgy.221 219 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 9. 220 Cf. e.g. the fragment: “[...] сіє приꙋготовленїє найпаче єсть бл҃гопотребно прежде причастїѧ ст҃аго. Да чреⷥ нѣкоє времѧ размышлѧєтъ болѣзни Гдⷭнѧ превеликїѧ, и страданїѧ неѡбычнаѧ, ꙗже претерпѣ грѣшныⷯ ради. По семъ да разсꙋдⷤаетъ, ꙗко тѣ Нозѣ, ꙗже быша ко Крⷭтꙋ пригвождеⷩнѣ прі(й)мєтꙿ, тыѧ Рꙋцѣ, ꙗже быша желѣзныⷨ толстымъ Гвоⷥдїємъ произенна, тꙋю Главꙋ, ꙗже быⷭ Тернїємъ острымъ оувѣнчанна, тоє Лице, єже бысть лютѣ оударенно и оплеванно, тыѧ Ꙋста ꙗже бѧхꙋ оцтомъ со желчїю смѣшеннымъ напоенна, тое все Тѣло, на немꙿже ѿбїенїѧ немилостивагѡ и нещаднагѡ небыло цѣлости, но рана на ранѣ, и єдина точїю ꙗзва все Тѣло тоє Ст҃ое видимо бѧше. Сіе Тѣло ꙗсти, и Кровь истекшꙋю ѿ Ребрꙿ пити имать. Ѡ дш҃е нравовѣⷬна! Чесогѡ єще болѣє воⷥжелаєш(и) и восхощеши, когда сегѡ причастишисѧ Тѣла толикоє тебѣ страданїємꙿ своиⷨ спⷭенїє содѣлаⷡшаⷢ”, Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 2 вꙿ нейже второє приѹготовленїє…(Киевъ 1714), f. 94. 221 The canonical hours at dawn and in the morning on the days on which the Sun-day or feast day liturgy was to be celebrated were obligatory in parishes, and regarded as an indispensable element of the priests’ preparation. The faithful, too, were encouraged to participate in vespers and matins. A spiritual introduction to the service was provided by an all-night vigil on the eve of the Lord’s Day and important feasts, Л.Д. Гуцуляк, Божественна Літургія Йоана Золотоустого в київській митрополії після унії з Римом (період 1596–1839 рр.), Львів 2004, pp. 150–151. On the origins of the Liturgy of the Hours, cf. R. Taft, The Formation of the Tradition, [in:] The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today, Collegeville 1986, pp. 3–213. His description differed from that of the seventeenth-century Lviv and Kiev chasoslovs, the books of the hours, starting with vespers (viecherniia in Church Slavonic Lang.)222 On the eve of the Divine Service, as we read, a yerei “piously pon-ders and explore” the saving passion of Christ on the cross, the piercing of his side and the flow of blood and water, his being placed in the grave and the weeping of Our Lady, Mary Magdalene and Mary the wife of Cleopas.223 Then, with the words of the “prayer for those going to sleep” during night prayers (Church Slavonic povecheriie,Gr. apodeipnon), it invokes Christ’s descent to the abyss, binding the prince of darkness, liberating the souls of the righteous and entering paradise. Thanking God for these gifts, the priest prayed that the Lord cleanse him of sin, save him from eternal torment and make him worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. He is asking Christ’s Mother, who also suffered, to become his intercessor to God, a helper in leading avirtuous life and on the way to the Kingdom of God, his defender on the day of death.224 The midnight prayer vigil (Church Slavonic polunoshchnytsia, Gr. mesoniktikon) on Sunday begins “the eighth day” and therefore the priest is obliged to fast from that moment on.225 Zakharia Kopystenskyi in the preface to the Kievan Chasoslov in 1616 reminded every-one that “it is necessary for us at that time to wake ourselves from sleep, since our day and our minds ascend to their Creator just as the 222 With the Lviv (1609) and Kiev (1616) Chasoslovs, which begin the list of corrected Orthodox church books, the order was changed and, in line with the old man- uscript sources, the description of the service starts with the polunoshchnytsia, I. Isaievych, Voluntary Brotherhood Confraternities..., pp. 213–214; the earlier edi tions from Zabłudów, Vilnius and Ostroh, until the 1612 edition, began with vespers, cf. И. Каратаєвъ,Описаніеславяно-русскихъ книгъ..., no. 77, 144, 152, 157, 169; Я. Запаско, Я. Ісаєвич, Пам’ятки книжкового..., part 1, no. 87. 223 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 225. 224 Ibidem, p. 225. Kopystenskyi also refers to prayers calling the guardian angel as well as the memory of the women carrying fragrant oils to Jesus’ grave, Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє Часослова (Киевъ 1616), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли..., p. 10. 225 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 222. Liturgiarion, Lviv 1646 sun does.”226 In the editio princepsin Pechersk’s typography, the first prayer of the new day is dedicated to awaiting the Parousia and the raising of the dead, because at this hour the resurrection of the Lord took place.227 During the polunoshchnytsia, also mentioned by Mohyla, the priest recalls the prayer of Jesus in the garden, his anticipating death and bloody sweat, and then the reproach and humiliation that met the Saviour at Annas’ trial, where he was beaten and spat upon. All sufferings are meditated upon as being voluntarily accepted by God out of love for man, so that he “ѿ ꙋзъ грѣхѡвныⷯ и зметꙿ, и ѿ мꙋчителства и томленїѧ дїаволѧ свободитъ.”228 Therefore, these prayers require devout concentration: “полꙋнощныѧ молбы […] въ ꙋмиленіи срⷣца, не бездѣлни ниже безплодни полꙋнощныѧ молꙿбы съвершаємъ.”229 Matins (Church Slavonic utrenia, Gr. orthros) as the “heartfelt con-trition” reminds the yereiof Christ’s humiliation and being lead from Annas to Caiaphas to be judged, where he meekly accepted lashes and was again spat upon.230 In Lviv’s Chasoslov, we read about these events: “Во времѧ то Чловеколюбецъ, ѡ нашихꙿ согрѣшенїаⷯ, иже грѣха не сотвори, и не ѡбрѣтесѧ лесть въ оустѣⷯ єго, преⷣста Каїафѣ Архіерееви жидовскомꙋ, нарꙋганїѧ и порꙋганїѧ, и вꙿ ланитꙋ оударенїє, долготерпеливнѣ творецъ ѿ созданїѧ своєгѡ прїѧть.”231 The journey of Jesus to the Praetorium “shackled like a thief” and the insults and ridicule of the high priests and Pilate’s court are the subject of the pious meditations of the first hour (prima, pervyi chas); then the sentence, crowning with thorns and whipping of the third 226 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє Часослова (Киевъ 1616), p. 8. 227 Ibidem, p. 8. The Lviv Orologionof 1642 also refers to the night-time fishing during which the disciples saw Christ walking on the lake, Къ Бл҃городныⷨ и Хрⷭстолюбивымꙿ и бл҃гоподвижныⷨ всѣм общечитателеⷨ, [in:] Ѡрологїон сирѣчъ Часословъ Полꙿꙋставный, Лвовъ 1642, ff. 3v-4.228 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 226. 229 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє Часослова (Киевъ 1616), p. 8. 230 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 226. 231 Къ Бл҃городныⷨ и Хрⷭстолюбивымꙿ и бл҃гоподвижныⷨ всѣм общечитателеⷨ (Лвовъ 1642), f. 4. hour (tretii chas).232 It is also a moment related with the descent of the fiery tongues, meaning the Gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, and therefore, the priest at this time of the day especially prays that his participation in this be enlightening.233 The introduction to Kiev’s Orologion (1616) states: “[...] срⷣце чⷭто съзижди вꙿ мнѣ Бє҃, и Дх҃ъ правъ обнови вꙿ оутробѣ моєй, не ѿвързи мене ѿ лица твоєго, и Дх҃а Ст҃го твоєго не ѿими ѿ мене. Въздаждъ ми радость сп҃сенїа твоего и дх҃омъ влⷣчноⷨ оутверъди мѧ, и дх҃ъ твой бл҃гій наставитъ мѧ на землю правꙋ.”234 The sixth hour of the day (szostyi chas) commemorates Jesus on the road to Calvary, being nailed to the cross among thieves, the reproaches from the crowd and the darkness that enveloped the earth, and the ninth hour (deviatyi chas) commemorates the suffering and death of the God-man, which was accompanied by an earthquake.235 All the prayers and services mentioned, as summed up 232 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 226. In the preface to the Lviv Orologionall sufferings listed in the Trebnyk are meditated upon in the first hour, while the third, apart from the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the disciples, recalls Jesus’ way to the Golgotha, Къ Бл҃городныⷨ и Хрⷭстолюбивымꙿ и бл҃гоподвижныⷨ всѣм общечитателеⷨ (Лвовъ 1642), f. 4v. 233 “Сіє же раⷥмышлѧѧ, прилежнѡ Бг҃ꙋ да мл҃итсѧ, ꙗкѡ да подастꙿ и ємꙋ Дх҃а ст҃го, ꙗкоже и ст҃ымꙿ Апⷭломꙿ ко дх҃овнаго разꙋма просвѣщенїю, и въ єже достойнѡ съвершити ємꙋ преⷣлежащꙋю Бжⷵвеннꙋю слꙋжбꙋ”, [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 226. 234 Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє Часослова (Киевъ 1616), p. 9. The words referred to in the quoted fragment: “Не отвержи мене ѿ лица Твоєгѡ, и Дх҃а товєгѡ С(вѧтого)” and “Срⷣце чисто съзжди въ мнѣ Бж҃е”, appear in the Trebnyk between the troparionsof the canon which, together with the psalms and the prayers, makes up the Order of the Preparations for the Holy Communion, cf. Послѣдованїє къ Бжⷭтвенномꙋ Причащенїю, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., part 1, Киевъ 1646, pp. 271–294. Towards the end of the 19th century Konstantin Nikolskyi wrote that these two verses were no longer printed in Orthodox church books. Before, they had been found in sluzhebnyks, complete psalters and books of canons, К. Никольский, Пособіе къ изученію устава богослуженія праволавной цервки, Санктпетербургъ 1900, p. 371, fn. 1. 235 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), pp. 226–227; Захарїꙗ Копистенскїй, Предословїє Часослова (Киевъ 1616), p. 9. by Mohyla, should be prayed with heartfelt zeal, and if possible in tears.236 A similar commentary was added by the Metropolitan in the order of preparing prayers for the liturgy in a later part of the Trebnyk: Начинаєтъ съ всѧкимъ внименїємъ и бл҃гоговѣнїємъ, и страхомъ Бж҃їмъ, ничтоже помышлѧѧ ѡ земныхъ, развѣ точїю ѡ величествѣ Таины Тѣла и Крве Гдⷭней, и ѡ своємъ недостоинствѣ своѧ грѣхи изчитаѧ, и ѡ прощенїю тѣхъ прилежнѡ съ вѣрою мл҃ѧсѧ. И гл҃етъ въ оумиленїи и съкрꙋшенїю срⷣчномъ, аще же възможнѡ и съ слезами.237 Reflections on the quality of the preparations discussed in detail by the metropolitan are also present in many other sources. Bishop Shumlanskyi appealed to the clergy not to overlook these devotions and prayers, but to calmly and rationally recite them: “Правила церковнагѡ, молитвъ къ причащенїю, а найбарзѣй що въ Слꙋжебникꙋ єстъ написанѡ, не ѡпꙋщайте, але все то ѡпаснѡ, розꙋмне, несквапливе читайте и внимайте.”238 Gizel, while appealing to the conscience of every priest on the issue of diligence in reciting the canonical hours, sought to make them aware of the spiritual depth of these prayers. This condi tion had to be fulfilled because the mechanical recitation of words did not represent greater spiritual value and therefore did not constitute a proper introduction to the Liturgy: Аще не на день правила ҃ совершаютъ всѧкъ должнаго црковнаго, полꙋнощницы, ꙋтрени, часоⷡ, вечернѣ, павечерни? Къ чесомꙋ и вниманїє сице єстъ потребно, ꙗко безꙿ него не воздаютъ долгꙋ званїѧ своего: Аще бо мл҃юсѧ ѧзыкомъ (гл҃етъ Павелъ ст҃ый) а ꙋмъ мой безъ плода єстъ, что ꙋбо єстъ? (1 Cor 14).239 The articles on priests going to confession placed in the manu-scripts of the Trebnyksfocused largely on the issue of praying the canonical hours. They reviled reading them in a hurry, shortening 236 Ibidem, p. 227. 237 Послѣдованїє къ Бжⷭтвенномꙋ Причащенїю (Киевъ 1646), p. 273. 238 Cf. Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), p. 234. 239 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 383 (213). the prayers or completely omitting those used as preparations for liturgical services.240 According to Golenkovskyi, who referred to the authority of not specifically identified saintly fathers, reflecting on the Lord’s passion is more valuable in the eyes of the Lord than long-term fasting or even regular reading of the Psalter.241 The priest was to keep a pre-liturgical order (послѣдованїє) which, in the light of the rules laid down, not only included the “hours,” but also psalms, canons and prayers before Holy Communion.242 If some of these were abandoned because of negligence or laziness, then the priest committed a mortal sin.243 Kuntsevych also condemned other habits squandering any digni fied preparation for the liturgy. This included the practice of initiating the proskomide during the recitation of the “hours.” The priest prepared the sacrificial offerings on the altar, giving these tasks of the serviceover to the diak (Gr. didaskalos ), which he was not allowed to do: Перед Літургією треба відмовити Правило аж до Шостого Часу вклуючно, відтак відмовити кілька молитов перед Святим Причастям – і аж тоді приступати до приготування Пресвятої 240 Вопрос игуменом и сщ҃ енноинокомъ(16th century): “Не пѣл лиєси литургїи не отправивъ правила?”; Поновленїє свяшенникомъ(16th century): “Гд҃ не отче обьяденїем и пьянством иж до обѣда и часов не отпѣвъ и многажды во пиръ не званъ ходих и оупився бесчинно валяхся и спах на земли и блевах”, “Внеисправленїи пѣнїя цр҃ ковнаго и павечерницы и заутрени и часовъ и на обѣдне мл҃ твъ не исправих в лѣности поспешилъ и пропусти или забылъ вмыслех”, А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, pp. 183, 232. 241 “Вѣмъ бо ѿ многихъ оц҃ъ ст҃ыхꙿ, ꙗко болѣє сей бл҃гопрїѧтенъ и любезенъ єсть Хрⷭтꙋ Гдⷭꙋ, которїй размышлѧєтъ стрⷭти Єгѡ, неже бы кто на всѧкъ день Ѱсалтирь прочитоваⷧ, или ѡ єдиноⷨ токмѡ хлѣбѣ и водѣ жилъ житїє своє и по истиⷩнѣ достойнѣйшимъ паче иныхъ прⷭтоломꙿ сицевагѡ дш҃а є(сть) Хрⷭтꙋ Гдⷭꙋ и Гдⷭь вꙿ сицевой дш҃и радостнѣ почивати желаєтъ”, Варлаам Голенковский, Бесѣда 3 вꙿ нейже третее приꙋготовленїє похвалѧєтъ Любовꙿ Любителеви, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й)..., part 2, Киевъ 1714, f. 103. 242 This is mentioned by e.g. Y. Kuntsevych, cf. Правила і конституції… p. 300; the prayers, together with the canon, were included e.g. in Mohyla’s Trebnyk, cf. Послѣдованїє къ Бжⷭтвенномꙋ Причащенїю (Киевъ 1646), pp. 271–319. 243 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 227. Жертви, але не робити цьоготак, як деякі роблять, що, залишивши відправу Часів дякові, самі, не відмовивши Часів, відправляють Проскомидію.244 Tuptalo cautioned the clergy about these disorders using an inter-esting example concerning the liturgy. During his pastoral ministry on the territories of Rostov and Yaroslav, he met a priest who was already reading part of the Mass from the sluzhebnyk at home even be-fore arriving at the church. The Metropolitan amazed by the patience of heaven with this man, and being deeply disturbed by the extent of his ignorance and the stupidity of the clergy, he warned those who dared to do such things about eternal damnation: Ѡ крайнѧгѡ безꙋмїѧ и нерадѣнїѧ глꙋпыхъ іереєвъ, паче же рекꙋ, рꙋгателей Хрⷭтовыхъ! Ѡ безстрашїѧ и небреженїѧ! Ѡ пагꙋбы ихъ вѣчныѧ! Коль велїє єсть долготерпѣнїє Бж҃їє, ꙗкѡ не падетъ огнь съ высоты на таковыє попы, и не сожжетъ ѧ живы на тѣхъже мѣстѣхъ, идѣже такѡ лїтꙋргїсаютъ, истиннѣ же рекꙋ, рꙋгаютсѧ Хрⷭтови!245 The only excuse a priest could have for leaving the liturgical service was an urgent pastoral duty, such as confession, giving com-munion to the sick and healthy, or baptising. In these cases, the yerei’sconscience was not burdened by a heavy sin, but he should later on complete the prayers that were set aside.246 Therefore, as Kuntsevych wrote, it was necessary to celebrate all the services and several prayers before Holy Communion247 and in no way shorten them, as numerous teachings warned against it.248 244 [Йосафат Кунцевич],Правила і конституції…, p. 300. The 13th-century rules of the Synod of Vladimir also denounce the custom of the proskomide being cel-ebrated by the deacon, ПравилоКюрила..., pp. 98-99. On the Studite ustav and the abandoning of the practice of the proskomide being celebrated equally by the priest and the deacon, cf. Я.Н. Щапов, Византийское…, pp. 189–190. 245 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє…, pp. 139–140. 246 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), pp. 227–228. 247 The order of the preparations for the Communion was included partly in the Sluzhebnyk and the Complete Psalter, К. Никольский, Краткое..., p. 49. 248 Cf. Иже въ Ст҃ыⷯ Оц҃а нш҃еⷢ Васілїа Великаго, архієпⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа поꙋченїє къ іереѡмъ, f. [5v]. According to Basil the Great, a monk or a presbyter who Intention Another condition for serving at the altar was the properly formed will of the priest. This subject was new to Orthodoxy and was finally undertaken during the Church revival. According to Mohyla, all the prayers that spiritually prepare priests for the service of God make it unlikely that the clergyman would begin the celebration without internal will. Theological teachings on intentions (intentio) were formulated in the West in the twelfth century, but its dogmatic reception was felt at the Council of Trent249 when it was established that the celebrant was to have an unconditional, definite and appropriate intention to do what the Church does.250 The Metropolitan mentioned this issue because it was the subject of polemics several years before the Trebnyk was released. In 1642, Kasian Sakovych, then already a Roman Catholic, wrote bitingly by reprimanding Ruthenian priests that they did not know what their “intention” was, that they were less prepared for their ministry than ordinary craftsmen, since a shoemaker knew his purpose, whether he ought to make shoes or slippers, and a “pop nic o tym nie myśli tylko byle się odprawiło.”251 Therefore, he appealed to the “Greek-Ruthenian” clergy to have at least a general intention to sacrifice bread and wine for the living and the dead, because “even though thou (priest) will speak the words of Christ over the bread and wine, thou will not bless the sacrament, but plain bread and wine will remain.”252 Two years later, Sakovych failed to read the first, third, sixth and ninth “hour”: “нѣсть ꙗсти достоинъ. И аще не прави(тъ) всегѡ Правила свєгѡ, ꙗко мрътва въмѣнѧєтъ”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 58 (75). 249 The “intention” was associated with the Catholic teaching on the sacrament as an opus operatum. It is discussed in the context of each of the seven sacraments by Petro Mohyla’s pupil, Innokentii Gizel, in his work on moral theology, М.Корзо, “Мир з Богом чоловіку”..., pp. 230–231. 250 The Council of Trent (sess. 7, c. 11), quoted after: F. Lempa, entry: intention, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 7, Lublin 1997, p. 362. Р. Готц, Таинства в истории отношений между Востоком и Западом, Москва 2014 (first German-language edition 1979) , pp. 119–128. 251 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa…, Krak 1642, p. 46. 252 Ibidem. received an answer. His adversary agreed, with the accusation that a simple priest might not know the Latin concept of intentio. He categorically denied, however, that he did not have the will to transform the Eucharistic gifts. Spiritual preparation for the liturgy, especially during the recitation of the proskomide, precisely defines the priest’s intention: Słowo to łacińskie Intentio, może drugi łaciny nie umiejąc, nie wiedzieć, co to jest, ale żeby o przedłożeniu uma, to jest o przedsięwzięciu i rozporządzeniu myśli i woli ku onej rzeczy, którą odprawować ma iw jaki koniec to odprawować będzie nie wiedział, to nie jest prawda. Bo każdy swiszczennik by najprostszy, gdy do odprawowania służby Bożej idzie tak wolą i myśl swoję diriguję, że tego dnia chce to, co Christus Pan na swojej ostatniej wieczerzy postanowił i czynił, czynić i odprawować. To jest chleb poświęcać w ciało, a wino w krew zbawiciela naszego i one za żywe i umarłe, a przy tym osobliwie iza potrzeby te, za które Przedsięwzięcie ma Panu Bogu Ofiarować. A te potrzeby nie mając intenciej nie mogłby żadna miarą przy Służbie Bożej Kapłan przypominać, ale gdy, za którego umarłego albo żywego albo też chorego albo inszą jaką potrzebę albo też za tego który ad suam propriam intentionemsłużbę Bożą odprawować prosił przy Pro-skomidiej najpierwiej cicho wspomina i cząstkę wyjąwszy ofiaruje.253 The author of ThePerspective also addressed the vladykas responsible for the ignorance among priests with the postulate to enlighten their pastors through teachings about the “intentions”, for example by printing appropriate explanations and prayers in the Sluzhebnyksand Trebnyks.254 Despite some acute exchanges between Sakovych and Euzebi Pimin (Mohyla?), the Metropolitan took the above advice.255 In the first part of the Trebnyk, which is the culmination of his reform work, in the chapter On the Most Sacred and Wonderful Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood, our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, he mentions 253 Euzebi Pimin, LIΘOΣ abo kamień.., Kij 1644, p. 114. 254 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa…, Krak 1642, p. 46. 255 Mohyla took into account many of Sakovych’s suggestions. A table with exam ples of changes and additions introduced in the 1646 Trebnyk probably under the impact of Perspectives, see Т. Шманько, Латинізація та окциденталізація…, pp. 344–345; cf. also P. Nowakowski, Problematyka liturgiczna…, pp. 135–204. the four most essential conditions of the sacrament, and among them is approaching the sacrificial gifts with the proper “intention.”256 A detailed discussion on the concept is given a bit further on in the special teaching on the elements that are important and indispensable to the priest just before and during the liturgy. Here, the “intention” is also referred to as the “priest’s mental intention of transforming the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” and this is discussed along with other conditions necessary in the liturgy, this time at the beginning of the list: “Всѧкѡ ꙋбѡ Іереѵ, къ слꙋженїю Бжⷭтвенныѧ Лѵтꙋрїи идый, имѣти долженъ єстъ сицево намѣренїє оумноє, или, оума и волѣ своєй съгласноє склоненїє, єже по оуставꙋ Гд҃ню, и ѡбичаю Цр҃квє Ст҃ой ой.”257 Православнокафолической Въсточной, съвершити Тайнꙋ Тѣла и Крвє Хв҃ Thus, during the liturgy, the priest expressed his proper intentions when his fingers pointed to the bread and then to the wine, pronounced the formula for consecration, and at the same time his intentions were in accord with God’s words: “Прїймѣте ядите…,” “Пійте от сея…”.258 A priest who did not fulfill this condition met judgement and fell into mortal sin, which Sakovych had already previously written about, and he did not transubstantiate the gifts.259 The celebrant also sinned when he intended to sacrifice only one particle on the diskos. He was not allowed to direct his will only to the Lamb (Agnets), because the yerei had to sacrifice all the particles for the faithful to receive communion. All are part of the Body of Christ, but without this intention, they must not be given to the faithful.260 Mohyla also discussed other specific cases and consequences of making the sacrifice with or without a proper intention. For example, in the section on the preparation of the gifts for the sick, the Metropolitan once again instructed the priests to 256 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ Прⷭтой и Предивной Тайнѣ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃а Бг҃а и Сп҃са нашего Іи҃с Ха҃, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., part 1, Киевъ 1646, p. 217. 257 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже в самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., Киевъ 1646, p. 229. 258 “[...] долженъ єстъ намѣренїє ꙋма и волѣ своєй съгласноє имѣти Гдⷭнимъ словесемъ”, Ibidem, p. 229. 259 Ibidem, pp. 229–230. 260 Ibidem. have the will to sacrifice the two lambs (Agnets): “приложи намѣреніє оума и волѧ твоєѧ къ ѡбоима Агнцѡма, єже ѡбѣмъ ост҃итисѧ.”261 The Metropolitan took up this issue before Sakovych mentioned it. The teaching on “intentions” already appeared in 1639 in the rubrics of Kiev’s third Sluzhebnyk262 and was also disseminated in subsequent editions of the Trebnyk, especially in those that followed the Mohylan edition of 1646, reprinting abridged versions of his articles with explanations.263 Theologians in the second half of the seventeenth century also wrote about the necessity for a priest to intend to transform the gifts. Yosyf Shumlanskyi mentioned it in the synodal teaching for priests: “Сакраментѣ добре на памѧть оумѣйте, и ѡпаснѡ, съ вниманїємъ и доброю невонтпливою вѣрою, изъ зꙋпелнымъ волѣ своєи намѣренїємъ ѡнїє вымовлѧйте.”264 The chapter on the Eucharist in the first treatise on moral theology by Innokentii Gizel can serve as an example, in which, just like in the Trebnyk, the essential elements of the liturgy were specified: “[...] долженъ сщ҃енникъ въ времѧ осщ҃енїѧ сеѧ Та(й)ны, имѣти ѿнюⷣ намѣренїє таково, ꙗко да Єстⷭтво Хлѣба и Вина, преложи(т)сѧ ы.”265 въ Єстⷭтво Тѣла и Кровє Хв҃ Mohyla, listing the requirements that the priest had to meet before the liturgy, also pointed to other volitional acts. He must show the 261 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ єже какѡ кромѣ великагѡ четвертка болныхъ ради Бжⷭтвенныѧ Тайны Іерею парохїѧⷧномꙋ достоитъ ст҃ити и хранити, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., part 1, Киевъ 1646, pp. 263. 262 The teaching was absent from Mohyla’s first Sluzhebnyk of 1629, П. Ґаладза, Аналіза Служебника Петра Могили 1639 р., [in:] LEITURGIARION. The ser-vice-Book of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Basil the Great, and the Presanctified Gifts, and the daily services published at the Monastery of the Caves Kiev, 1639 with the blessing of Metropolitan Peter (Mohyla) of Kiev-Halych and All Rus Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Fairfax–Lviv–New York 1996, p. A-4. 263 Cf. Chapter One. The 18th-century Moscow articles omitted, for example, the in- struction concerning the need for the priest celebrating the liturgy to have the will to transform the gifts, А. Петрвский, “Учителное извѣстіе” при славянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 235, part 2, p. 559.264 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), p. 234. 265 Иннокентїй Гізіел, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ..., Киевъ 1669, p. 120 (82). need to continually awaken the desire for the Body and Blood of Christ by reflecting on the Divine Mystery of His presence in the form of bread and wine. The lack of such an inner attitude, according to the Metropolitan, could cause the celebrant who prepared to sacrifice at the table of the Lord to not want to celebrate the Mass as frequently. This was a dangerous situation for the faithful, who were devoid of spiritual support, as predicated by Kyprian Zhokhovskii at the start of the Uniate Liturhikonusing the motto of the works of Bede the Venerable (VII–VIII centuries): Іерей не имѣѧ ни єдинаго препѧтїѧ, оставлѧѧ же Лѵ҃ргисанїє, лишаєтъ єлико ѿ себе можетꙿ славы и хвалы Пртⷭꙋю Трⷪцꙋ, Агг҃ловꙿ оутѣшенїѧ, грѣⷲныхъ отпꙋщенїѧ грѣховъ, и млⷭдїѧ, правеⷣныхъ помощи, и блгⷣти, дш҃амⷯ въ пламени чистителноⷨ ослабленїѧ. Всюже Цр҃҃҃годѣѧнїѧ Хв҃а: самаго же ковъ дховнаго блсебе врачества (Велебный Беда).266 The Orthodox Metropolitan in the Euchologion also mentioned the will to give witness to holiness and truth throughout the days of their earthly journey. The expression of these aspirations was the life of a priest: proper conduct and good deeds.267 Thus, the priest should live in such a way that he may continually be prepared to administer the liturgy and the sacraments: Понеже вꙿ Цр҃҃҃ кви Бжіей ничто же стѣйшее, и полезнѣйшее, ничто же высочайшее или Бжⷭтвеннѣшее єстъ, паче Таинъ, въ спⷭнїе рода члчⷭкагѡ ѿ Хрⷭта Гд҃а оуставленыхъ, сщ҃енникъ парохїѧлный, или инъ кꙿ немꙋ же слꙋженїе или дѣйствїе сихъ прислꙋшаетъ, въ первыхъ всегда памѧтствовати долженъ єстъ, ꙗкѡ сщ҃еннаѧ дѣйствꙋетъ, и ꙗкѡ всегда вꙿкоемждѡ временномъ часѣ къ слꙋженїю сицевагѡ сщ҃еннодѣйствїѧ, готова себе преⷣставлѧти долженъ єстъ. Сегѡ ѹбѡ ради ѡпаснѡ да тщи҃сѧ єже цѣлѡ вꙿ добродѣтелеⷯ, что же трезвеннѡ, и бл҃гочестнѡ пожити.268 In the Vilnius Teaching for Yereis and in the article from Mohyla’s Trebnyk, there are also other conditions for permitting a priest to serve 266 Леітоургікон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695, f. [16v]. 267 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 223. 268 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ Тайнахъ ѡ вещехъ, ꙗже въ слꙋженіи и ѡ дѣйствїи Ст҃ыхъ Таинъ, обще храними быти имꙋтъ, (Киевъ 1646), p. 1. at the altar. These included what seemed to be such obvious truths, such as that the sacrament of Baptism and celebrating the Liturgy are exclusively the duties of a bishop or a priest he consecrated to do so. Ignatius of Antioch referred to in teachings from Kiev’s Sluzhebnyk, wrote about it among others, in his Letter to the Church in Smyrna.269 This teaching in the Trebnyk (1646) began with a description of the priest, who not only had to be properly prepared but above all properly ordained by a bishop.270 It might be presumed that the term “proper” indicates a valid consecration in accord with the canons and performed by the hierarch of the relevant jurisdiction: “[Єѵхаристїа] съверъшаєтꙿсѧ ѿ іереа, ѿ своего ємꙋ єпⷭпа законнѣ хиротонїсанаго.”271 269 “С(вѧтий) Игнатїй: не подобаєтъ, рече, безꙿ Єпⷭпа, си є(сть), кромѣ іереа ѿ єпⷭпа правилнѣ хиротонисаннаго, ниже крⷭтити, ниже Приносити”, Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 6. Cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid”, quoted after: (06.06.2017). A translation into Polish, cf. Św. Ignacy Antiocheński, ListdoKościoławSmyrnie, [in:] Pierwsiświadkowie. PismaOjcówApostolskich, transl. A. Świderkówna, ed. M. Starowieyski, Krak 1998, p. 138; Kapłanipierwszychwieków. Antologiatekstówpatrystycznych, ed. L. Padovese, Krak 2011, p. 48. 270 “Слꙋжитель своиственный, Страшной, Превелыкой, Предивной и Прⷭтой Тайнѣ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃а нашего Іи҃с Ха҃ єстъ самый точїю Сщ҃енникъ Правилнѣ и Чиннѡ по степенемъ меншимъ и вѧщшимꙿ на сщ҃енство ѿ Єпⷭпа възведеный и рꙋкоположеный [...] Іерей оубѡ правилнѣ рꙋкоположеный, хотѧй достойнѡ Бжⷭтвеннꙋю Слꙋжбꙋ съвершити, симъ ѡбразомъ преⷣ оуготовати себе долженъ єстъ”, [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 219. 271 Тарассїй Земка, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ (Киевъ 1629), f. 5v. For more on the subject, see Chapter Two. A Yerei’s Appearance Teachings were focused mainly on giving a holistic model of being properly prepared for the liturgy and also mentioned the appearance of a yerei. The kormchaia books contained clarifications for the liturgy (tolkovaia sluzhba), including warnings addressed to careless and lazy priests who did not wear the recommended liturgical vestments before approaching their service at the altar.272 Similar remarks are contained in the rules of the Ruthenian hierarchs,273 which also included disciplinary remarks about the necessity of removing clerical dress during daily non-ministry activities.274 The printed Nomocanonrecalled the twenty-ninth canon of the Council in Trullo concerning “respectable dress” and the use of clerical garments under penalty of a week’s suspension from priestly functions in the case of ignoring the above rule.275 272 Remarks are to be found e.g. in the instruction entitled Правило иерѣомъ иже не облачаются во священныя ризы ли неразумиемъ ли гордостю ли лѣностію with the incipit: “Стихарь есть правда, а филонь истина”, reprinted in: Стоглавъ,“Православний собеседник”, Казань 1862, pp. 102–103. The article, probably of Rus’ provenance, was included in many kormchaia manuscripts compiled by various editors (cf. Л.В. Мошкова, Каталог славяно-русских рукописных книг XVI века, хранящихся в Российском государственном архиве древних актов, part 1: Апостол – Кормчая, Москва 2006, no. 78, 79, 80); it was included in the first kormchaia book printed in Moscow in 1650–53, cf. Е.В. Белякова, Cостав ипроисхождение статей Печатной Кормчей,[in:] Е.В. Белякова, Л.І.Мошкова, Т.А. Опарина, Кормчая книга…, p. 241. The scholar classified the text as part of a category encompassing clarifications for the service and mandatory fur-nishings of the church, Е.Е Голубинский, Исторія Русской Церкви, Періодъ второй, Московскій, vol. 2, 2 половина тома, Москва 1911, p. 296. 273 According to the 6th conciliar principle of Metropolitan Kyryl II(III), a conse crated priest may not read from the pulpit until he “не облечеться въ бѣлыя ризица. Малыяже ризица глаголетъся гречьскымъ языкомъ диффера или фелонь”, Правило Кюрила..., col. 98-99. 274 Petro Ratenskyi reminded the yereis wanting to drink wine with their dinner that in such a moment they should not be wearing liturgical vestments, Поученіе смиренного Петра митрополита Кіевскаго и всея Руси къ єпископомъ, и попомъ, и архімандритом, и игуменом и дьяконом, и ко мнихом, и ко всѣм православным крестьаном, p. 186. 275 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, p. 134 (141). Priestly robes should be clean,276 and the obligatory attire in-cluded a sticharion, epitrachelion, belt, felonion and epimanikia. In the absence of any of these elements, the priest fell into serious sin.277 A detailed description of the symbolic meaning of these elements of a priest’s garments was made by Feodosii Sofonovych in the treatise on the liturgics,278 although it was possible to find brief commentaries on the subject earlier in printed Ruthenian writings.279 These were es-sential because they explained the need to follow the indicated dress code, linked with the moral and ethical ideal of service, a priest’s mission and the proper course of the Liturgy itself.280 The sources of knowledge on this subject were also prayers and specifically South-Ruthenian teachings, which accompanied the priestly consecration and were preserved in manuscript hieraticons. As the researcher wrote, a bishop preached these exhortations during the ordination ceremony when handing out individual robes.281 276 Materials for priestly confession feature questions and avowals: “Или не чисть во цр҃ ковь ходил ї недостойных ризах?” (Исповѣданїє попомъ и дьякономъ, Trebnyk, 15th-16th century); “Мнохажди бесъ патрахѣли сщ҃ ньствовах и без риз” (Поновленїє священникомъ, Trebnyk, 16th century), А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, p. 185, 232. 277 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [8]; [Петръ Могила], Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже в самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ, p. 230. 278 The comment concerning liturgical vestments is an abbreviated version of Simeon of Thessalonica’s explanations from On God’s Temple. 279 E.g. in Kyryl Stavrovetskyi’s instruction the symbolism of priestly vestments is explained in line with the historical interpretation: “Оное вꙿсе посмѣаніе ѿ Ирода, єже претръпѣ Гь҃, знаменѹєтъ весъ оубиръ сщ҃енническый при Ст҃ой Літоргїй: стихар бѣлый препрѹдꙋ Иродовꙋ, фелонь хламидꙋ червленꙋю Пилатⷪвꙋ, нараквицѣ оное свѧзанїє роукъ Хв҃ыхъ, потрахиль оуже сꙋщее на вый Єго Прⷭтой, поѧсъ опоѧсанїє оужемъ єгда привѧзаш(а) Єго къ столпꙋ, аиръ имже покриваєтъ сщ҃енникъ плешѣ, знаменꙋєтъ оное покровенїє лица Хв҃а в домꙋ Каиафы”, Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченіє 4 о стрⷭтехъ Гн҃ихъ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное..., part 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 100. 280 On bishops’ mission in light of the chirotony teachings, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Symbole władzy i odpowiedzialności biskupiej…, pp. 117–133. 281 According to the scholar, some of these teachings were added to the order of priestly ordination under the impact of Catholic sources, although there is noth ing in them that would contradict the Orthodox teaching, А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., pp. 211–212. Their content is consistent with the message of the mystagogical treatises, because they were formed under the influence of liturgical commentaries of Church Fathers and theologians. For example, an instruction accompanying awarding the belt was: “Да препояшетъ тя Господь силою свыше и да положитъ непороченъ путъ твой, ида утвердитъ сердце твое еже разумѣти и знати Господа итвoрити волю его на всякое время. Во имя Отца....”282 In the work of the Kiev liturgist, we read that the belt is: “Знакꙿ єстъ ѹслꙋги Хв҃ой, которꙋю на семъ свѣтѣ длѧ нш҃го спⷭнїѧ поднѧлъ. [...] До того поѧсъ єстъ знакъ силы, ꙗкъ Іерей, ѡпоѧсꙋючисѧ, выражаєтъ: Бл҃гословенꙿ Бг҃ъ, Препоѧсай мѧ силою свышше.”283 As can be seen from the quoted fragment, purity was something priests also had to pay attention to. The recommendations of the No-mocanon printed in Kiev read: “Не достоитъ свѧщеⷩникꙋ одеждꙋ кра(т)кꙋю носит, но даже до кости долнѧа, и съ страхомъ и прилежанїємъ хранити всѧ сщ҃еннаѧ Цркви Лѵтꙋгⷬіи, ниже паки не измовенноє одѣѧнїє носити, въ ҃Ст҃омъ олтари.”284 External purity was clearly linked to interior purity, what is perfectly illustrated in the advice of the hierarchs where recommendations on hygiene and spiritual issues are stated side by side. The authors of the teachings for yereis reminded them that purity is a particularly important element of preparation for service at the altar: “Хотящему Іерею на заутрїє литургисати, старатися о чистоту душевную и телесную, о которую хотяжъ завжды потребася єму старати лечъ того часу наболшъ.”285 Bishop Arsenii Zheliborskyi in the introduction to the Sluzhebnyk(1646) taught that before celebrating the Eucharist, priests should purify their thoughts, heart, souls and bodies: Очисть и ѡмый напродъ намѣтностїй твоѣхъ ноги, дѣл твоѣхъ рꙋки, и интенцїѣ твоєѣ головꙋ, а тогды пристꙋпай чистый до чистого. Длѧ того абовѣмъ и Сн҃ъ Бж҃їй вꙿпродъ нѣжели ст҃ꙋю Єѵхарістїю своѣмъ подалъ 282 Ibidem, p. 208. 283 Феодосій Софонович, Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой и ѡ церковныхъ речаⷯ, ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой…, Ꙋневъ 1670, f. 6 (268). 284 Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 123–124 (140–141). 285 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [5v]. Оуч҃никѡмъ, гды былъ вꙿ Вечерникꙋ, который Црковъ фѣгꙋрꙋвалъ, нѡги ҃ихъ оумылъ и ѡтерлъ, абысꙿмы и мы чистымъ оумысломъ, срⷣцемъ, дꙋшею и тѣломъ старалисѧ такъ великихъ и вышшеꙋмныхъ оучастниками статисѧ дарѡвъ.286 Tuptalo also appealed to his yereis to care not only for their inter-nal but also external purity: Къ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧй, дабы былъ чистъ не токмѡ дꙋшею, но и тѣломъ, и одежды имѣѧй на себѣ чисты, и рꙋцѣ добрѣ ѡмовенны, и ногти ѿ излищїѧ своєгѡ отребленны, со страхомъ же и благоговѣнїємъ многимъ, дабы совершилъ слꙋженїє своє съ вѣрою и любовїю [...].287 In the Vilnius teaching for yereis, the belief was expressed that the celebrant’s garments, like the liturgical tablecloths and utensils, must be spotless and whole, because if they were foul or tattered, this in-sulted God which is present and involved in the sacraments.288 Therefore, a priest must wear neat robes,289 his hair should be combed, his face, mouth and hands washed and his nails trimmed. All this was 286 Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цр҃ кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ...(Лвовъ 1646), f. 4v. 287 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє..., p. 139. In Purity and Dan-ger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo(first edit. 1966) Mary Douglas demonstrates that the question of purity and hygiene, apart from its medical aspect, is of ethical significance in culture studies as well. This apt observation is confirmed e.g. by Ruthenian manuscripts in which lack of care for purity, especially in the case of consecrated persons, required confession. A priest’s or dea con’s confessionwould read as follows: “Нечистъ вхожах въ цр҃ ковь и крстъ и евангелїє и иконы целовахъст҃҃҃ ых образы и мощи стых и всяку стыню” (Исповѣданіе дїанономъ и поповьско, Trebnyk, 16th century), А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, p. 236. 288 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [8 v]. 289 The conciliar teachings usually do not contain precepts concerning the yereis’ personal hygiene; only their robes are mentioned, cf. Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви...(Лвовъ 1642), p. 208; Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, f. 3. Cf. also “Кождый Іерей абы сукнѣ священнически пристойныи мѣти со усердіемъ старался. И волосы не барзо долгіе носити”, Яковъ Суша, Наука Соборовая…, p. 10. due to their communion with holiness, but also as Mohyla wrote, for the good of the faithful, who will look at him and kiss his hands: Іерей идый къ слꙋженїю Бжⷭтвеⷩныѧ Лѵтꙋргїи, ꙗкоже дш҃ею сице и тѣломъ долженъ єстъ чистъ быти. Тѣмъже аще и все тѣло чисто достоитъ ємꙋ имѣти, и чистыѧ на себѣ ѡдежды, но оубѡ изрѧднѣє главꙋ исчесанꙋю, лице и оуста и рꙋцѣ измовены, пазнокти же обрѣзаны, да иматъ сице чести ради Бжⷭтвенныхъ Таинъ, ꙗко же и людій нань зрѧщихъ, и рꙋкꙋ єгѡ лобзающихъ.290 The above-mentioned basic hygiene practices were also men-tioned by Bishop Shumlanskyi, adding that a priest should always look decent, although of course, this principle applies especially immediately before and during service at the altar. To the above list he also added problems concerning very long moustaches and appropriate shoes. A yerei’s shoes were to be clean and of good quality, in no case could they be clogs or braided bast shoes: А такъ ѡчистивши дꙋшꙋ и тѣлѡ ѿ всѧкоѧ скверни, съ чистою совѣстїю, и съ всѧкимъ тѣла ѡпаствомъ, до Божественной Лѵтꙋргїи маєтъ пристꙋповати. Опаство же тѣла, альбо ѡхендожность на тымъ належитъ, абы свꙗщенникъ завше, а ѡсобливе гды до Церкве Божой на слꙋженїє идетъ, на собѣ мѣлъ сꙋкманꙋ пристойнꙋю, не захлѧпанꙋю, головꙋ и бородꙋ оучесанꙋю, рꙋки оумытїи, пазꙋри ѡбрѣзанїи, ба и оусы єсли въ которогѡ сꙋтъ великїи, навѣслыи на оуста, могꙋтъ быти безъ сꙋмѣнїѧ на передѣ пристриженїи, и ѡбꙋвѧ на ногахъ нехай бꙋдетъ чистоє, и не дегтѧноє, анѣ ходаки, або постоли и личанїи, але ѡвшеки боти, альбо принамнѣй сандалїѧ папꙋцѣ повиненъ свꙗщенникъ кождый мѣти до слꙋхенїѧ ѡсобнїи и прочаѧ.291 The above comments fit in with the reconstruction of priestly for-mation initiated by the bishop and his efforts to increase the author 290 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней (Киевъ 1646), p. 228; Димитрій Ростовській [Туптало], Честнымъ іереомъ..., p. 213. The Nomocanon on the matter: “Не достоитъ, свѧщеⷩникꙋ одеждꙋ кра(т)кꙋю носитꙿ, но даже до кости долнѧа, и съ страхомъ и прилежанїємъ хранити всѧ сщ҃еннаѧ Цр҃кви Лѵтꙋгⷬіи, ниже паки неизмовенноє одѣѧнїє носити, въ Ст҃ом олтари. Тожⷣе завѣщаваєтꙿ Правило 27 Събора Шестагѡ иже въ Трꙋллѣ єдиныѧ Седмицы ѿлꙋченїємꙿ”, Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ…, Киевъ 1629, pp. 123–124 (140–141). 291 Іѡсифъ Шꙋмлѧнский, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа…(Лвовъ 1687), p. 234. On appropriate garments for candidates for the priesthood, cf. Ibidem, p. 227. ity of priests in their parish community. That is why teachings were printed recommending that, also outside the liturgy, a priest should wear a suitable and in particular long robe. These teachings also included comments on secular fashion, especially multi-coloured, dazzling costumes that the cleric should avoid.292 In the kormchaia books, various articles banned wearing female robes293 or decorating their hairs.294 There were dangers related to wearing a moustache during the reception of Holy Communion and particular attention was paid to this in the instructions. The authors of the Vilnius Teaching for yereisand Mohyla in his article entitled Ѡ недостатчествахъ и слꙋчаѧⷯ ѿ части слꙋжащагѡ, сієстъ сщ҃енника advised priests to trim their moustaches, 292 Святительское поученіе новопоставленому священнику, no. 7, p. 104; Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви...(Лвовъ 1642), p. 208; Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, f. 3v; An instruction from a 16th-century chynovnyk features an additional ban on wearing red garments, Херитонія поповськая (Священник святительский), reprinted [in:] А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій...(Приложенія), no. 25, p. XXXIV. At the 1715 Council of Volodymyr the Uniates banned long hair and azure garments, seeking, in the scholar’s view, greater proximity to the Sarmatian culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, cf. І. Скочиляс, Релігія та культура…, p. 33. 293 E.g. chapter 93 of the Kormchaia Book of Dzików, which discusses the problem of “священникох носящих порты женъскыя”, (BJ 71/1952, now returned to the Tarnowski family), cf. a description of the book, Я.Н. Щапов, Восточнославянские…, no. 89. 294 Cf. the rule with the warning against long hair and beards, О власѣхъ почто рече Гь҃ не растите влас главы своєя ни стризите брад ваших, [in:] Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, p. 127. The ban on hair decoration was introduced by Canon 96 of the Quinisext Council, cf. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, p. 200. In the modern edition Canon 96, cf. A. Znosko, Kanony…., p. 105. Some articles were polemical with regard to the customs of Roman Catholics; e.g. the Message of the Monk Nicetascontained a section On the Shaving of Beards and On Growing Hair for Decoration, cf. J. Stradomski, Rękopisy i teksty. Studia nad cerkiewnosłowiańską kulturą literacką Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i Korony Polskiej do końca XVI w., (Krakowsko Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 10), Kraków 2014, pp. 220, 223. because it was a sin to soak it in the Blood of Christ.295 However, if this happened to the celebrant, the instructions recommended that the hair to be well sucked out (dried) and wiped, so that not even one drop fall next to the chalice.296 Problems with moustaches did not escape the attention of Kasian Sakovych, who in his polemic work eagerly recorded all errors, blunders or shortcomings in the liturgical life and ritual practices of Uniates and Orthodox. In criticizing the spoons used for serving the Eucharist, he wrote about moustaches: […] w takim łyżką rozdawaniu Sakramentu trudno się może uchronić, aby jaka kropla nieukapnęła albo na brodę albo na wąs drugiemu albo na velum albo wozduch [...] Jeśliby kropla krwie pań-skiej na chustę albo na cokolwiek ukapneła, tedy to każą wyrzezać ispalić. O nie jednemużby nie tylko chłopowi, ale i popowi wąsatemu i brodatemu, którzy we kwi pańskiej wąsy i brody płuczą te wąsy i te brody trzeba palić. […] Drugiemu też gęba jak las wąsami zarośnie, że ledwo wie mu do gęby pop trafić i koniecznie się musi krew pańska w wąsach omoczyć niżli do ust przyjdzie, czego się tak wielokroć doświadczyło na wielu miejscach.297 Such fear of profaning the Eucharistic gifts was justified, since Metropolitan wanted to prevent this by his advice found not only in the Trebnykarticle, but many years before its release there were also instructions regarding moustaches in the rubrics of the second edition of the Kiev Liturgiarion printed at his initiative.298 295 The authors warned priests that dipping the moustache in the chalice was a grave sin. That is why they should trim their moustache and receive the communion with care, Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [23]. 296 [Петръ Могила], Ѡ слꙋчаѧхъ въ слꙋженіи Бжⷭтвенныѧ Литꙋргїи приключитисѧ могꙋщиⷯ, сице ѿ части Матерїи, сієстъ вещи, ꙗкоже и Формы, сієстъ образа или съвершенїѧ, ꙗкоже и самагѡ слꙋжителѧ, сієстъ сщ҃енника, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., part 1, Киевъ 1646, p. 249. 297 Kasjan Sakowicz, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣ abo Perspektywa…, Krakow 1642, p. 21. 298 The rubrics contain a commentary on the need for the faithful receiving the Com-munion to trim their moustaches as well as precepts for priests concerning the sucking and wiping of their own moustache after receiveing the Holy Communion, cf. Леітꙋргіаріон сиестъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1639, pp. 576, 669. Illustrations of the portraits of well-dressed parish priests were also an expression of care for the way they looked. Yosyf Shumlanskyi’s etchings299 in his Metricscan serve as an example, including the words Мірскаго іерея изображенїєaccompanied by a teaching on a priest’s appearance. It is possible that a similar role was played by numerous presentations of the Fathers of the Church in the liturgical books in those times. Other Requirements In addition to preparations for the celebrant, many of the recommendations in the teachings concerned other conditions that had to be fulfilled before celebrating the liturgy. The sources at that time listed a dedicated and clean shrine and well-protected sacrificial gifts: “Ст҃ый олтарь и всѧ церковь ꙗкѡ палата Црѧ небеснагѡ да бꙋдетъ ҃чиста, частѣ ѿ паꙋтинъ, и сметїѧ ѡчищаємаѧ и изметаємаѧ.”300 A priest’s confession of sins in the ponovlennia manuscripts illustrated possible negligence in this area.301 The shrine should contain a dedicated altar, a pure antimensionwith legible inscriptions,302 and most importantly bread and wine of good quality and origin and a deacon.303 The section on the sacrificial 299 Ilustration is presented on the front cover in this book, see it also in: І. Скочилас, Собори Львівської…, p. 245. 300 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ…, p. 133. On careless storage of the gifts, cf. Ibidem, pp. 130–132. 301 “О цр҃ кви небрежение оудержалъ боудоу и с поучинами и с порохомъ или тѣло Хс҃҃ во мышьми истравилъ”, Исповѣданіе сщенническоє (Sluzhebnyk with Trebnyk, 15th century), “В цр҃ кви небреженїемъ держах с прахомъ и с пооучиною и тѣло Іс҃҃ ъ Хво мъши иставих”, Поновленїє свяшенникомъ (Trebnyk from 16th century), А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь…, vol. 3: Приложенія, pp. 231, 232. 302 On the significance of the antimension in the light of works from the period, cf. A.Z. Nowak, Materiały niekonieczne w księgach liturgicznych…, pp. 147–174. 303 Наоука іереомъ... (Вилно 1617), ff. [12v-13v and 10]; [Петръ Могила], Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже в самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ, (Киевъ 1646), pp. 229–234. gifts was also included in the Brief Catechism(1645), although for more information on this subject the authors referred to the Euchologion, most probably already printed at that time or ready for editing: Найпервѣй гды сщ҃енникъ маєтъ ѿправовати Лꙋтꙋргїю Ст҃ꙋю [...] маєтъ мѣти приналежитꙋю матерїю и зꙋпоⷧнꙋю, маєтъ мѣти хлѣбъ чистый пшеничный квасный, вино тежъ прирожоноє зъ водою барзѡ мало змѣшаноє, по томъ вшелѧкїє належности, беⷥ которыⷯ жаⷣною мѣрою Лѵтꙋргїѧ Ст҃аѧ ѿправоватисѧ не можетъ. Ѡ чомъ достаⷮнаѧ наꙋка в Єѵхолѡгїѧⷯ.304 In addition to liturgical tablecloths and veils, the Orthodox church should have a lit candle, a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit,305 appropriate metal paraments such as a chalice, diskos and asterisk made of gold, silver or lead, but in no case made of copper, iron, wood or glass.306 Remarks of the disciplinary nature referring the church property, mostly valuable gold or silver paraments, which cannot be used for anything other than liturgical purposes and cannot be appropriated, were included by Mykhailo Slozka in the preface to the Lviv Liturgiarion (1637). His arguments were supported by the authority of the church’s canons and teachers, and the whole text ended with a warning. The publisher, entering into the Bishop’s competency, threatened such priests with penalties, including dismissing priests from the spiritual ministry who inadequately celebrated the liturgy or misused the utensils.307 304 [Петръ Могила, Ісаѧ Трофимович-Козловский], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки..., Киев 1645, p. 413. 305 Cf. e.g. “В слꙋженїи проскомисанїє да не начинаєтсѧ прежде, даже возжетсѧ свѣща при ст҃омъ жертвенницѣ, такожде и самыѧ ст҃ыѧ лїтꙋргіи начало, єже єсть, Блогословенно царство, да не начинаєтсѧ прежде, даже возжетсѧ свѣща при ст҃омъ престолѣ, возженнаѧ бо свѣща таинство єсть наитїѧ Ст҃агѡ Дх҃а во огни, ꙗкоже и ѳимїама кажденїє знаменїємъ єсть наитїѧ Ст҃агѡ Дх҃а во облацѣ”, Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ…, pp. 133–134. 306 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [9v]; [Петръ Могила], Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже в самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ, (Киевъ 1646), p. 233. 307 Мїхаилъ Слозка, Преосщ҃еннымъ єже о Хрⷭстѣ, и въ Бл҃гочестїи Апⷭлскиⷯ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ оц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемꙿ...(Лвовъ 1637), f. [4v]. The Sluzhebnyk The greatest attention in the instructions for priests was devoted to the necessity of having a liturgiarion, which was one of the obligatory accessories at the altar during the Holy Mass. The symbolic granting of this book during a priest’s ordination was accompanied by a teaching on proper preparation for the Liturgy: Прійми сію книгу Божественныхъ таинъ послѣдованія, ихъже имаши со всякимъ вниманіемъ и страхомъ Божіимъ съвершити, на всякъ же день долженъ будеши плодъ устенъ твоихъвъ жертву благопріятну Господневѣ приносити: Полунощницу,Утреню, часы, вечерню и павечерницу совершати. Къ служеніюже Божестенныя Литургіи, поистязаніи опасномъ своеясовѣсти,совсякимъ благоговѣніемъ и послѣдованіемъ, еже къ Божественному причащенію, со всѣми миренъ въ чистой совѣсти да приступаеши.308 Many instructions for priests repeatedly included the same warning concerning the necessary presence of the liturgiarions on the altar, and even knowing the text by heart did not justify any exemption from this rule, and the lack of its presence was a mortal sin.309 Dmytro Tuptalo in his Third Preparation for the Liturgy quoted the story of a priest from the Rostov-Jaroslav Metropolitanate area who not only did not use the liturgiarion, but also performed part of the liturgy at home before going to the church, doing so because he followed the bad examples of many older priests. Outraged at this not one-time case of not being in accord with liturgical proceedings, the moralist protested to the admonishment of other celebrants.310 308 А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., p. 209. 309 “Маєть быти служебникъ, без которого єстли бы хто служилъ, бы теж и на памят оумѣющый, грѣшитъ смертелне”, Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [9v]; [Петръ Могила], Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже в самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ, (Киевъ 1646), p. 234. The ban on celebrating the liturgy from memory was pronounced by the bishop when handing the book to a newly ordained priest, cf. A. Naumow, Księgi w Ławrze Kijowskiej, [in:] Domus Divisa…, p. 94, fn. 2. 310 Димитрїй Митрополитъ [Тꙋптало], Третїє прїꙋготовленїє…, pp. 139–140. Liturgiarion, Lviv 1637 Therefore, every priest should have a sluzhebnyk and other necessary items of the church use, and as we read in the very popular Ruthenian teachings for newly ordained priests, he was obliged to take care of the books (probably liturgical) and old icons.311 The words of Kyryl Trankvylion Stavrovetskyi, one of the moralists and reformers in Kievan Metropolitanate, are testimony to the fact that such exhortations were necessary. He criticized parish priests for failing to properly furnish the churches with adequate resources of necessary books: Таковыи всѧ дн҃и живота своего, точїю о вѣнахъ промышлѧютꙿ, а о книзѣ оучитеⷧной ниже помышлѧю(тъ) [...]. Оувы мнѣ внегда ми сїа помыслити, тогⷣа понꙋждѣ слезы каланитѣ проливаю(т)сѧ и теⷨный облаⷦ печали дш҃оу окриваетъ, ꙗко всѧ сїа събыстьсѧ нн҃ѣ предꙿ очима моима, ꙗко врагъ чл҃ча рѡда и слꙋги єго ненавидѧ(тъ) доброго.312 The celebrant should have the sluzhebnyk on the altar during the liturgy. This issue was also addressed in the teachings to the yereisconcerning the various situations that may happen to the priest dur-ing the liturgical celebration. For example, the celebrant, in case of doubt as to the correctness of his spoken words, while holding the book in front of him was able to read the formula once again quietly.313 Kiev’s Metropolitan Kyprian introduced a new type of Sluzhebnykas early as the fourteenth century, caring for the correctness of the liturgical text.314 That is why in the foreword he urgently asked his audience to read and use them, and when copying them, that nothing 311 “Книгы ветошныѣ и иконы постраивай”, Святительское поученіе новопоставленому священнику (13th century), p. 106; Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви...(Лвовъ 1642), p. 208; Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ…, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676, f. 3v. Кирилъ Транквилїон Ставровецкій, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 13 (по Всѣхъ Ст), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное…, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619, f. 274. 313 Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), ff. [9, 28v-29]. In the same instruction the authors recommend that prayers be said with reverence, concentration and, importantly, in their entirety, without anything being left out. A priest should be aware that “God himself invisibly receives each word from his mouth like a pearl”. Ibidem, f. [10]. 314 И. Мансветовъ, Митрополитъ Кипріанъ…, pp. 1-9. ⷯы҃ in the text of the liturgy be omitted or added.315 The above mentioned fears of the hierarchs could have contributed to the popularization of the custom of handing out copies of liturgical books to priests by their bishop.316 This was also true in times when these positions were already available at the Ruthenian typography, to some extent super-vised by the metropolitan,317 and bishops were still obliged to check books and other documents related to spiritual ministry, not only to control the correctness of the liturgical position, but also the priests themselves.318 In addition to the warnings and admonitions regarding improperly understanding the role of the sluzhebnyk in the liturgy we can 315 According to the Metropolitan, changes to the text burden the priest’s conscience with a sin, which, stemming from negligence, was, in his view, worse that the one resulting from ignorance, Митр. Кипріан, Послѣсловіе (ИзъСлужебника), col. 136–138. 316 А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій..., p. 203. The custom does not appear in descriptions of presbyters’ chirotony until the 17th century, but references to it are several centuries older. E.g. a 13th-century kormchaia book records that a yerei received a molytvennyk before leaving for his parish, Ibidem, pp. 202, 210. It may have been an equivalent of the Greek euchologion, including a sluzhebnyk and a trebnyk, which at that time did not function in the form of separate books. Latin Christianity had earlier introduced a division into the missal, the pontifical, the ritual and the breviary, while the division of the material between the sluzhebnyk and the trebnyk was completed in the 17th century, with the spread of printed versions of these books, P. Nowakowski, Pierwsze pontyfikały…, p. 106. 317 For example, in 1637 a Sluzhebnykwas published in Lviv without Petro Mohyla’s consent. The Metropolitan was outraged and banned the use of this edition in the preface to the next Kiev edition of the book (1639). Similarly, in the preface to the 1646 Euchologion Mohyla banned the use of many trebnyks published earlier in Ostroh, Stratyn and Vilnius. 318 In the light of the teaching from Yosyf Shumlanskyi’s Mirror, regular verification entrusted by the bishop to the protopresbyter during the synod was to be applied to trebnyks and sluzhebnyks as well as antimensions, consecration charters, met-rical records: “Кождый протопопа нехай своихъ свꙗщенниковъ презентꙋєтъ на соборѣ помѣстномъ єпископскомъ, а свꙗщенници нехай показꙋютъ Требники, Слꙋжебники, антимисы, листи становиыє, метрики, а єсли который не маєтъ зъ собою, теды ѿецъ протопопа чистою совѣстїю маєтъ зезнати, єсли мают метрики и все належноє”, Іосифъ Шꙋмлꙗнский, Ꙗкосѧ маютъ Ѿц҃еве протопопове…(Ꙋневъ 1680), p. 3. also find in the teachings at that time, many exalted tones of encouragement for its acquisition and devout usage. The preface to the first Kiev Liturgiarion (1620) already showed that the printing of this position was treated as a requirement for salvation.319 The writings in the Mohylan Sluzhebnyksconfirm the superiority of liturgical over the Biblical thinking.320 About the sacred liturgy, the mystery of our sal-vation: “вꙿ которойсѧ всѣ, и самый Агглⷭкїй розꙋмъ превосходѧщїй збавенѧ нш҃егѡ Мѵстирїа, або Таємницѣ ѿправꙋю(тъ),” wrote Bishop Arsenii Zhelyborskyi in the foreword to the Liturgiarion issued in Lviv (1646), claiming that the liturgiarion guarantees its proper celebration: “До которыⷯ порѧдногѡ, пристойногѡ и єдиночиⷩного ѿправованѧ Ѿци Ст҃ыѣ Дх҃а Ст҃ого полныѣ, тꙋю Ст҃ꙋю Книгꙋ Лѵ҃ргїарїоⷩ спорѧдивши, намъ сꙋкцессиве преподали.”321 The apology of this “sacred book” containing words whose power transubstantiates the Eucharistic gifts was included in the letter of dedication in the Vilnius Liturhikon by Metropolitan Kyprian Zhokhovskii: Но понеже къ олтароⷨ Гн҃имꙿ Ст҃ыⷨ прислꙋшаєтъ Жертва Гн҃ѧ, приношаю оубѡ ти съ всѧкимъ нижайшимꙿ смѣренїємъ, єще вꙿ сицевомъ сочиненїи николижде видѣнъ леітꙋргікон си єстъ Слꙋжебникъ Ст҃ый. Симъ оубо Слꙋжебникомꙿ съ орꙋжиши, и оумножиши олтарѧ Спⷭтлѧ нашего. Но ꙗко жертва Гн҃ѧ єстъ безконечной вꙿ себѣ цѣни, такожде и составленїє Жертви Гн҃ей єстъ драгоцѣнноє предъ очима Бж҃їими, єстъ тѧгота безконечной къ намъ любве. Бл҃гоꙋханїє имать сїѧ Книга любвє Хв҃ы къ намꙿ, ꙗже всегда соравнѧєтꙿсѧ смерти заны подꙿꙗтой. Нн҃ѣ же Воспоминанїє тоєйжде изѧвлѧєтъ смерти. Горка кꙋпно сїѧ Книга къ поглощенію, но бл҃гопрїѧтна и сладка совершающимъ и общенїє имꙋщимъ достойно Жертвы Гн҃ей. Єстꙿ Книга ст҃аѧ, но ст҃ыⷨ Книга Агг҃лскаѧ, но Агг҃ломъ. Сею сщ҃енници Гд҃ни словесъ оупотреблꙿше всесилныхъ: Сіє єстъ Тѣло моє, сіѧ єстъ Кровь моѧ, 319 A. Naumow, Księgiw Ławrze Kijowskiej, [in:] Domus Divisa..., p. 93. 320 Ibidem, p. 98; cf. also M. Melnik, Zbawcze działanie sakramentu Eucharystii, [in:] Idem, Problematyka…, pp. 186–192. 321 Арсенїй Желиборскій, Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Архїепⷭпомъ, Єпⷭпомъ Россійскїа Цр҃ кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ...(Лвовъ 1646), f. 5. съвершающе, осщ҃ающе, ниⷥводѧще съ нб҃съ Га҃ и Сп҃са нашего въмѣщаютꙿ Бытїє єго, подꙿ видами Хлѣба и Вина.322 Similar statements can also be found in other prefaces and letters of dedication. Elisei Pletentskyi referred to the liturgiarion as the book of the “three holy and divine liturgies” and said to treat it as the drink of salvation, the water stirred by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the heavenly gift, while at the same time warning against the harmful influence of strange water.323 Зазорно бо єстъ и не блг҃честиво ѿ чꙋждыхъ черпати водꙋ оученій, ꙗкоже премꙋдрость гл҃етъ: Сн҃е пій вѡды ѿ своиⷯ съсꙋдꙿ и ѿ своихъ стꙋденец и источникъ, и паки ѿ воды же чꙋждыѧ ошайсѧ, и ѿ истоⷱника чꙋждаго не пїй. Но се ѹбо вамъ (ѡсщ҃єнїй ѿци съслꙋжителїє, и братїѧ наша възлюбленнаѧ) источникъ Іаковль. [...] Достойно же и праведно ѿ сего источника чашꙋ растворѧти, и пити.324 Mykhailo Slozka, the secular publisher of the Liturhiarion, em- phasized the value of the book, calling it “an extremely valuable and shining pearl for the salvation of the human race.”325 In many paratexts on liturgical positions, the process of editing of these important books in the life of the Ruthenian Church are shown 322 Ципрїанъ Жоховскїй, Ꙗсне освецономꙋ Ѯіонженцю Єго Милости Каролю Станиславови Радивилꙋ з Бж҃ой лаⷭки на Олыце, Несвѣжꙋ и Клеⷰкꙋ Панства Римскаго Ѯіонженцю […], [in:] Леітоургікон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692-1695, ff. [3v-4]. 323 “[…] любовъ, тщаніе же наше и подвигъ ѡ Гдⷭѣ, о блг҃очестивыхъ же Ктиторѡвъ, Лавры Печерскїа Кіевскіа, блг҃одѣѧнїє бл҃годарственнѣ прїймѣте, не ꙗкѡ ѿ земныⷯ, но ꙗкоже съвышше исходѧшее дарованїє”, Єлїссей Плетенецкїй, Пресвѣтлымъ въ блг҃очⷭтїи, Апⷭлскихъ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ ѡц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемъ..., [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620, f. 3 (first foliation). Cf. a reprint of the preface in: Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, p. 30. For more on the subject, cf. A. Naumow, Księgi w Ławrze…., pp. 94–95. 324 Ibidem, ff. 2v-3 (first foliation). Cf. also Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли…, pp. 29–30. A commentary on the Biblical sources cited in this fragment, cf. A. Naumow Księgi w Ławrze…, pp. 94–95. 325 Мїхаилъ Слозка, Преѡсщ҃еннымъ єже ѡ Хрⷭстѣ, и въ Бл҃гочестїи Апⷭлскиⷯ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ оц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемꙿ…, (Лвовъ 1637), f. [4v]. Earlier on the words of liturgical prayers as pearls received invisibly from the priest’s mouth by the Lord, cf. Наоука іереомъ...(Вилно 1617), f. [10]. as part of the actions undertaken for religious, spiritual and educational renewal of the Orthodox. For example, in the colophon of the first edition of the Sluzhebnyk in Kievan Metropolitanate (1583), print-ers from the Mamonych house wrote about the need to distribute corrected versions of the book among the clergy, since their quality is important for the faithful.326 Gedeon Balaban in the preface to the Liturgiarion (1604) presented the book as a manifestation of the initiated reform, which was to include the establishment of schools and a typography.327 Moreover, he wrote in it, just as in the introduction to the Trebnyk (1606), about his endeavours to organize the sacramental and liturgical practices in Kievan Metropolitanate.328 [...] азъ ѿ бл҃женныѧ и ст҃ыѧ памѧти Мелетїа папы Алеѯанⷣрійскаго, тогда правѧщоу ємоу прⷭтлъ въселенскый, подвиженъ сщ҃енными его писанꙿми, проѹсмотрившѹ крайнєє сїе благоє, въ нихꙿъ же вѣща, видѧщꙋ емоу паденїє наше, подобааше ѹбо, и нинѣ подобеєтъ, аще не послѣднѧѧ хощете 326 Cf. Chapter One, fn. 17. 327 Гедеѡнъ Болобанъ,Предословїє. Ст҃ыѧ въсточныѧ католицкїѧ и аплⷭкыѧ цр҃кве, сщ҃еннодѣйствїа православнымъ въслѣдѡвателемъ, съслоужителемъ же смѣренїа нашего о Гѣ҃ братїамъ, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵⷮргїѧ, Стрꙗтiнъ 1604, pp. 2–4 (first pagina-tion). Cf. also a reprint of the preface in: П. Строев,Обстоятельное описание старопечатных книг славянскихи российских, хранящихся в библиотеке... графа Федора Андреевича Толстого, Москва 1829, no. 46, pp. 101–102. 328 “Дроукарню съставльше, вꙿ лѣпотѹ ꙗко ноужнѣє тѵпарꙿскими ороудїи слоужебники прежде поноужденїе имоуще на се ꙗкоже варивъ рекохъ блаженѣйшимъ Мелетїемъ, таже требникъ сей изꙿобразити непщевахѡмъ. Вꙿ нихꙿже да не кто порицаєтъ намъ ѿ иже разномыслїю радоущихꙿсѧ о нѣкихъ вещехъ, найпаче же о проскомидїи, и о частехъ хлѣба на дискосѣ полагаемыхъ не съгласїѧ ради съ древними писаными слоужебниками: да вѣсть кождо, ꙗко не ѿ своего мнѣнїа, или моудрꙋванїа сице положихомъ. Но разѹмъ и разъписанїє о семъ древле блаженныѧ памѧти Іеремїи патрїарха вселенꙿского, иже и зде оу насъ странꙿствовавшаго, таже и блаженѣйшаго Мелетїа сꙿ книгъ Греческихъ намъ ѿ него посланыхъ на словенꙿскїѧ съ въсѧкимъ опасꙿствомъ исꙿтлъковати повелѣвше, сице положихѡмъ”, Гедеѡнъ Балабанъ, Предословїє въ книгоу сїю. Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ іереѡмъ и дїаконѡⷨ и прочимъ сщ҃еннаго причта съслꙋжителемъ, и братїѧмъ о Гдⷭѣ возлюбленымъ сп҃сеннѧ молюсѧ, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ..., Стрѧтинъ 1606, ff. 4v-5. пострадати, гѵмнасїа и тѵпографїю съставити -сіеже рече ѹмноженїа ради книгъ, въ преподанїе разѹма [...].329 Afterwards, these issues were addressed by Petro Mohyla in his forewords.330 * * * The teachings addressed to the clergy at the beginning of the seventeenth century gave a multifaceted yet coherent picture of a priest’s proper preparation for serving at the altar. Detailed advice could be found in very valuable newly published books which were specifically devoted to this issue: Teaching for Yereis from the Sluzhebnyk (Vilnius 1617) and the commentaries on the Eucharist from the Great Trebnyk (Kiev 1646) by Petro Mohyla. They then became the inspiration for the manuscript instructions by Dmytro Tuptalo, the informational teachings present even today in many of sluzhebnyks and other separately printed reference works. These items contain instructions on the intellectual, spiritually-religious, and moral aspects of the celebrant’s readiness for the liturgy including his knowledge. What is more, these works are filled with many explanations in reference to the accessories of the church, the altar and the set of liturgical vestments. Selected topics related with the theme of a celebrant’s spiritual preparation to serve at the altar were the subject of discussion in nu-merous prefaces and introductory articles (for example, the teaching of Basil the Great) in liturgical books, mainly liturgiarions, among 329 Гедеѡнъ Болобанъ, Предословїє. Ст҃ыѧ въсточныѧ католицкїѧ и аплⷭкыѧ цркве...҃ (Стрꙗтiнъ 1604), p. 2; cf. also П. Строев,Обстоятельное описание…, no. 46, pp. 101–102. 330 Especially the preface to the Euchologion, cf. Петръ Могила, Пренайвелебнѣйшимꙿ и Бг҃олюбезнѣйшиⷨ ихꙿ Милостѧⷨ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемъ и в Дх҃ꙋ Ст҃омъ Братїѧмъ, Епⷭпомъ православнымъ Церкви Рѡссійской, Преподобнымꙿ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемꙿ Архімандритѡмꙿ, Превелебнымꙿ Игꙋменомꙿ, Велебнымъ Іеромонахѡмъ, Перечестнымъ Протопопоⷨ, Честнымꙿ Іереомꙿ, и всемꙋ весполꙿ клирꙋ церковномꙋ православномꙋ бл҃гословенства Бж҃ого, ласки, покоѧ, и всѣхъ дочасныⷯ и вѣчныхъ добръ оупрійме зычитъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн..., Киевъ 1646, ff. [2-6v]. which notably stands out small liturgical preface-treatise by Tarasii Zemka. In some cases, they also contained organizational and disciplinary type recommendations for the priest. The first catechism teachings and catechisms printed during this time had great informational value, including former and new exhortations by bishops to priests, and the first textbook treatises on liturgics (inspired by the Byzantine mystagogies of the work of Feodosii Sofonovych), pastoral theology (Peace with Godby Innokentii Gizel, Kiev 1669) and positions on canonical law (Nomocanon, Kiev 1620, 1624, 1629 and Lviv 1646). They provided supplementary knowledge similar to sermons during Middle Ages, the writings of the Church Fathers and other didactically oriented hagiographic and also polem-ical works. Conclusions The programme for the renewal of the clergy – reflected in a variety of ecclesiastical regulations, disciplinary norms, theological and moral teachings for priests – discussed in the book demonstrates the dynamics and directions of the reform of the priesthood undertaken in the Kievan Metropolitanate first spontaneously at the turn of the 17th century and later in an organized renewal campaign led by Metropolitan Petro Mohyla and those who continued his work. The overview of formation materials carried out in Chapter 1 demonstrates a clear quantitative and qualitative progress in the efforts of the reformers. They began with small works to be used in the education and self-education in essential ritual and pastoral needs, i.e. liturgy, sacraments, parenesis, works often included in the paratexts of printed church (liturgical) books. Next came selfcontained, substantial books devoted to these subjects – catechisms, collections of laws, theological treatises and theology textbooks. In addition, efforts were constantly made to reach more and more readers with this useful body of literature. The main target group was ordinary priests, especially from poorer parishes or those located far away from centres of learning, who, for financial or organizational reasons, had limited access to educational material. The measures undertaken at the time sought to strengthen the entire Church, its external position and internal condition. First of all, the reformers wanted to weaken the influence of the laity on the Church and make the higher levels of the hierarchy independent of decisions taken by Polish kings and magnates, who had the right to designate their own candidates for episcopacy (right of investiture, ktitor rights). This was because bishops determined the institutional existence of the Orthodox Church, its unity and cohesion, quality of the clergy, correctness of rites, teaching, effectiveness of the pastoral ministry and material security. The fundamental problem was that of a return to old procedures (the so-called conciliar procedures) for electing bishops in the Eastern Church, procedures found in medieval legal and liturgical books, and abandoned in connection with the right of investiture. The procedures involved the entire Church community, the clergy and the faithful through their representatives, and the entire community decided which candidate would be best for leading the faithful, especially at times of crisis. Another topic tackled by the reformers was the essence of episcopacy – teaching, protection, leadership of the community, both of the clergy and the faithful. The duty regarded as central in that difficult period was control over the admission of candidates for the priesthood, verification of their qualifications for the ministry, and implementation of a system of education of the lower clergy by higher clergy. Given the increasing laicization of life and decline of the general authority of the “white” priests, the reformers lauded the advantages of monasticism, always seen as an embodiment of the Evangelical ideals and the way of life preached by Christ. Thus the belief was that recruitment of bishops from among monks would be a guarantee of offices being entrusted to responsible consecrators, vigilant guardians of morality and enlightened leaders of the ecclesiastical boat. This was to prevent the biggest maladies of the day, maladies known in all Churches – simony, bishoprics entrusted to lay men, married men, remarried widowers or those in military service as well as all those treating their office as a source of power and income. A similar reform programme was presented to the lower clergy. The idea was mainly to present universal principles which, irrespective of circumstances, would regulate admission to the priesthood. The work started from the basics, i.e. from candidates’ individual motivation – candidates who were spiritually lacking, as they were interested in the benefits of the ministry instead of serving God and people, were to be excluded. Emphasis was placed on a sincere intention to devote oneself to the ministry, conscientious reception of the sacrament, as well as full awareness of the spiritual threats, hardships and responsibilities associated with the priesthood. Like in the case of episcopal positions, the reformers saw a need for a verification of candidates with regard to their origins (legitimacy, Christian family), social status (free men) and morality. An effective tool of verification was to be a pre-consecration interview with the candidate and an open selection procedure. Teachings and treatises provided detailed analyses of the conditions of ordination, highlighting barriers like self-castration, hermaphroditism or recent conversion. In this last case and in the case of illegitimacy, the 17th century saw a softening of the canonical rules, which now made it possible to consecrate exceptionally zealous and pious candidates. Another novelty was a change in the age of bishops, presbyters and other church servers at which they could be allowed to assume their offices. The age threshold was lowered by five years, although it was a common practice to ordain fairly young men. The liberalization of the law was justified by a state of necessity, mainly a lack of worthy candidates for the priesthood. Traditionalists from monastic circles demanded that future priests be moral above all, explaining their view by referring to Christ’s teachings addressed to his disciples. Conservatives representatives of this milieu, e.g. Ivan Vyshenskyi, put morality above knowledge which priests should acquire, and made light of the problem of uneducated candidates for the ministry. However, most reformers understood perfectly that priests needed to be educated, which is why they strongly criticized ignorance: lack of religious knowledge and practical skills in celebrating services. Unfortunately, drawing on the available literature it is difficult to formulate clear conclusions concerning the scope of knowledge the candidates required. What was new in bishops’ instructions was encouragement for parish priests to send their sons – as their potential successors in the parishes – to be educated in schools. The situation in terms of education was better during the era of Petro Mohyla, who demanded that graduates of the Kiev College and confraternity schools be ordained, if possible. The skills recommended to the clergy included linguistic competence. The reformers pointed out that priests needed to master not only Church Slavonic – in order to celebrate the liturgy in a dignified manner – but also Polish and even Latin. These languages enabled the speakers to participate in social dialogue and political life, without which it would be difficult, or even impossible, to rebuild the authority of priests. The reformers also stressed the need to organize practical training before and after consecration as well as ensure continuous control of the priests’ knowledge and installation documents. An overview of the publishing offer of Ruthenian printing houses demonstrates that the editors collaborated with the reformers and sought to provide priests with educational material. The dominant theme in 17th-century reflections on the priesthood was the liturgical-sacramental ministry of the altar. They included information about the spiritual and substantive preparation for the ministry as well as the correct disciplinary and organizational order. The former received the most attention. Those regarded as spiritually ready for their work were priests with a clear conscience and reconciled with other people, which is why the rules and instructions often touched upon the subject of confession, specifying its frequency over a year, listing sins that made the celebration of the Divine Service impossible (e.g. hatred, sins of the flesh, drunkenness), and providing aids facilitating the examination of conscience. They also included warnings against unworthy ministry of the altar, and calls on priests to be role models for the faithful and not a source of scandal. Following medieval teachings, the reformers advocated a pre--liturgy state of “trembling of the heart”, fear and humility for priests. Measures conducive to the achievement of such a state were fasting and recitation of the canonical hours. In line with the reforming tendencies, demands were put forward for the celebrants to have a body of knowledge of the roots of the liturgy as well as the meaning of the ritual and its symbolism. Only those priests who understood the essence of the Sacrifice and their own role in it could, as the reformersstressed, celebrate this honourable ministry in a proper manner, i.e. humble in the face of the truth that they were responsible for this act, of crucial significance in the history of salvation. Some rules concerning the Divine Service also included a casuistic part with advice on unexpected incidents occurring before, during and after the liturgy. They included instructions concerning difficultieswith the availability of confessors or celebration of the Mass in emergency situations. Disciplinary and organizational instructions defined the proper appearance of priests (cleanliness, recommended garments), obligatory altar accessories (utensils) and necessary books – a liturgiarion was mandatory, for example. The rules applying to the Eucharist and the discipline of the consecrated persons were intended to organize, harmonize and purify liturgical rites in Orthodox churches. This in turn was to contribute to a restoration of the dignity of clergymen – bishops in their dioceses and priests in their parishes. The Orthodox reformers also understood the significance and effectiveness of teaching from the pulpit, which strengthened the Protestant Church and renewed the Catholic Church after the Council of Trent. As early as in the 16th century there emerged in the Orthodox Church a substantial number of homiletic works, in both manuscript and printed form, which dealt with the spiritual revival of priesthood. Sermons delivered on various occasions promoted the ideal of the servant of the altar and pointed to his virtues, but were especially zealous in denouncing his vices and most common offences, like laziness, drunkenness and indifference, which not only scandalized the faithful, but also demoralized them and encouraged conversion to other denominations. Not all of the topics presented in the present book have been examined in sufficient detail. Teachings of the day considered issues like the role and form of teaching in the Orthodox Church, education of preachers, relations between the spiritual and the secular authority as well as the very important question of the dignity and reverence owed to consecrated persons. They were discussed frequently in connection with multi-level efforts to rebuild the ethos and raise the prestige of the priesthood in society. Nevertheless, the plan for a renewal of the Orthodox Church emerging from the present study undoubtedly shows that in its main premises it was not much different from the programmes of other Churches. However, the barriers to its implementation were far greater. The Eastern Church functioned in more difficult ecclesiastical and organizational conditions; it was divided and, in the case of Orthodox Church until Petro Mohyla’s times, it was without one officially recognized administrative, educational and theological centre that would determine the direction of changes and measures to be employed for the purpose. Streszczenie Wrozprawie omówiony został przeprowadzony wmetropolii kijowskiej program religijnego odrodzenia, którego istotną, jeśli nie najważniejszą częścią, była odnowa stanu duchownego, zaś podstwo-wym narzędziem stała się księga (przede wszystkim drukowana). Przegląd materiałów formacyjnych wyraźnie wskazuje postęp ilościowy oraz jakościowy wpracy reformatorów. Rozpoczęli oni od drobnych dzieł służących kształceniu isamokształceniu wzakresie najważniejszych potrzeb obrzędowych iduszpasterskich. Następnie przyszła kolej na samodzielne, obszerne książki, poświęcone tym tematom. Stale intensyfikowano też wysiłki na rzecz poszerzenia kręgu odbiorców tej użytecznej literatury. Ważnym ich adresatem stał się wówczas szeregowy kapłan. Prowadzone działania były ukierunkowane na wzmocnienie całego Kościoła, jego pozycji zewnętrznej istanu wewnętrznego. Wpierwszym rzędzie dążono do rozluźnienia wpływu świeckich na Cerkiew oraz uniezależnienia wyższej hierarchii od decyzji możnowładców. Od biskupów bowiem zależał byt instytucjonalny Cerkwi, jej jedność ispoistość, jakość kleru, poprawność obrzędów, nauczanie, skuteczne duszpasterstwo, bezpieczeństwo materialne. Na pierwszym miejscu stanął podstawowy problem – powrotu do dawnych procedur (tzw. soborowych) wyboru biskupa wKościele wschodnim, zapisanych wśredniowiecznych księgach prawno-liturgicznych, azarzuconych wzwiązku zprawem podawania. Drugim tematem poruszanym przez odnowicieli była istota urzędu biskupa – nauczanie, ochrona, przewodnictwo wspnocie, zarno klerowi, jak iwiernym. Za centralny obowiązek wtym trudnym okresie uznano kontrolę nad przyjmowaniem kandydatów do stanu kapłańskiego. Wobec postępującej laicyzacji życia ispadku ogólnego autorytetu „białych” kapłanów przypomniano zalety stanu mniszego. Rekrutacja biskupów spośród mnichów miała być najwyższą gwarancją oddawania stanowisk odpowiedzialnym konsekratorom izapobiegać największym bolączkom czasów, znanym we wszystkich Kościołach (m.in. symonia, obejmowanie biskupstw przez ludzi świeckich, żona-tych, wdowców-dwużeńców, karierowiczów). Podobny program odnowy starano się przedstawić niższemu duchowieństwu. Zmierzano głównie do prezentacji uniwersalnych zasad, regulujących system przyjęć do tego stanu, niezależnie od okoliczności. Tak jak jak wprzypadku stanowisk biskupich, widziano potrzebę wstępnego zweryfikowania kandydata pod kątem pochodzenia, statusu społecznego imoralności. Większość reformatorów doskonale rozumiała także potrzebę kształcenia, dlatego zdecydowanej krytyce poddawano ciemnotę umysłową. Nowością wpouczeniach biskupich były zachęty do proboszczów, aby posyłali synów jako potencjalnych swoich następców wparafiach na naukę do szkół. Wśród zalecanych duchowieństwu umiejętności znalazły się kompetencje językowe. Wskazywano potrzebę władania nie tylko językiem cerkiewnosłowiańskim, potrzebnym do godnego sprawowania liturgii, ale również językiem polskim, anawet łaciną. Języki te pozwalały włączyć się wdialog społeczny iżycie polityczne, bez czego odbudowa autorytetu kapłana była trudna, jeśli nie niemożliwa. Akcentowano także potrzebę organizowania praktycznych szkoleń oraz ustawiczną kontrolę wiedzy idokumentów instalacyjnych. Dominującym tematem rozważań nad kapłaństwem wXVII wieku była liturgiczno-sakramentalna służba wołtarzu. Wobrębie tematu poszerzano zakres informacji o duchowym i merytorycznym przygotowaniu do niej oraz właściwym porządku dyscyplinarno--organizacyjnym. Reguły odnoszone do Eucharystii oraz normujące dyscyplinę życia osób konsekrowanych, miały na celu ujednolicenie ioczyszczenie obrzędów liturgicznych wcerkwiach. To zkolei miało pozytywnie wpływać na przywrócenie powagi stanu kapłańskiego – urzędu biskupa wdiecezjach iosoby kapłana wparafiach. Cerkiewni reformatorzy rozumieli również znaczenie iskuteczność nauczania zambony. Już wXVI wieku pojawiła się znaczna ilość materiałów kaznodziejskich, rękopiśmiennych idrukowanych, wktórych poruszano kwestie odrodzenia duchowego kapłaństwa. Wkazaniach popularyzowano ideał sługi ołtarza, wskazywano jego zalety, ale ze szczególną gorliwością piętnowano przywary inaj-częstsze przewinienia, które gorszyły idemoralizowały wiernych, aczasem skłaniały ich do konwersji na inne wyznania. Plan odnowy Cerkwi, jaki wyłonia się zniniejszych studiów, przekonuje, że wgłównych swoich założeniach nie odbiegał on od programu innych Kościołów. Przeszkody, które stały na drodze do jego wprowadzenia były jednak znacznie większe, bowiem Cerkiew funkcjonowała wtrudnych warunkach eklezjalno-organizacyjnych. Niniejsza książka, wktórej poruszonono problematykę rzadko podejmowaną przez polskich badaczy, powinna wpewnym stopniu uzupełnić wiedzę oprzebiegu iskutkach reform cerkiewnych wpaństwie polsko-litewskim, atakże zweryfikować stereotypowe wyobra-żenia oich kształcie iprzebiegu. Bibliography Sources Old prints, fascimiles and along with original orthography preserved editions Kalnofojski Atanazy, ΤΕΡΑΤΟΥΡΓΗΜΑlubo cuda które były tak w samym świętocudotwornym monastyru pieczarskim kijowskim jako i w obydwu swiętych pieczarach, w których po woli Bożej Błogosławieni Ojcowie Pie-czarscy pożywszy, i ciężary ciałswoich złożyli, Kij 1638 (edition with second text: Denisowicz Hilarion, PARERGON cudów świętych obraza przeczystej Bogarodzice w monastyru Kupiatyckim, Kij 1638; [reprinted in:] Seventeenth-Century Writings on the Kievan Caves Monastery, With an Introd. by P. Lewin, texts: vol. 4, Cambridge Mass. 1987. [Kossow Silwester], ПATEPIKONabo żywoty ss. ojców pieczarskich, Kij 1635; [reprinted in:] Seventeenth-Century Writings on the Kievan Caves Monastery, Cambridge Mass. 1987. [Kossow Sylwester], Cherubin przy akcie pogrzebowym przewielebnego w Bogu Ojca Jego M. Jozepha Bobrykowicza, Wilno 1635. Pimin Euzebi, LIΘOΣabo kamieńz procy prawdy cerkwie świętej prawosławnej ruskiej na skruszenie fałeczno ciemnej Perspektiwy albo raczej paszkwilu od Kassiana Sakowicza, Kij 1644. Prokopowicz Tarassy, Żniwo cnót i chwały wiecznej Jaśnie Przewielebnego wBogu Jego Mości Arseniego Żeliborskiego Episcopa Lwowskiego, Lw 1665. Sakowicz Kasjan, EПANOPΘΩΣIΣabo Perspektywa i objaśnienie błędów, herezjej i zabobonóww Grekoruskiej Cerkwi Disunickiej tak w artykułach wiary, jako i w administrowaniu sakramentów i w inszych obrządkach i ceremoniach znajdujących się, Krak 1642. Smotrycki Melecjusz [Ortholog Theophil], ΘΡΗΝΟΣto jest Lament jednej ś. Powszechnej Apostolskiej Wschodniej Cerkwie z objaśnieniem Dogmat Wiary przez Theophila Orthologa tejże świętej wschodniej Cerkwie Syna(Wilno 1610); [reprinted in:] Collected Works of Meletij Smotryc’kyj, With an Introd. by D.A. Frick, texts: vol. 1, Cambridge Mass. 1987. Балабанъ Гедеѡнъ, Предословїє въ книгоу сїю. Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ іереѡмъ и дїаконѡⷨ и прочимъ сщ҃еннаго причта съслꙋжителемъ, и братїѧмъ о Гдⷭѣ возлюбленымъ сп҃сеннѧ молюсѧ, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. Барановичъ Лазар, Трꙋбы на дни нарочитыѧ празⷣникоⷡ Гдⷭскиⷯ, Бг҃ородичныⷯ, Аг҃глскиⷯ, Пррⷪчскихꙿ, Апⷭлскиⷯ, Мч҃еническиⷯ, Ст҃лскихꙿ, Чꙋдотворцоⷡ, Беⷥсреберникоⷡ, Бл҃гочестивагѡ Цр҃҃ ѧ и Кнзей и прѡⷱ., Киевъ 1674. Божествъныѧ лѵⷮргїѧ, Стрꙗтiнъ 1604. Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620. Болобанъ Гедеѡнъ, Предисловїе въ книгꙋ сію, [in:] Еѵⷢлїе Ꙋчительное, Крилосъ 1606. Болобанъ Гедеѡнъ, Предословїє. Ст҃҃ ыѧ въсточныѧ католицкїѧ и аплⷭкыѧ цркве, сщ҃еннодѣйствїа православнымъ въслѣдѡвателемъ, съслоужителемъ же смѣренїа нашего о Гѣ҃ братїамъ, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵⷮргїѧ, Стрꙗтiнъ 1604; [reprinted in:] П. Строев,Обстоятельное описание старопечатных книг славянских и российских, хранящихся в библиотеке [...] графа Федора Андреевича Толстого, Москва 1829. [Васіліє Великий], Иже въ Ст҃ыⷯ Оц҃а нш҃еⷢ Васілїа Великаго, архієпⷭпа Кесарїа Каппадокійскїа поꙋченїє къ іереѡмъ, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620. [Васіліє Великий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ ѿца нашего Васіліа Великаⷢ архіепіскопа Кесаріа Каппадокійскїа, посланїе къ иже подꙿ нимъ епіскопѡмъ, ꙗко да не поставлѧти имъ на пѣнѧзехъ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ҃ , Лвовъ 1614. Винницкий Іннокентій, Катихисіс албо Наꙋка хрⷭтїанскаꙗ, вꙿ коротцѣ зꙿ розныхъ авторѡвъ зебраннаѧ (Ꙋневъ 1685); [reprinted in:] Катихисіс або бароковий душпастирський сад, ed. and introd. В. and Д. Пилипович, Перемишль 2007. Въслѣдованіє исходноє ѿ ѿвѣтовъ ст҃ѣйшаго патрїархи, гдⷭіна Ѳеѡдора, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Наꙋка албо способъ зложенꙗ казанѧ на погрєбѣ, [in:] Ключъ Разꙋмѣніѧ, Киевъ 1659. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Ключъ Разꙋмѣнїѧ сщ҃енникомъ законнымъ и свѣцкимъ належачый, Киевъ 1659; [reprinted in:] К. Біда, Іоанікій Ґалятовський ійого „Ключъ Разуміня”, Рим 1975. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Казанє на Сошествіє С(вѧтого) Дх҃а, [in:] Ключъ Разꙋмѣнїѧ, Киевъ 1659. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Нб҃о новоє зꙿ новыми звѣздами сотворенное то єстъ Преблⷭвеннаѧ Дв҃а Мр҃їа Бц҃а з Чꙋдами Своими, Лвовъ 1665. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Предмова до Сщ҃енникѡвъ Законныхъ и Свѣцкихъ, [in:] Ключъ Разꙋмѣнїѧ, Киевъ 1659. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Грѣхи розмаитїи, вократцѣ написанные, дѡ сповѣдника и до исповѣдаючагѡсѧ належатъ, жебы до сповѣди готꙋюч(и)йсѧ Книжкꙋ тꙋю читалъ и видалъ, ꙗкихъ маєтꙿ грѣховъ сповѣдатисѧ и жебы сповѣдникꙿ, тꙋю Книжкꙋ читаючи вѣдалъ, ꙗкихъ єго маєтъ на сповѣди слꙋхати грѣхоⷡ и ѡд нихъ разрѣшити, Чернѣгѣвъ 1685, ; [reprinted in:] Ключ розуміння, oprac. І.П. Чепіга, Київ 1985. Галѧтовский Іоаникій, Предмова исповѣднікꙋ ѡ нѣкоторихъ власностѧⷯ до покꙋти належачихъ, [in:] Грѣхи розмаитїи, Чернѣгѣвъ 1685. Геннадіа патрїархи кѡнстантїнꙋполска и иже при немъ събравшагосѧ Ст҃го Събора къ всѣмъ сщ҃еннѣйшимъ митрополитѡмꙿ и къ Папѣ Римъскомꙋ, окрꙋженно, сирѣчъ, бездѣ рассланное посланїе, ѡ еже не бывати на пѣнѧзехъ хіротонїам, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ҃ Лвовъ 1614. Гізіел Иннокентїй, Миръ съ Бг҃омъ чл҃вѣкꙋ или Покаѧніє Ст҃оє, примирѧющее Бг҃ови чл҃вѣка Ꙋченїємъ ѿ Писанїѧ Ст҃го и ѿ Ꙋч҃тлей Цр҃кѡвныхъ собраннымъ, Киевъ 1669. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 1 вꙿ нейже изѧвлѧєтꙿсѧ, како кто приꙋготовлѧти себе имать ко причащенїю Пречⷭтыхꙿ и Животворѧщихъ Таинъ Хрⷭтовыхъ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 2, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 2 вꙿ нейже второє приѹготовленїє преⷣлагаєтꙿ Любовь Любителеви, къ причастїю Бж҃ествеⷩныⷯ Дарѡвъ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 2, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 2 о достоинствѣ и чести сщ҃еннической вꙿ обществѣ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 1, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 3 вꙿ нейже третее приꙋготовленїє похвалѧєтъ Любовꙿ Любителеви, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 2, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 4 о приꙋготовленїи къ Трапезѣ Ст҃ой, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 2, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 7 о приꙋготовленїи седмомꙿ ко причащенїю Cт҃ыⷯ Бж҃ественныхꙿ Таинъ Хрⷭтовыхъ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 2, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 7 о Чистотѣ. Вꙿ нейже пребывати должеⷩ Іерей, въ времѧ самаⷢ Ст҃агѡ Слꙋженїѧ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 1, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 8 о смиренїи Іерейскоⷨ, во времѧ слꙋженїѧ каково има(тъ) быти, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 1, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Бесѣда 9 о бл҃гости, и ст҃ости вꙿ нейже Ієрєй ост҃ивши жертвꙋ доⷧженъ пребывати, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), part 1, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й) си єстꙿ двоєсловїє вꙿ немъ же бесѣдꙋєтъ любитель со любовїю ѡ іереєⷯ добрыⷯ и злыⷯ и ѡ Таинѣ Єѵхариⷭтїи Ст҃о(й) и ѡ плодаⷯ єѧ вꙿ поⷧзꙋ дх҃овнымъ и мірскимъ, Киевъ 1714. Голенковский Варлаам, Предисловїє ѿ слова Іоана Златоꙋстагѡ къ Читателю бл҃гочестивомꙋ Дх҃овномꙋ, [in:] Діалогисмꙿ дх҃овны(й), Киевъ 1714. До чителника дꙋховнаго (Требникъ сирѣчъ Мл҃товникъ имѣѧй в себѣ Црковнаѧ҃послѣдованїѧ Іереемъ подобающїѧ […] повеленїемъ ꙗсне в Бз҃ѣ Превелⷧ Єго Млⷭти Ѡц҃а Іосифа Тризны, Архимандрита, Киевъ 1652), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI-XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. [Дорофієвич Гавриїл], Къ честнымъ презвѵтерѡмъ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, Киевъ 1646. Єꙋхологіон си естъ молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1645. Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанѧ на кождꙋю неⷣⷣлю и Свѧта Ꙋрочистыи, презъ Ст҃го Ѿца нашего Калиста, Архїепⷭкопа Коⷩстаⷩтинопоⷧского и Вселеⷩского Патрїаⷬхꙋ пред двѣма сты лѣ(тъ) по кгрецкꙋ написаныи, а теперъ ново з Кгрецкого и Словеⷩского ꙗзыка на Рꙋскїй переложеныи, Євє 1616; [reprinted in:] The “Jevanhelije učytelnoje” of Meletij Smotyc’kyj, ed. D.A. Frick, Cambridge Mass. 1987. Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанѧ на кождꙋю Нлⷣю и Свѧта оурочистыѣ, Киевъ 1637, . Єѵхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1668. Єѵхологіѡн албо молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ1682. Єѵхологіон алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1688. Єѵхологіѡн албо молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1695. Єѵхологіѡн, или требникъ, Киевъ 1750, . Желиборскїй Арсенїй, Всѣмъ бл҃гочестивымꙸ и Хрⷭтолюбивымꙸ Дх҃овного и Свѣцкого СтанꙋЦр҃҃҃҃ кви Стой Восточной, и нашего смиренїѧ вꙸ Стомъ Дхꙋ, възлюбленнымꙸ сн҃омꙸ ласки Бг҃а Вседержителѧ, и бл҃гословенїѧ нашего Архїєрейского, при ꙋставичныⷯ молитваⷯ, вѣрнє и оупрїйме сприѧємъ (Зобранє Короткой наꙋки, Лвовъ 1646), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскіймитрополит Петръ Могила иего сподвижники, vol. 2 (Приложенія), Кіевъ 1898. Желиборскій Арсеній, З ласки Бж҃еѣ Єпⷭкопъ Лвовскїй, Галицкїй, и Каменца Подолскогѡ Превелебнымъ, Велебнымъ, и Чт҃и годныⷨ Архімандритѡⷨ, Іеромонахѡⷨ, Протоїереоѡⷨ, Іереѡмꙿ, и всемꙋ весполꙿ Клирꙋ цр҃҃ ковномꙋ. Ласки Бжеѣ, покоѧ, и всѣхъ дочасныхъ и вѣчныхъ дѡбръ ѹпреймє зычитъ и вѣншꙋєтъ, [in:] Єꙋхологїон си естъ молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1645. Желиборскій Арсенїй, Архїепⷭпомъ, Россійскїа Цр҃Превелебнѣйшиⷨ Єпⷭпомъ кве Пастыремъ и Ꙋчителеⷨ, Превелебнымꙿ Архимандрітѡмъ, Игꙋменомъ, Велебнымъ Протопопѡмъ, Сщ҃енникѡⷨ, Дїаконѡⷨ, и всемꙋ осщенномꙋ Клирови, ҃Возлюбленнымъ сослꙋжителемъ и Братїй, Блⷭⷭвенства ѿ Ха҃ Ба҃҃твахъ , при млмоихъ Архїерейскиⷯ, оупрійме зычꙋ, [in:] Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1646. Жоховскїй Ципрїанъ, Читателеви ієрееви спⷭнїѧ вѣчнаго, Жертвою Гд҃а нш҃его Іи҃с Хртⷭа кроⷡною, и безкровною, ѿ оусердїѧ желаєтъ, [in:] Леітоургікон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695. Жоховскїй Ципрїанъ, Ꙗсне освецономꙋ Ѯіонженцю Єго Милости Каролю Станиславови Радивилꙋ з Бж҃ой лаⷭки на Олыце, Несвѣжꙋ и Клеⷰкꙋ Панства Римскаго Ѯіонженцю […], [in:] Леітоургікон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695. Заповѣди о іереѡхъ, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. Земка Тарассїй, Сщ҃енномꙋ читателю въ Гѣ҃ радоватисѧ, [in:] Леітꙋргїарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1629; [reprinted in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI-XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ҃ , Лвовъ 1614. Иже въ ст҃ыхъ ѡц҃а нашего Іоанна Златоꙋстаго Архіепіскопа Кѡнстантїноѵполѧ, ѿ Сѡкрата Схолѧстіка, Феодѡрита, епіскопа Кѵръскаго града, Еремїа Сѡзомена, Геѡргїа, архіепⷭпа Алекѯандріискаго, Фѡтіа и Соѵіды въ кратцѣ събраное житїе, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ҃ , Лвовъ 1614. Извѣстїє Оучителное, како долженствꙋєтъ іерей и дїаконъ слꙋженїє въ Цр҃҃кви Стѣй совершати, и приꙋготовлѧтисѧ ко сщ҃еннодѣйствꙋ, найпаче къ бж҃ественнѣй лїтꙋргіи: и каковіи бываютъ бѣдственнїи и недоꙋмѣннїи слꙋчаи, и какѡ въ томъ въ скорости исправлѧтисѧ, предложисѧ въ кратцѣ, [in:] Правило къ бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю, Киевъ 1746,; Киевъ 1760, ; Киевъ 1764, . [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Книга иже въ ст҃ыⷯ ѿтца нашего Іоанна Златооѹстаго, архїєпⷭпа Kостантина града Маргаритъ гл҃емаа, Острогъ 1595. [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на Дѣѧніѧ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Киевъ 1624, . [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623, . [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ свꙗтыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іоанна Златоꙋстаго Бесѣда избраннаѧ ѡ въспитанїи чадъ, Лвовъ 1609. [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ оц҃а нашего Іѡанна архїєпⷭпа Константинополѧ Златоꙋстаго. Слово оутѣшително въ ст҃ый и великїй четвертокъ. Бл҃ви ѡч҃е, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінаграда Златоꙋстаго къ ꙋкарꙗющимъ еже бѣжати сщ҃енъства ѿвѣщателно. О сщ҃енъствѣ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ҃ , Лвовъ 1614. Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий, Нравѡꙋченїє 3. О дарѣ Влⷣчнѧгѡ Тѣла, и ꙗкѡ не причащающемꙋ сѧ сегѡ недостои(тъ) ниже при мл҃твахъ быти иже въ приносѣ бываємыхъ, [in:] Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623. [Іоаннъ Златоꙋстий], Тогожде иже въ ст҃ыхъ оц҃а нашего Іоанна Златооустаго архіепⷭкпа Кѡнстантинѡполѧ, ѡ тѣхъжде, ихъ же ѡ сщ҃енꙿствѣ въспоминаеⷮ ѿ бесѣдꙿ паче же ѿ ꙗже на пѡсланїа, Павла Апⷭла, ꙗже сѹтъ сщ҃енꙿствꙋ прилична, въ общꙋю плъзꙋ сщ҃енꙿствѹющимъ избранныѧ еклѡги, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ къ неиже въ кратцѣ събранное житїе ст҃го и прѡчаѧ ноужⷣнаа вꙿ общꙋю ползꙋ прочитателеⷨ паче же бл҃гоговѣнныⷨ іереѡⷨ въ исправленїе приложена сѹ҃ , Лвовъ 1614. ІоаннаСт҃ѣйшаго Єпⷭпа Китрошьскагокъсщ҃еннѣйшемѹ єпⷭпоудрачьскомꙋКавасилѣ. О раздрѣшенїи брашенъ въ прѣданныхъ седмицахъ, и которыи сїа, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. Книга свѣдителнаѧ къ Архїерею ѡ хотѧщемъ прїѧти сщ҃енства степень, [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭтѡлъ, Седми Соборѡвъ, и Помѣстыⷯ нѣкїи.ⷯ Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихъ Ꙋчителей и Преподобныхъ Отецъ, Лвовъ 1646. Копистенскїй Захарїꙗ, Православнымъ и смѣреномⷣрымъ Читателемъ, мира, здравїа и спасенїа (Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на Дѣѧнїѧ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Киевъ 1624), [in:] Хв. Тітов,Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI-XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Копистенскїй Захарїꙗ, Предословїє на книгꙋ Бесѣдъ С(вѧтого) Іоанна Хрісостома Архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантінополского (Іже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нш҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго […] Бесѣды на 14 Посланїй Ст҃го Апⷭла Павла, Киевъ 1623), [in:] Хв. Тітов,Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Копистенскїй Захарїꙗ, Предословїє Часослова (Киевъ 1616), [in:] Хв. Тітов,Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Копистенскїй Захарїꙗ, Преѡсщ҃еныⷨ Архїепⷭпѡⷨ, и Митрополітѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезныⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, Прпⷣбнѣйшиⷨ Архїмаⷩдритѡⷨ, Бл҃гоговѣйнымъ Игꙋменѡмъ, Прпⷣбнымъ Іеромонахѡⷨ, Прчⷭстнымꙿ Протопопѡⷨ, Чтⷭнымъ Іереѡмъ, Православныⷨ Ст҃ыѧ Собѡрныѧ Апⷭльскїа Восточныѧ Цр҃ кве сꙋщымъ поклонникѡмъ и Честителеⷨ, дш҃ъ же члчⷭкихъ истинныⷨ пастырѡмꙿ и таинъ строителемꙿ, здравїа и бл҃годенствїа (Номоканонъ, Киевъ 1624), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Къ Бл҃городныⷨ и Хрⷭстолюбивымꙿ и бл҃гоподвижныⷨ всѣм общечитателеⷨ, [in:] Орологїон сирѣчъ Часословъ, Лвовъ 1642, . Кормчаѧ, Москва 1650–1653, . [Косовъ Силвестер], О Таинахъ церковныхъ вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 1642 (ed. with title: O мѵстирїахъ или таинахъ вꙿ посполитости), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Приложения, Кіевъ 1898. Леітоургікон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Вилно-Сꙋпрасль 1692–1695. Леітꙋргіаріон сиестъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1639. Леітꙋргїарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1629. Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1637. Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1646. Леітꙋргіарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1666. Леітꙋргіарїоⷩ си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1681. Леітꙋргіарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1691. Леітꙋргіарїон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1712. Леітꙋргіаріон сієстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1653. Леітꙋргіаріон сі єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1708. Мамонич Леон Козмичъ, Ꙗсне Вельможномꙋ Панꙋ єго млⷭти Панꙋ Леонови Сапезе [...] Великомꙋ цнотъ і наꙋкъ милосникови и патронови, [in:] Книга слꙋежебникъ, Вилно 1617. Могила Петръ, Бл҃городномꙋ и бл҃гочестивомꙋ Єго Млⷭти Панꙋ Ѳеодѡрꙋ Проскорѣ-Сꙋщанскомꙋ писареви земскомꙋ воевоⷣⷣства Кіевского (Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Киевъ 1637), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріялидля історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. [Могила Петръ], Канонъ, къ Причащенїю Сщ҃енникомъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Наказаніє ѡ власти Архїереѡмъ ѿ Ха҃ Бг҃а єже вѧзати и рѣшати данной, юже и предивнымꙿ ꙗвственныⷨ чꙋдомъ извѣстꙋетъ: и ꙗко сіе чꙋдо єстъ знаменїе извѣстное истинныѧ Цр҃ кве, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ вещехъ ꙗже къ самомꙋ слꙋженїю пристꙋпаѧ, и о тѣхꙿ ꙗже вꙿ самомъ слꙋженїю Іерею хранити достоитъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ єже какѡ кромѣ великагѡ четвертка болныхъ ради Бжⷭтвенныѧ Тайны Іерею парохїѧⷧномꙋ достоитъ ст҃ити и хранити, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ матеріи сієстъ вещи таинѣ Тѣла и Крве Хв҃ой, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ нѣкїихъ исправленїѧхъ въ слꙋженїи Преждесвѧщенныѧ Слꙋжбы, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ подаꙗнїи, прїꙗті и храненїи и достодолжной чⷭсти, и бг҃олѣпномꙿ поклоненїи Бжⷭтвеннагѡ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ правилномъ или законномꙿ слꙋжители Бжⷭтвенⷩыѧ Тайны Тѣла и Крве Гд҃ней, и ѡ єже како подобаетъ семꙋ предъ оуготовлѧти себе къ достойномꙋ слꙋженїю Бжⷭтвенныѧ Литꙋргїѧ, и Причащенїю Бжⷭтвенныхъ Хв҃ыхъ Таинъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ Прⷭтой и Предивной Тайнѣ Тѣла и Крве Гд҃а Бг҃а и Сп҃са нашего Іи҃с Ха, [in:] ҃Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ слꙋчаѧхъ въ слꙋженіи Бжⷭтвенныѧ Литꙋргїи приключитисѧ могꙋщиⷯ, сице ѿ части Матерїи, сієстъ вещи, ꙗкоже и Формы, сієстъ образа или съвершенїѧ, ꙗкоже и самагѡ слꙋжителѧ, сієстъ сщ҃енника, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ Тайнахъ ѡ вещехъ, ꙗже въ слꙋженіи и ѡ дѣйствїи Ст҃ыхъ Таинъ, обще храними быти имꙋтъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. [Могила Петръ], Ѡ формѣ сієстъ ѡ образѣ, или съвершенїи Тѣла и Крве Хв҃ой, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. Могила Петръ, Предмова до Чителника Осщ҃енного (Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Киевъ 1637), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріялидля історії книжної справи на Вкраїні вXVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Могила Петръ, Пренайвелебнѣйшимꙿ и Бг҃олюбезнѣйшиⷨ ихꙿ Милостѧⷨ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемъ и в Дх҃ꙋ Ст҃омъ Братїѧмъ, Епⷭпомъ православнымъ Церкви Рѡссійской, Преподобнымꙿ Гдⷭнѡмъ Ѿцемꙿ Архімандритѡмꙿ, Превелебнымꙿ Игꙋменомꙿ, Велебнымъ Іеромонахѡмъ, Перечестнымъ Протопопоⷨ, Честнымꙿ Іереомꙿ, и всемꙋ весполꙿ клирꙋ церковномꙋ православномꙋ бл҃гословенства Бж҃ого, ласки, покоѧ, и всѣхъ дочасныⷯ и вѣчныхъ добръ оупрійме зычитъ, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, Киевъ 1646. Могила Петръ, Преосщ҃енныⷨ Архіепⷭпѡⷨ, Митрополитѡⷨ, Бг҃олюбезнѣйшиⷨ Єпⷭпомꙿ, и всѣмъ Дх҃овникѡмъ ѿ Бг҃а Властїю Архїереѵскою ѡсщ҃еннымъ (Преⷣсловїє на Номоканѡнъ), [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ имѣѧ(й) по сокращенⷻї Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Сеⷣми Съборовъ, и помѣстныхъ нѣкїихъ. Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихꙿ Ѹчителей и Прпⷣбныхъ Ѡц҃ъ третее съ болшиⷨ исправленїеⷨ изданны(й), Киевъ 1629. [Могила Петръ, Трофимович-Козловский Ісаѧ], Събранїє Короткой Наꙋки. О Артикꙋлахъ Вѣры Православнокаѳѡлической Хрїстїꙗнской ведлⷢꙋ вызнанѧ и Наꙋки Цр҃ квє С(вѧтой) Востоⷱнои Соборной Апⷭлской, длѧ цвѣченѧ и наꙋки, всѣмъ вꙿ школахꙿсѧ цвѣчачимъ Хрїстїѧнскимъ Православнымъ дѣтемъ. За росказанємъ и Блгⷭлвенством Старшиⷯ Первѣй ꙗзыкомъ Полскиⷨ, а теперъ дїалектомъ рꙋскимꙿ зꙿ дрꙋкꙋ выданое, Киевъ 1645; [re-printed in:] С.Голубев, Кіевскій: митрополитъ Петръ Могила иего сподвижники, vol. 2 (Приложенія), Кіевъ 1898, . Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. Молитвъникъ или Требникъ имѣѧ въ себѣ цр҃ ковнаѧ послѣдованїа, Вилно 1618. Мѣсѧца тогоⷤ [Ноемврїѧ], 13 днѧ, [наꙋка] на памѧ(ть) Ст҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго о пастырꙋ добромъ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанѧ на кождꙋю Нлⷣю и Свѧта оурочистыѣ, Киевъ 1637. Наказанїє дꙋховникꙋ, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ имѣѧ(й) по сокращенⷻї Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Сеⷣми Съборовъ, и помѣстныхъ нѣкїихъ. Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихꙿ Ѹчителей и Прпⷣбныхъ Ѡц҃ъ третее съ болшиⷨ исправленїеⷨ изданны(й), Киевъ 1629. Напомненіє сщ҃енникови, [in:] Єꙋхологїон си естъ молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1645. Новоизбранномꙋ Высоце Превелебномꙋ, Єгѡ Млⷭти Гдⷭнꙋ Ѿцꙋ Іѡсифꙋ Трызнѣ, з ласки Бж҃ей С(вѧтой) Великїѧ и Чꙋдотворныѧ Лаѵры Кїево Печерскїѧ, Архїмандритови ѿ Бг҃а дарованномꙋ нам Ѿцꙋ и Пастыреви (Тріѡдіон сиестъ Трїпѣснецъ, Киевъ 1648), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Наꙋка в неделю 18 по Сошествїи Ст҃го Дх҃а, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Євє 1616. Наоука іереомъ до порѧдного ѿправованѧ Слꙋжбы Бж҃ое велце потребнаѧ, [in:] Книга слꙋжебникъ Вилно 1617. Наꙋка кождомꙋ часови прислꙋхаючаѧ, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Євє 1616. Наꙋка котораѧ читана быти может на кождый часъ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Євє 1616. Наꙋка на памѧть Ст҃го Іѡанна Златоꙋстаго, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Євє 1616. Наꙋка о не ѿдаваⷩю зла за зло, и любви непрїателей. Читана быти можетꙿ и на иншїй ꙗкїйколвекъ часъ, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Євє 1616. Наꙋка о сеⷣми тайнахъ цр҃ ковныⷯ. Преⷥвитеромъ до прыстойного шафованꙿѧ тайнами ст҃ыми барꙿзо потребнаѧ, Вилно ca. 1618. Наꙋка о Тайнѣ С(вѧ)т(ого) Покаѧнїѧ тоєстъ о правдивой и Сакраменталной исповѣди. Приданы сⷮꙋ к томꙋ и Лѣкарства на грѣхи и Выводы ѡ пожⷮкꙋ частой исповѣди, Киевъ 1671; [reprinted in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 1, part 1, Київ-Львів2012. Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ имѣѧ(й) по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, Сеⷣми Съборовъ, и помѣстныхъ нѣкїихъ. Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихꙿ Ѹчителей и Прпⷣбныхъ Ѡц҃ъ третее съ болшиⷨ исправленїеⷨ изданны(й), Киевъ 1629; facsimile ed. O. Horbatsch, Romae 1989. Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭтѡлъ, Седми Соборѡвъ, и Помѣстыⷯ нѣкїиⷯ. Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихъ Ꙋчителей и Преподобныхъ Отецъ, Лвовъ 1646. Номоканонъ сирѣчъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Верховныхъ Апⷭлъ, и Ст҃ыхъ Веⷧ Вселенскиⷯ Седми Соборѡⷡ, и Помѣстыхъ нѣкїихъ, Киевъ 1624. Ѡ рꙋкоположеніи, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ имѣ, Киевъ 1629. Ѡ тайнахꙿ церковных вꙿ посполитости, Лвовъ 1642. Ѡ хиротонїи сирѣчъ ѡ рꙋкоположенїи Ст҃лскомꙿ на ново поставленномъ Іереи. Выписано з Правилꙿ Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ и Ст҃ыхъ Ѿц҃ъ и ѡ Сакраментахъ или о Тайнахъ за бл҃гословенїемъ ꙗсне вꙿ Бг҃ꙋ Преѡсщ҃еннагѡ Єгѡ Млⷭти Гдⷭна Ѿц҃а Лазара Барановича, Новгородокъ Сѣверский 1676. Ѡрологіон сирѣчъ Часословъ Полꙿꙋставный, Лвовъ 1642. Ѿ правил Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭлъ, и бг҃онѡсныхъ Ст҃ых Ѿц҃ь заповѣди различны, [in:] Мл҃твникъ или Требникъ изъ греческаго ꙗзыка на словенскїй преведеный и изслѣдованый изъ дрѹкарнѣ пн҃а Ѳеодора Юрьевича Балабана Стрѧтинское выданый, Стрѧтинъ 1606. [Пілоусїотъ Ісідѡр], Иже въ ст҃ыⷯ ѡц҃а нашего Ісідѡра Пілоѵсїѡта, къ Паладїоѵ Дїаконоѵ: ѡ еже, како добра дѣла хоще(тъ), аще кто епⷭптва или сщ҃енъства желае(тъ), [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. [Пілоусїотъ Ісідѡр], Тогожде къ Евꙿстафію, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. [Пілоусїотъ Ісідѡр], Тогожде къ Єрмогенꙋ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. [Пілоусїотъ Ісідѡр], Тогожде къ Зѡсимѣ Пресѵитерꙋ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. [Пілоусїотъ Ісідѡр], Тогожде къ Леѡнтїю Єпⷭкпꙋ, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. Плетенецкїй Єлїссей, Православномꙋ родꙋ Рѡссійскомꙋ, сыноⷨ Цр҃ кве Восточныа възлюбленнѣйшиⷨ дш҃есп҃сителнаго здравїа (Часословъ, Киевъ 1616), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історіїкнижної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Плетенецкїй Єлїссей, Пресвѣтлымъ въ блг҃очⷭтїи, Апⷭлскихъ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ ѡц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемъ, ст҃ыа съборныѧ апⷭлскїа въсточныѧ Цр҃҃ кве, ѡсщеннаго каталогꙋ ѿцѡмъ и братїаⷨ нашимъ, смиренный Єлиссей Плетенецкїй, Архїмандритъ Лавры Печерскїа Кіевскїа, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620; [reprinted in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Полоцкий Симеон, Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ на праздники Гдⷪскїѧ, Бг҃ородичны и ст҃ыхъ нарочитыхъ изꙿ пищъ слова Бж҃їѧ дꙋшамъ хрⷭстїанъ православныхъ въ насыщенїе дх҃овное, Бж҃їимъ пособїємъ оуготованнаѧ, Москва 1683. Полоцкий Симеон, Поꙋченїє ѡ бл҃гоговѣйномъ стоѧнїи во храмѣ Бж҃іи и слꙋшанїи бжⷭственныѧ лїтꙋргіи, [in:] Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ, Москва 1683. Полоцкий Симеон, Слово на погребенїи архїереа, [in:] Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ, Москва 1683. Полоцкий Симеон, Слово ѡ писанїи Бжⷭственномъ, [in:] Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ, Москва 1683. Полоцкий Симеон, Слово ѡ седми грѣсѣхъ смертныⷯ, [in:] Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ, Москва 1683. Полоцкий Симеон, Слово ѿ архїереа новопоставленнагѡ во єпархїю си пришедша кꙿ сщ҃енникѡⷨ ѡ єже жити имъ бл҃гоговѣйно, внимати же себѣ и стадꙋ, [in:] Вечерѧ дш҃евнаѧ, Москва 1683. [Послѣдованїє] наⷣ Іереѡмꙿ во снѣ соблазнившиⷨсѧ, [in:] Єꙋхологіон си естъ молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1645. Послѣдованїє къ Бжⷭтвенномꙋ Причащенїю, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн, албо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 1, Киевъ 1646. Поꙋченїє новосщ҃енномꙋ іерееви, єгда єпⷭкопъ ѿпꙋщаєтъ къ прⷭтолꙋ єго ѿ себе, подаєтъ мꙋ свиток сей. И о таинахъ въ посполитости цр҃ ковныхъ (Лвовъ 1642), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Приложения, Кіевъ 1898. Поꙋченїє іерееви новосвѧщенномꙋ, єгда ѿпꙋщаетъ Іереа Епⷭкопъ ѿ себе къ Прⷭтолꙋ єго, сей свитоⷦ емꙋ, подаетꙿ, [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ имѣѧй по сокращенїю Правила Ст҃ыхъ Апⷭтѡлъ, Седми Соборѡвъ, и Помѣстыⷯ нѣкїи.ⷯ Къ семꙋ и Вселенскихъ Ꙋчителей и Преподобныхъ Отецъ, Лвовъ 1646. Правило къ Бж҃ственномꙋ причащенїю, во Свѧтой Кїєвопечерской Лаврѣ, Киевъ 1746, . Преⷣмова до чителника, [in:] Таблица невидимаѧ сердца чловєчагѡ на которой не перомъ, але палцеⷨ Бж҃іимꙿ и ꙗзыкоⷨ Апⷭкиⷨ не чернилоⷨ але Дх҃омꙿ С(вѧтимъ) и слезами Апⷭлкими написаны сꙋтъ посланїа албо листы апⷭлскїи, Лвовъ 1666. Преⷣмова до чителника, саномъ Сщ҃енничества почтеннагѡ, [in:] Єѵхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, Лвовъ 1668. Предословіє ко Ієреѡмъ, [in:] Требникъ сирѣчъ Молитовниⷦ, Вєвє 1641. Предъмова ѹказꙋючи, що за розꙋм замыкаетъ вꙿ собѣ таѧ книга, [in:] Ꙍхтаикъ, сирѣчъ ѡсмогласникъ, Дермань 1604 Псалтирь, Лвовъ 1688. Пꙋзина Атанасій, Синод ведле звичаю дорочного, Кремѧнецъ ca. 1638; [reprinted in:] І. Огієнко, Загублений крем’янецький стародрук: “Синод луцький” 1638 р., “EΛΠΙΣ” V, 1931. Радивиловский Антоній, Огородокъ Марїи Бц҃ы. Розмаитыми цвѣтами словесъ на Праздниики Гдⷭкіѧ, Бг҃ородичны, и проⷱ Ст҃ыхъ, Киевъ 1676. Различныѧ главизны, събраныѧ ѿ инагѡ номоканѡна, ѡ тайнахъ Ст҃ыхъ, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ, Киевъ 1629. Рꙋтъский Іѡсифъ Велѧминъ, ΘΕΣΕΣсиречъ изъвѣстны предъложеніѧ ѿ оученїй еже ѡ тайнахꙿ церъковныхꙿ, Вилно 1608. Сліозка Михаилъ, Ꙗсне Превелебномꙋ вꙿ Бг҃ꙋ Єго Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿцꙋ Аѳанасїю Желиборскомꙋ Млⷭтїю Бж҃їею, Православномꙋ Єпⷭкопꙋ, лвовскомꙋ, галицкомꙋ и Камєнца Подолскагѡ, администраторови Метрополїй Киевской и прочаѧ, Ѿцꙋ, Панꙋ, Пастыреви, и Добродѣеви моемꙋ велце милостивомꙋ, [in:] Триѡдїѡнъ си єстъ трїпѣснецъ, Лвовъ 1664. [Сліоска Мїхаилъ], На Пресвѣтный Клейнотъ ихъ Млⷭтей ПП. Могилѡвъ, [in:] Апостолъ, Лвовъ 1639. [Сліоска Мїхаилъ], На Пресвѣтный Клейнотъ ихъ Млⷭтей Пановъ Могілѡвъ епікграмма, [in:] Тріѡдіон си єстъ Трипѣснецъ, Лвовъ 1642. [Сліоска Мїхаилъ], На старожитный Клейнотъ ихъ Млⷭтей Панѡвꙿ Желиборскихъ, [in:] Номоканѡнъ си єстъ законоправилникъ, Лвовъ 1646. Сліоска Мїхаилъ, Чителникови побожномꙋ и ласкавомꙋ тѵпографъ, при добромъ здорови ласки и блⷭⷭвенства Бж҃ого оупрейме зычитъ, [in:] Октѡихъ сирѣчъ Ѡсмогласникъ, Лвовъ 1640. Сліоска Мїхаилъ, Чителникови Побожномꙋ и ласкавомꙋ тѵпографъ, при добромъ здорови ласки и багⷭтва Бж҃его оупрейме зычи(тъ), [in:] Апостолъ, Лвовъ 1639. Сліоска Мїхаилъ, Ꙗсне вꙿ Хрⷭтѣ Превелебнѣйшомꙋ Господинꙋ и Ѿц҃ꙋ Єго Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿц҃ꙋ Петрꙋ Могилѣ, [in:] Апостолъ, Лвовъ 1639. Слозка Мїхаилъ, Преѡсщ҃еннымъ єже ѡ Хрⷭстѣ, и въ Бл҃гочестїи Апⷭлскиⷯ оученїй, и ст҃ыхъ оц҃ъ догма(тъ) и преданїй доблимъ хранителемꙿ, ст҃ыѧ соборныа Апⷭлскїѧ восточныѧ Цр҃҃ кве, Архїєреємъ и Пастырємъ, и всего чинꙋ црковного ѿц҃емъ и братїѧⷨ дх҃овнымъ, ѿ всесилнаго Бг҃а въ Трⷪци славимаго миръ, здравїе, долгоденьствїє, провоправѧщиⷨ и дш҃євное спасенїе, [in:] Леітꙋргіаріон си єстъ слꙋжебникъ, Лвовъ 1637. Слоска Михаил, Ꙗсне въ Хрⷭтѣ Превелебномꙋ Єгѡ Млⷭти Господинꙋ Ѿцꙋ Арсенію Желиборскомꙋ з ласки Бж҃ей Єпископꙋ Лвовскомꙋ, Галицкомꙋ и Каменца Подолскаго и про,ⷱ [in:] Апостолъ сіестъ Книга Новаго Завѣта, Лвовъ 1654. Слꙋжебникъ Бжⷭтвенныхъ лѵ҃ргїй, Киевъ 1692. Смотрицкий Мелетій, Велможной Паней єй Милости Паней Соколовой Воининой Каштелѧновой Берестейско(й) […] намъ Милостивой, о Гд҃ѣ радоватисѧ, [in:] Єѵⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Євє 1616. Събранїє ѿ различныхъ Правилъ, ѡ єже каѧ съгрѣшенїа возбранѧю(тъ) быти сщ҃енникꙋ. И внима(й) семꙋ съ опасенїємꙿ, ѡ дрꙋже!, [in:] Номоканѡн си єстъ Законоправилникꙿ, Киевъ 1629. Сіє же паки, не токꙿмо ꙗко прилично є(стъ) сщ҃енꙿствꙋ, но и зело ноужⷣно и прежде всѣⷯ, аще и свѣдителꙿство имѣти бѫдꙋ(тъ) ѡ себѣ добро, вѣдати сщ҃енныⷨ, ꙗко толико достоинꙿство всѣхъ превъсходѧщеє, и блгⷣть єйже ничтоже равно єстъ ѿнюдъ не достоитъ сребромъ или златомъ не стѧжавати, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. Софонович Феодосій, Выкладъ ѡ Церкви Ст҃ой и ѡ церковныхъ речаⷯ, ѡ Слꙋжбѣ Бж҃ой и ѡ Вечерни зꙿ Ст҃го Симеѡна, Архїєпⷭпа Солꙋнскаⷢи изꙿ иныхъ оучителей церковныⷯ выбраный Іеріѡмъ, дїаконѡмъ и всѣмъ православнымъ до читанѧ пожитечный, Ꙋневъ 1670; [reprinted in:] ФеодосійСoфонович, Хроніка з літописців стародавніх, Київ 1992; [reprinted and transl. in:] Феодосій Софонович,Выклад о Церкві Святій, ed. Ю. Мицик, Київ 2002. [Ставнѣцкій Симеон], На гербъ ПП Шꙋмлѧнскихъ, [in:] Зерцало до прейзренѧ і латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Ꙋневъ 1680. Ставнѣцкій Симеон, Предословїє до чителника, [in:] Зерцало до прейзренѧ латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Ꙋневъ 1680. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Въ началѣ индикта сирѣчъ новаго лѣта поꙋченїє пръвое, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 2, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное албо казанꙗ на нлⷣꙗ през рокъ и на празники Гпⷪдкїе и нарочитыⷨ ст҃ымъ оугодникѡⷨ Бж҃їимꙿ, Рохмановъ 1619, . Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Нравоѹченїє ѡ ѹчителехъ лѣнивихъ и ѡ оупивающихъсѧ (Поꙋченїє в нлⷣю 16 (по Всѣхъ Ст҃ыⷯ), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 2 по Всѣхъ Ст҃ыⷯ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 9 (по Всѣхъ Ст҃ыⷯ), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченїє вꙿ неⷣлю 13 (по Всѣхъ Ст҃ыⷯ), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченїє в нлⷣю 16 (по Всѣхъ Ст҃ыⷯ), [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченїє на памꙗть Ст҃ых Ощⷠе Єрархѡмъ, Пастыремъ и Оучт҃лемъ Вселенꙿскимꙿ, [in:], Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 2, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченїє на Pжⷣтво Cт҃го Іоаⷩна, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 2, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Поꙋченіє 4 о стрⷭтехъ Гн҃ихъ, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, part 1, Рохмановъ 1619. Ставровецкій Кирилъ Транквилїон, Предмова до чителника, [in:] Єѵⷢⷢлїє Ꙋчителное, Рохмановъ 1619. Тарасіа, о томжде, къ Адріанꙋ Панѣ старого Рима, Посланїе Тарасїа Ст҃ѣйшаго Патріархи Кѡнстантінꙋполскаго, Новаго Рима, [in:] Иже въ ст҃ыхъ Оц҃а нашего Іѡанна Златооустаго, архїепⷭпа Кѡнстантіноѵполѧ книга о сщ҃енъствѣ, Лвовъ 1614. Тріѡдіон си єстъ Трипѣснецъ, Ст҃ой Великой Пѧтдесѧтницы, Лвовъ 1642. Тризна Іосифъ, Читателю Дх҃ѡвномꙋ: мира, здравїѧ и сп҃сенїѧ (Леітꙋргіаріон сієстъ слꙋжебникъ, Киевъ 1653), [in:] Хв. Тітов, Mатеріяли для історії книжної справи на Вкраїні в XVI–XVIII вв. Всезбірка передмов до українських стародруків, Київ 1924. Ꙋставъ Бж҃ественныѧ Лѵтꙋргїѧ, Вєвє (Вилно) 1641. Ꙋставъ Бжⷭтвъныѧ слꙋжбы въ нейже и дїаконства, [in:] Божествъныѧ лѵтꙋргїѧ, Киевъ 1620. Часослѡвъ имѣꙗй нощнꙋю и дневънꙋю слꙋжбꙋ, Вилно 1617. Чинъ блгⷭвенїѧ новыѧ цр҃ кве, [in:] Єꙋхологіѡн алꙿбо молитвословъ или требникъ, part 2, Киевъ 1646. Шꙋмлѧнскїй Іосифъ, Вамъ Пречⷭтымъ Наместникѡⷨ, алꙿбо Протопопѡⷨ, Чⷭтнымꙿ Іереѡмꙿ, Блг҃оговѣꙿⷩныⷨ Дїаконѡⷨ, и всемꙋ сщ҃енномꙋ дх҃овномꙋ црковномꙋ клирꙋ ҃ Бл҃венїа Бж҃го, ласки, покоѧ и всѧкиⷯ дочасныⷯ и вѣчныⷯ Бл҃гъ, ꙗко православныⷨ вꙿ Дх҃ꙋ Ст҃ом сынѡмъ зычꙋ, [in:] Метрика алꙿбо реестръ, Лвовъ 1687. Шꙋмлꙗнский Іосифъ, Зерцало до прейзренѧ и латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри Ст҃ой, Сакраментѡⷡ, Десѧтословїѧ Бж҃їѧ, грѣхопаденїй члчⷭескиⷯ, Дх҃овныⷨ и свѣцкиⷨ людемъ приличнѡ, Ꙋневъ 1680. Шꙋмлѧнский Іѡосифъ, Метрика алꙿбо реестръ, длѧ порѧⷣкꙋ Цр҃кви С(вѧтой) снаⷣнѣйшо(й) їнформацїє(й), дх҃овныⷨ свѣцкиⷨ, зꙿ тѵпографїи єппⷭко(й) Лвовской, при обители С(вѧтихъ) Велиⷦ Мнⷱика Хв҃а Геѡргіа выдана, Лвовъ 1687 (second ed. Lviv 1688). Шꙋмлѧнский Іѡсифъ, Нравоꙋченїе ѿ насъ Єпⷭпа, вамъ мїрскимъ їереомꙿ таковое преподаетсѧ, [in:] Метрика алꙿбо реестръ, Лвовъ 1687; [reprinted in:] І. Скочиляс, Собори Львівської єпархії XVI–XVIII століть, Львів 2006. Шꙋмлꙗнский Іосифъ, Ꙗкосѧ маютъ Ѿц҃еве протопопове, а ꙗк сщ҃енници и весъ клиръ дх҃овный вꙿ порѧдкахъ црковнихъ заховати҃, [in:] Зерцало до прейзренѧ и латвѣйшаго зрозꙋменѧ Вѣри, Ꙋневъ 1680; [reprinted in:] І. Скочиляс, Собори Львівської єпархії XVI-XVIII століть, Львів 2006. Other editions of old prints Broniewski Marcin [Philalet Christophor], AΠOKPIΣIΣ abo odpowiedź na książki o synodzie brzeskim 1596, imieniem ludzi starożytnej religiej greckiej (Wilno 1597), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 7: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 2, Санктпетербургъ 1882. Broniewski Marcin [Philalet Christophor], EKTHESIS abo krótkie zebranie spraw, które się działy na partykularnym, to jest pomiastnym Synodzie w Brześciu Litewskim (Krak 1597), ed. J. Byliński i J. Długosz, Wrocław 1995. [Kossow Sylwester], Cherubin przy akcie pogrzebowym przewielebnego w Bogu Ojca Jego M. Jozepha Bobrykowicza, Wilno 1635. [Pociej Hipacy], Harmonia albo concordantia wiary, sakramentów i ceremoniej cerkwi Ś orientalnej z kościołemś. Rzymskim (Wilno 1608), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 7: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 2, Санктпетербургъ 1882. Skarga Piotr, O jedności Kościoła Bożego pod jednym pasterzem i o greckim od tej jedności odstąpieniu (Krak 1577), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 7: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 2, Санктпетербургъ 1882. Winnicki Innocenty, Ustawy Rządu Duchownego in Ritu Graeco unito diocesii przemyskiej na Congregacij Sobornej uchwalone (Cracoviae 1694), [in:] Ustawy rządu duchownego i inne pisma biskupa Innocentego Winnickiego, ed. W. Pilipowicz, Przemyśl 1998. Кіевскій соборъ 1640 года по разсказу Саковича, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 4: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 1, Санктпетербургъ 1878. [Копыстенский Захарія], Книга о вѣрѣ Єдиной, Святой, соборной, Апостолской Церкве, которая под розсудокъ Церкве Всходней поддaется (ca. 1619 year), [in:] Архивъ Юго-Западной Россіи,издаваемый Коммиссіею для разбора древнихъ актовъ, состоящей при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и Волынскомъ Генералъ-Губернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 8: Памятники литературной полемики православныхъ южно-руссовъ съ прoтестантами и латино-уніатами въ Юго-Западной Руси за XVI и XVII ст., Кіевъ 1887. Смотрицкий Герасим,Всякого чина православный читателю, [in:] H. Rothe, Die älteste ostslawische Kunstdichtung 1575–1647, Giessen 1976. Смотрицкий Герасим, Каленъдаръ Римский новый, [in:] Архивъ ЮгоЗападной Россіи, part 1, vol. 7, Киев 1887. Смотрицкий Герасим, Предсловїе къ благовѣрному и православному всякогочина возраста же и сана читателеви (Библїа сирѣч книгы ветхаго и новаго завѣта, по языку словенску, Острог 1581), [in:] Архивъ Юго-ЗападнойРосии, издаваемый Временною Комиссіею дляразбора древнихъ актовъ,Высочайше учрежденную при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ и ВолынскомъГенералъ-Губернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 8: Памятники литературнойполемики православныхъ южно-руссовъ съ прoтестантами и латино-уніатами въ Юго-Западной Руси за XVI иXVII ст., Кіевъ 1914;[more recent ed. in:] Українська література XIV–XVI ст. Апокрифи.Агіографія. Паломницькі твори. Полемічні твори. Перекладні повісті.Поетичні твори, ed. В.Л. Микитась, Київ 1988. Суразкий Васил (Малюшицкий), О единой истинной православной вѣрѣ и о святой соборной апостолской церкви, (Острог 1588), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 7: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 2, Санктпетербургъ 1882. Українська поезія кінець XVI – початок XVII ст., ed. В.П. Колосова, В.І.Крекотень, Київ 1978. Editions of the original manuscripts (11th to the 18th-century) Altera litera graeca contemporanea verosimiliter etiam a notario patriarchae con-scripta quae tamen cum originali arabico multipliciter discordat (Leopolis 16 ianuarii 1686), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. LXXXII (B), Leopolis 1895. Confraternitas stauropigiana ad consultum Ioachimi patriarchae Antiochiae conqeritur per legatos suos coram Teolipto patriarcha constantinopolitano de misero statu suo, petit auxilium eius occasione renovationis ecclesiae et erectionis scholae atque typographiae et proponit ei octo quaestiones spectantes ad doctrinam christianam, ut eos melisu de hisce informet (Leopolis 28 maii 1586), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. LXXXVIII, Leopolis 1895. Confraternitas stauropigiana leopoliensis patriarchae Ieremiae varias petitiones et quaestiones proponit (Leopolis c. 1591), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. DVIII, Leopolis 1895. Confraternitas stauropigiana leopoliensis refert patriarchae Ieremiae de misero statu ecclesiae ruthenicae, de conatibus ordinis s. Loiolaepraecipue Petri Skarga rogatque eum, ne eos relinquat sed contra episcopum defendat (Leopolis 1592) [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. CCXLV(B), Leopolis 1895. Gedeon episcopus leopoliensis duos sellularios Georgium et Ioannem heresim spargentes excommunicat, [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. LXXXVI, Leopolis 1895. Ieremias patriarcha constantinopolitanus presbyteros illegitimos excommunicate (Vilno 21 iulii 1589), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. СXV, Leopolis 1895. Ieremias patriarcha constantinopolitanus omnes fideles admonet, ne presbyteris bigamis vel non consecratis officia ecclesiastica exercere permittant, sed eos tamquam a synodo vilnensi et a Ioachimi patriacha excommunicatos habent (Kamenec Podolskij mense novembri 1589), [in:] Monumenta Con-fraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. CXXXVII, Leopolis 1895. Ioachimus patriarcha antiochenus confraternitatem ad ecclesiam assumptionis b. v. Mariae instituit (Leopolis 1 ianuarii 1586), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. LXXX, Leopolis 1895. Ioachimus patriarcha Antiochiae Russiam visitans mores episcoporum et cleri vituperat (1586), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. LXXXIII Leopolis 1895. Michael Metropolita Kioviensis et alii episcopi in Synodo Berestensi considentes decernunt, in futurum semel in anno ad synodum in civitate Berest et non in Belz, sicut prius decreverant, convenire, ut dioeceses suas iuxta statuta ecclesiastica administrare et greges sibi commissas iuxta canones et legem divinam facilius gubernare et pravas consvetudines extirpare possint, [in:] Documenta Unionis Berestensis eiusque auctorum (1590–1600), ed. P.Athanasium G. Welykyj, Romae 1970. Michael metropolita kioviensis Stephanum Zizanij in civitate Vilno praedicantem anathemisat interdicitque ei verbum dei praedicare (Novohorodok 10 octobris 1595), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. CCCXCIII, Leopolis 1895. Pateryk Kijowsko-Pieczerski czyli opowieści o świętych ojcach w pieczarach kijowskich położonych, ed. L. Nodzyńska, Wrocław 1993. Pociej Hipacy, Odpis na list niejakiego kleryka Ostrozkiego bezimiennego, który pisał do władyki Włodzimierskiego i Brzeskiego (na który list jego sam mu Jego Mość Ociec władyka odpisuje), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 19: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 3, Петербургъ 1903. Pociej Hipacy, Oświeconemu Xiążęciu jego M. Panu Mikołajowi Crzysztophowi Radziwiłowi, Xiążęciu z Ołyki i na Nieświeżu, Wojewodzie Trockiemu, panu mojemu Miłościwemu do rak własnych, [ed. in:] Б. Барвінський, Два листи митр. Іпатія А. Потія (Analecta Ordinis p. Basilii Magni), vol. 2, ed. I. Nazarko, Romae 1956. Postanowienia soboru Wlodzimierskiego, podane ad observandum Wielbnym ojcom, do diecezej Włodzimierskiej należącym, dnia 15 miesiąca octobra roku 1715, [in:] І. Скочиляс, Релігія та культура Західної Волині нa початку XVIII ст. За матеріялами Володимирського собору 1715 р., Львів 2008. Proceres terrarum haliciensis, leopoliensis, premisliensis etc. Fidei graecae con-queruntur coram metropolita kiovensi de misero statu ecclesiae ruthenae rogantque atque monent eum, ut ecclesiam sibi commissam iuxta canones ss. patrum et iustitiam regat (Varsavia 14 februarii), [in:] Monumenta Confraternitatis Stauropigianae Leopoliensis, ed. W. Milkowicz, vol. 1, no. LXXV, Leopolis 1895. Regulae episcoporum, [in:] Археографическій сборникъ документовъ относящихся къ исторіи сѣверо-западной Руси, vol. 12, Вильна 1900. [Васіліє Великий], Ст҃го Васілїа толкъ сщ҃енническаго чинꙋ что єст иерѣй, [in:] Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Я.Н. Щапов, София 1987. Винницкій Іннокентій, Всѣмъ въобецъ и кождомꙋ зособна, комꙋ ѡ томъ вѣдати належитъ з дꙋховного и свѣцкого станꙋ людемъ, а ѡсобливе пречестнымъ ѡтцемъ намѣстникомъ, честнымъ презвитеромъ, богоизбраннымъ дїѧкономъ і всемꙋ церковномꙋ причтꙋ, также правовѣрнымъ брацтвомъ, и парохїѧномъ всѣмъ въ діѡцезїи нашей Премыской изобрѣтающимсѧ, намъ въ Дꙋхꙋ Свѧтомъ возлюбленнымъ и благопослꙋшнимъ сыномъ при благословленїи архїєрейскомъ до вѣдомости доносимъ, [in:] В. Щурат, Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї Западно-Рускої Церкви XVII в., Жовква 1907. Винницкий Іннокентій, Нравооѹченіе іереемъ подобаетъ, [in:] В. Щурат, Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї Западно-Рускої Церкви XVII в., Жовква 1907; [new edition in:] Innocenty Winnicki, Ustawy rządu duchownego i inne pisma biskupa Innocentego Winnickiego, ed. W. Pilipowicz, Przemyśl 1998. Вишенский Иван, Велможным их Милостям Арцибискупу Михайлу ибискупом Потѣю, Кирилу, Леонтию, Деонисию и Григорку совышше памят покаяния страх гееныи будущаго суда низпослатися от Всевидящаго Ока Троичнаго Божества, Отца и Сына и Святого Духа, Иоан мних з Вишнѣ от Святоє Афонксое Горы усердно вам зычит (Писаніє к утекшим от православноє вѣры епископом, [in:] Иван Вишенский, Сочинения, ed. И.П. Еремин, Москва–Ленинград 1955. Вишенский Иван,Иоанна Мниха извѣщение краткое о латинских прелестех, о заблуждении от пути истиннаго и болезнех смертоноснаго мудрования, [in:] Иван Вишенский, Сочинения, ed. И.П. Еремин, Москва–Ленинград 1955. Вишенский Иван,Порада, како да ся очистит церков Христова, [in:] Иван Вишенский, Сочинения, ed. И.П. Еремин, Москва - Ленинград 1955. Вопрос игуменом и сщ҃ енноинокомъ (Trebnyk 16th century), [in:] А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894. Вопросы и отвѣты православному зъ папежникомъ (1603), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 7: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 2, Санктпетербургъ 1882. Вопросы Кирика, Саввы и Иліи, съ отвѣтами Нифонта, епископа новгородскаго, и другихъ іерархическихъ лицъ (1130-1156), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI-XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 1, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Санктпетербургъ 1906. Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Я.Н. Щапов, София 1987. Епископское поученіе собору епархіальнаго духовенства, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в., Санктпетербургъ 1880. Исповѣданіе дїакономъ и поповьско (16th century), [in:] А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894. Исповѣданїє попомъ и дьякономъ (Trebnyk15-16th century), [in:] А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894. Исповѣданіе сщ҃енническоє (15th century), [in:] А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894. Іоана, митрополита руськаго, нaреченаго пророкомъ Христовымъ, написавшаго правила церковная отъ святыхъ книгъ въ кратцѣ Якову черноризьцю, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XIXV в., Санктпетербургъ 1880. Кипріан, Смѣреннаго митрополита Киевскаго (и) всея Руси отвѣтъ ко Афанасію, въпросившему о нѣкоихъ потребныхъ вещѣхъ (1390– 1405), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: ПамятникиXI–XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880. Кипріан Митр., Послѣсловіе(Изъ Служебника), [in:] Ф. Буслаєв, Историческая хрестоматия церковнославянскаго и древне русскаго языков, no. 16, Москва 1861. Копыстенский Захаріа, Палінодія или книга обороны католической святой апостолской Всходней Церкви […], [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 4: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 1, Санктпетербургъ 1878. [Кунцевич Йосафат],Катехизм, укладений слугою Божим Йосафатом, [in:] Святий Йосафат Кунцевич. Документи щодо беатифікації, transl. Й.Романик, Жовква 2010. [Кунцевич Йосафат],Правила і конституції написані святим Йосафатом для своїх священників, [in:] Святий Йосафат Кунцевич. Документи щодо беатифікації, transl. Й. Романик, Жовква 2010. [Могилa Петръ], Грамота кіевскаго митрополита Петра Могилы, разрѣшающая Болячевскому священнику (ставленническая грамота коего возбуджала сомнѣнія) священнодѣствіе до времени перваго митрополитанскаго собора, на судъ котораго означенный священникъ обязываетъся лично явиться (1633), [in:] С. Голубев, Киевский митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Приложенія, no. XIII, Кіевъ 1898. [Могилa Петръ], Грамота митрополита Петра Могилы къ перемышльским гражданамъ съ увѣшаніемъ не признавать своимъ епископомъ Іоанна Поппеля, какъ незаконо вступившаго на кафедру (1634), [in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 1, Приложенія, no. CXIV, Кіевъ 1883. Могила Петръ, Грамота священнику Болячевскому о обовязанностях 1633 г.,[fragm. in:] С. Голубев, Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Приложения, no. XIII, Кіевъ 1898. Молитва 1-я при хиротоніи епископа, [in:] А. Неселовскій, Чины хиротесій и хиротоній(опыт историко-археологіческаго изслѣдованія), Приложенія, no. 17, Камянецъ-Подольскъ 1906. О єпп҃ѣхъ, [in:] Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Я.Н. Щапов, София 1987. О поставленіи єп҃копъ и мних, [in:] Древнесловянская Кормчая XIV титулов без толкований, vol. 2, ed. В.Н. Бенешевич, Я.Н. Щапов, София 1987. Oath from the 15th century manuscript Euchologion(Illirico 15), [in:] М.Марусин, Чини Святительських Служб в Київському Евхологіоні з початку XVI ст., Рим 1966. Окружная грамота Константинопольскаго патріарха Іереміи ЛитовскоРусскимъ епископамъ о изверженіи изъ сана священниковъ двоеженцев и троеженцевъ, съ выговоромъ, что Пинскій епископъ Леонтій таковыхъ въ епархіи своей утаилъ, [in:] Акты, относящіеся къ исторіи Западной Россіи, vol. 4: 1588–1632, no. 17 (1589 year), Санктпетербургъ 1851.ОпредѣленіяВладимірскаго собора 1274 года, «Православный собесѣдникъ» 1863, 3. Отвѣты константинопольскаго патріаршаго собора на вопросы сарайскаго епископа Теогноста (1276), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в., Санктпетербургъ 1880. [Пигас Мелетий],Посланіе Мелетія ко всѣмъ вообще православнымъ русскимъ польской державы (въ которомъ онъ восхваляєтъ ихъ твердость въ православіи, а затѣмъ даеть отвѣты и изъясненія на нѣкоторые сдѣланые ему изъ Руси вопросы, какъ-то: о патріаршихъ титулахъ, устройствѣ патріаршаго клира, значеніи братствъ, аправѣ мірянъ проповѣдывать въ церкви, ставропигіахъ и проч. (июля 1597 г.), [in:] И.И. Малышевський, Александрійскій патріархъ Мелетій Пигасъ и его участіе въ дѣлахъ русской церкви,vol. 2, no. XVII, Киeв 1872. [Пигас Мелетий],Письмо Мелетія къ Ипатію Поцѣю. Мелетій обличаєтъ главнѣйшіе изъ отличительныхъ предметовъ римско – католическаго ученія, осуждаетъ унію защищаетъ Восточную Церковъ, убѣждаетъ и умоляетъ Поцѣя возвратитися къ православной Церкви (15акт. 1599), [in:] И.И. Малышевський, Александрійскій патріархъ Мелетій Пигасъ и его участіе въ дѣлахъ русской церкви,vol. 2, no. XL, Киeв 1872.Поновленїє священникомъ,(Trebnyk, 16th century), [in:] А. Алмазовъ, Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, vol. 3: Приложенія, Одесса 1894.Постановленіе Ильи, архіепископа новгородскаго, и неизвѣстнаго бѣлозерскаго епископа по двумъ случаямъ при совершеніи литургіи (1164–1168), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880. Поученіе Кіевскаго митрополита Сильвестра новопоставленному іерею, [in:] Акты, относящіеся къ исторіи западной Россіи, vol. 3: (1556–1557), Санкт-Петербургъ 1848. Радивиловский Антоній, Слово 2 на Рочины преѡⷭщеⷪнаго ѿца Пеⷮра Могили, [in:] М. Марковскій, Антоній Радивиловскій, южно-русскій проповѣдник XVII в., Киев 1894. [Ратенский Петръ], Поученіе митрополита Петра духовенству (объ епитиміяхъ и вдовыхъ попахъ) и мірянамъ (объ усердіи къ церкви), [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI-XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880. [Ратенский Петръ], Поученіе Петра Митрополита Кіевскаго всея Русіи Господи благослови къ єпископомъ, и попомъ, и архимандритом, иигуменом и дьякономъ, и ко всѣм православным крестьяном, [in:] Памятники старинной русской литературы, еd. Г. Кушелевый-Безбородко, vol. 4, ed. H. Костомаров, С. Петербургъ 1862. [Ратенский Петръ], Поученіе смиренного Петра митрополита Кіевскаго ивсея Руси игуменомъ, попомъ и діякономъ, [in:] Ф. Буслаєв, Историческая хрестоматия церковнославянскаго и древнерусскаго языков, no. 34, Москва 1861. Святительское поученіе новопоставленному священнику, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880. Священникъ святительский (Освященник), [fragm. in:] A. Неселовскій,Чины хиротесій и хиротоній (опыт историко-археологіческаго изслѣдованія), Камянецъ-Подольскъ 1906. Слово о ст҃҃҃ ѣй литургїи стго апсла Павла, [in:] I. Франко, Апокріфи і леґенди з українських рукописів, vol. 4: Апокріфи есхатолоґічні, Львов 1906.Слово ст҃҃҃ аго преподобнаго оца и Павла Исповѣдника о стой литургїи, [in:] I.Франко, Апокріфи і леґенди з українських рукописів, vol. 4: Апокріфи есхатолоґічні, Львов 1906.Cобор Кобринський року 1626 місяця Августа 26 дня, [edited in:] Ю.Федорів, Кобринський Синод, “Богословія” 1974, no. 38. [Солтан Іосифъ], Соборъ, во Богоспасаемомъ градѣ Вільни бывшій, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 4: Памятники полемической литературы въ Западной Руси, part 1, Санктпетербургъ 1878. Стоглавъ, [edited in:] “Православний собеседник”, Казань 1862.Суша Яковъ, Наука Соборовая и розные постановеня въ намѣстництвѣ Спискомъ и Бѣцкомъ и где индей поданыи (1669), [reprinted fragm. in:] В. Щурат, Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї Западно-Рускої Церкви XVII в., Жовква 1907. [Тꙋптало] Димитрїй Митрополитъ, Второє прїꙋготовленїє. В началѣ пред причащенїємъ да предидꙋтъ троє сїє: Вѣра, Надежда, Любовь, [in:] Сочинєнїя Святаго Димитрїа митрополіта Ростовскаго, vol. 1: Содержащая въ себѣ разныя небольшыя сего Святителя творенїя, съ присовокупленїемъ житїя єго и келейныхъ записокъ, Кієвъ 1824. [Тꙋптало] Димитрїй Митрополитъ, Митрополітъ Ростовскїй и Ꙗрославскїй честнымъ Іереомъ, по всѣхъ паствы нашеѧ градѣхъ и весѣхъ сꙋщымъ, благословеніе и миръ ѿ Гд҃а нашего Іи҃са Хрⷭта (О прїꙋготовленїи Іереовъ къ Бж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю), [in:] Сочинєнїя Святаго Димитрїа митрополіта Ростовскаго, vol. 1: Содержащая въ себѣ разныя небольшыя сего Святителя творенїя, съ присовокупленїемъжитїя єго и келейныхъ записокъ, Кієвъ 1824. [Тꙋптало] Димитрїй Митрополитъ, Поꙋченїє ко Іереемъ, [in:] Сочинєнїя Святaго Димитрїа митрополіта Ростовскаго, vol. 1: Содержащая въ себѣ разныя небольшыя сего Святителя творенїя, съ присовокупленїемъ житїя єго и келейныхъ записокъ, Кієвъ 1824. [Тꙋптало] Димитрїй Митрополитъ, Слово ѡ пастырствѣ дх҃овныхъ пастырей, [in:] СочинєнїяСвятаго Димитрїя митрополіта Ростовскаго, vol. 3: Содержащая въ себѣ поучєнїя на разные праздничные дни, Кієвъ 1824. [Тꙋптало]ДимитрїйМитрополитъ, Третїє прїꙋготовленїє[Іереовъ къБж҃ественномꙋ причащенїю], [in:] Сочинєнїя Святаго Димитрїа митрополіта Ростовскаго, vol. 1: Содержащая въ себѣ разныянебольшыя сего Святителя творенїя, съ присовокупленїемъ житїя єго и келейныхъ записокъ, Кієвъ 1824. Тяпинскіи Василей, Зацной монархи словенской, а звлаща богобойным ласка и покой от Бога Отца и Пана нашего Ісуса Христа, [in:] Прадмовы іпасляслоуі пасляднікау Францыска Скарыни, ed. У.М. Мальдзіс, Мінск 1991. Указъ како подобаєтъ избирати годных на священство і ставити уїерейскый, и дїаконъскый чинъ, [in:] А. Неселовскій, Чиныхиротесій ихиротоній(опыт историко-археологіческаго изслѣдованія), Камянецъ-Подольскъ 1906. Упис у книзі Львівського духовного суду “діянь” та конституції єпархіального собору 1669 року, [in:] І. Скочиляс, Собори Львівської єпархії XVI–XVIII століть, Львів 2006. Оуставъ како достоит избирати єпскопа, [in:] О. Лотоцький, Український Архієратикон, “EΛΠΙΣ” VI, 1932, z. 1–2. Херитонія поповськая (Священник святительский), [in:] А. Неселовскій,Чины хиротесій и хиротоній (опыт историко-археологіческаго изслѣдованія), Приложенія, no. 25,Камянецъ-Подольскъ 1906. Чинъ избраніяи поставленія въ епископы, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в., Санктпетербургъ 1880. 1228 г. Грамота константинопольскаго патріарха Германа ІІ къ митрополиту всея Руси Кириллу І о непоставленіи рабовъ въ священный санъ и неприкосновенности имуществъ и судовъ церковныхъ, [in:] Русская Историческая Библіотека, vol. 6: Памятники древне-русскаго каноническаго права, part 1: Памятники XI–XV в.,Санктпетербургъ 1880. 1591 года м. мая. Грамота патріарха Іереміи Кіевскому митрополиту, [in:] Архивъ Юго-Западной Россіи, издаваемый Коммиссіею для разбора древнихъ актовъ, сосотоящей при Кіевскомъ, Подольскомъ иВолынскомъ Генералъ-Губернаторѣ, part 1, vol. 10: Акты, относяшіеся къ исторіи Галицко-русской православной церкви (1423–1714), no. CLXXVII, Кіевъ 1904. Manuscripts Kormcza from the 15th century (the Tarnovski from Dzikov collection) until recently to be found in collection of Jagiellonian Library, sig. 71/1952. KormczaKonstantynowska from 16-17th century (dio. Lviv), National Library (Poland) collection, sig. 12694 III. Specimen ecclesiae Ruthenicae ab origine susceptae fidei ad nostra usque tempora[...] Appendix, Parisii 1859 . Устав рукоположенїа Cт҃҃илскаго сирѣч како подобаєт стлю избирати достойных на сщ҃ eнство и ставити на клирицкїй и дїаконскїй і иєрейскїй санъ, [in] Служебник і требник (ca. 1632) used to be available on the web site: (8.03.2016); part of manuscript without ustav available on the web site: . Other sources Augustin St., To My Lord Bishop Valerius, Most Blessed and Venerable, My Father Most Warmly Cherished with True Love in the Sight of the Lord, Augustine, Presbyter, Sends Greeting in the Lord (AD 391), [in:] A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Chrystian Church,ed. P. Schaff, vol. 1: The confessions and letters of St. Augustin, with a Sketch of His Life and Work, transl. J.G. Cunningham, Buffalo 1886, . Augustyn Św., Listy, transl. W. Eborowicz, Pelplin 1991. Bazyli Wielki, List do swoich biskupów [sufraganów]. Zakaz udzielania święceń za pieniądze, [in:] Canones Patrum Graecorum. Kanony Ojców Greckich (tekst grecki i polski), Atanazego i Hipolita (tekst arabski i polski), vol. 3: Synody i kolekcje praw, transl. S. Kalinkowski, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2009. Basili Magni, Scripta initio episcopatus, [in:] Patrologia graeca, edit. J.-P. Migne, vol. 32. Bible: New Revised Standard Version, . Biblia Tysiąclecia, 3 edit., Poznań - Warszawa 1995. Canones Patrum Graecorum. Kanony Ojców Greckich (tekst grecki i polski), Atanazego i Hipolita (tekst arabski i polski), vol. 3: Synody i kolekcje praw, transl. S. Kalinkowski, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2009. Divine Liturgy: Entire Text of St. John Chrysostom, . Dokumenty soborów powszechnych, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, vol. 1: 325-787, Krak 2002. Gennadius Patriarcha, Epistola encyclica ad pontificemRomanum et omnes met-ropolitanos, [in:] Patrologia graeca, vol. 85. Gennadiusz, Najświętszy patriarcha Konstantynopola i zgromadzony z nim święty synod do wszystkich najpobożniejszych metropolitów o tym, że nie wolno udzielać święceń za pieniądze (transl. A. Caba), [in:] Canones Pa-trum Graecorum. Kanony Ojców Greckich (tekst grecki i polski), Atanazego i Hipolita (tekst arabski i polski), vol. 3: Synody i kolekcje praw, transl. S. Kalinkowski, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2009. Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian, Funeral Oration on St Basil the Great (Oration XLIII) (transl. Ch. Browne, J. Swallow), [in:] Gregory Theologian Bilingual Anthology, Resources Online and in Print, . Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian, On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (Oration XXI), (transl. Ch. Browne, J. Swallow), [in:] Gregory Theo-logian Bilingual Anthology, Resources Online and in Print, . Grzegorz z Nazjanzu, Mowa 11. Do swego ojca, który nakłonił go do dzielenia z nim troski o Kościół w Nazjanzos, [in:] Święty Grzegorz z Nazjanzu, Mowy wybrane, Warszawa 1967. Grzegorz z Nazjanzu, Mowa 21. Pochwała Wielkiego Atanazego, biskupa Aleksandrii, [in:] Święty Grzegorz z Nazjanzu, Mowy wybrane, Warszawa 1967. Grzegorz z Nazjanzu, Mowa 43. Na cześć Bazylego, biskupa Cezarei Kapadockiej, [in:] Święty Grzegorz z Nazjanzu, Mowy wybrane, Warszawa 1967. Ignacy Antiocheński Św., List do Kościoła w Smyrnie, [in:] Pierwsi świadkowie. Pisma Ojców Apostolskich, transl. A. Świderkówna, ed. M. Starowieyski, Krak 1998; Kapłani pierwszych wieków. Antologia tekstów patrystycznych, ed. L. Padovese, Krak 2011. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, transl. W. Kania, ed. M. Starowieyski, Krak 1992. Kanony Kościoła Prawosławnego, transl. A. Znosko, Hajnka 2000. Konstytucje apostolskie oraz Kanony Pamfilosa z apostolskiegosynodu w Antiochii, Prawo kanoniczne świętych Apostołów, Kary świętych Apostołów dla upadłych, Euchologion Serapiona, transl. S. Kalinkowski, A. Caba, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2007. Patrologia graeca, edit. J.-P. Migne, vol. 48, Parisiis 1862. Per omnia sanctissimo et beatissimo fratri et coministro Adriano papae senioris Ro mae Tarasius indignus episcopus Constantinopoleos novae Romae in Domino salutem, [in:] Patrologia graeca, edit. J.-P. Migne, vol. 98, Parisiis 1862. Pseudo-Dionizy Areopagita, Pisma teologiczne, transl. M. Dzielska, Krak 2005. Simeon of Thessalonica, On God’s Temple and On the Sacred Liturgy, [in:] Patrologia graeca, edit. J.-P. Migne, vol. 155. Symeon z Tessaloniki, O świątyni Bożej, transl. A. Maciejewska, Krak 2007. Tarazjusz z Konstantynopola, List do Hadriana, papieża starego Rzymu, o tym, że nie wolno udzielać święceń za pieniądze, [in:] Canones Patrum Graecorum. Kanony Ojców Greckich (tekst grecki i polski), Atanazego i Hipolita (tekst arabski i polski), vol. 3: Synody i kolekcje praw, transl. S. Kalinkowski, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2009. Teofil Aleksandryjski, Święceń należy udzielać publicznie, [in:] Canones Patrum Graecorum. Kanony Ojców Greckich (tekst grecki i polski), Atanazego iHi polita (tekst arabski i polski), vol. 3: Synody i kolekcje praw, transl. S. Ka-linkowski, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2009. Літургікон або Служебник, Київ–Харків–Львів 2005. Огієнко І.,Як правити Святу Літургію. Практичні поради священникам при Богослуженні, [in:] Любім свою українську Церкву, Київ 2015. Служебник, Київ 1999. Literature Baron A., Modele biskupa propagowane w Antiochii w czasach Jana Chryzostoma (Refleksja nad drugą księgą ”Konstytucji apostolskich” na tle kanonów synodu antiocheńskiego z 341 r.), [in:] Czasy Jana Chryzostoma i jego pasterska pedagogia, ed. N. Widok, Opole 2008. Baron A., Pietras H., Wprowadzenie, [in:] Canones Patrum Graecorum. Kanony Ojców Greckich (tekst grecki i polski), Atanazego i Hipolita (tekst arabski ipolski), vol. 3: Synody i kolekcje praw, transl. S. Kalinkowski, ed. A. Baron, H. Pietras, Krak 2009. Bieńkowski L., Organizacja Kościoła Wschodniego w Polsce, [in:] Kościół w Polsce, vol. 2: Wieki XVI–XVIII, ed. J. Kłoczowski, Kraków 1970. Błońska M., Polonica cyrylickie XVI-XVIII wieku, [in:] Z badań nad dawną książką. Studia ofiarowane profesor Alodii Kaweckiej-Gryczowej w 85-lecie urodzin, part 2, Warszawa 1993. Borkowski A., Patriarchaty Wschodu w dziejach Rzeczypospolitej (1583–1601), Białystok 2014. Brogi Bercoff G., Ruś, Ukraina, Ruthenia, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, Rzeczpospolita, Moskwa, Rosja, Europa Środkowowschodnia: o wielowarstwo-wości ipolifunkcjonalizmie kulturowym, [in:] Contributi italiani al XIII Congresso Internazionale degli Slavisti (Ljubljana 15–21 agosto 2003), ed. A. Alberti, M. Garzaniti, P. Garzonio, Pisa 2003.Brzuszek B., Forma i materia, [in:] Encyklopedia katolicka, vol. 5, ed. L. Bieńkowski et. al, Lublin 1989. Bubczyk R., Gry w szachy i kości jako rozrywki duchowieństwaw średniowiecznej Polsce, “Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska” LVIII, sectio F: Historia, 2003. Chodynicki K., Kościół prawosławny a Rzeczpospolita Polska. Zarys historyczny 1370–1632, Warszawa 1934 (reprint Białystok 2005). Constas M., Gregory the Theologian, Oration 43: Funeral Oration on Basil the Great, . Czerski J., Boska liturgia św. Jana Chryzostoma. Wprowadzenie liturgiczno-biblijne do liturgii eucharystycznej Kościoła Wschodniego, Opole 1998. Delumeau J., Grzech i strach. Poczucie winy w kulturze Zachodu XIII–XVIIIw., transl. A. Szymanowski, Warszawa 1994. Delumeau J., Reformy chrześcijaństwa w XVI i XVII w., vol. 2, Warszawa 1986. Douglas M., Czystość i zmaza, transl. M. Bucholc, Warszawa 2007. Dzięgielewski J., Adam Ipatii Potii, [in:] Internetowy Polski Słownik Biograficzny, . Eckmann A., Osobowość dobrego katechety w ujęciu św. Augustyna, “Vox Pa-trum” 10, 1990, vol. 18. Fałowski A., Język ruskiego przekładu katechizmu jezuickiego z 1585 roku, Krak 2003. Fijałek J., Życie i obyczaje kleru w Polsce średniowiecznej, Krak 2002. Filimoniuk M., Historia antyminsa a Boska Liturgia, “Wiadomości Prawosławnej Diecezji Białostocko-Gdańskiej” 2008. Frick D.A., Introduction. Meletij Smotryc’kyj’s Ruthenian “Homilary Gospel” of 1616, [in:] The “Jevanhelije učytelnoje” of Meletij Smotyc’kyj, Cambridge Mass. 1987. Gil A., Skoczylas I., Kościoły Wschodnie w państwie Polsko-Litewskim w procesie przemian i adaptacji: metropolia kijowska w latach 1458–1795, Lub-lin-Lw 2014. Gudziak B.A., Kryzys i reforma. Metropolia kijowska, patriarchat Konstantynopola i geneza unii brzeskiej, Lublin 2008. Hodana T., Sodoma i królestwo babilońskie.Rzeczpospolita w pismach Iwana Wi-szeńskiego, [in:] Od Kijowa do Rzymu. Z dziejów stosunków Rzeczypospolitej ze Stolicą Apostolską i Ukrainą, ed. M.R. Drozdowski, W. Walczak and K. Wiszowata-Walczak, Białystok 2012. Isaievych I., Voluntary Brotherhood Confraternities of Laymen in Early Modern Ukraine, Edmonton–Toronto 2006. Janocha M., Unia brzeska a malarstwo ikonowe. Dialog wyznań czy dialog kultur?, [in:] Sztuka i dialog wyznań w XVI i XVII wieku, ed. J. Harasimowicz, Warszawa 2000. Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew Z., Druki cyrylickie z oficyn Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI–XVIII wieku, Olsztyn 2003. Kaim A., Ekumenia w dobie Renesansu: jedność Kościoła w ujęciu Stanisława Orzechowskiego, Lublin 2002. Kania W., Ideał kapłana według Jana Chryzostoma, “Ateneum Kapłańskie” 1947, vol. 46. Kania W., Ideał kapłana według Ojców Kościoła, “Currenda”, 1948, 97. Kania W., Ideał mówcy Kościelnego według św. Jana Chryzostoma, “Ateneum Kapłańskie” 1947, vol. 47. Kania W., Zasady wymowy chrześcijańskiej u św. Jana Chryzostoma, “Currenda” 1947, 9. Kawecka-Gryczowa A., Drukarze dawnej Polskiod XV do XVIII wieku, part 5: Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, Wrocław–Kraków 1959; part 6: Małopolska – Ziemie ruskie, Wrocław–Kraków 1960. Kelly J.N.D., Złote usta. Jan Chryzostom – asceta, kaznodzieja, biskup, Bydgoszcz 2001. Korzo M.A., Polski przekład katechizmu Jakuba Ledesmy T.J i jego wpływ na tradycję unicką w XVII w., “Odrodzenie i Reformacja w Polsce” XLVIII, 2004. Korzo M.A., Przyczynek do badań nad wpływami katolickimi na teologię prawosławną w XVII wieku, [in:] Studia o dawnej kulturze cerkiewnej w Rzeczypospolitej, ed. A. Gronek, A.Z. Nowak, Kraków 2016. Kuczara K., Działalność Joachima V na rzecz poprawy materialnej i duchowej Kościoła prawosławnego w Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Od Kijowa do Rzymu. Z dziejów stosunków Rzeczypospolitej ze Stolica Apostolską i Ukrainą, ed. M.R. Drozdowski, W. Walczak, K. Wiszowata-Walczak, Białystok 2012. Kuczara K., Grecy w Kościołach wschodnich w Rzeczypospolitej (1585–1621), Poznań 2012. Kuczyńska M., “Herezja werbalna” – wokół sporów o prawdę języka objawienia, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 3: Język naszej modlitwy - dawniej i dziś, 2012. Kuczyńska M., Homiletyka cerkiewna Pierwszej Rzeczypospolitej na pograniczu kultur (do połowy XVII wieku), [in:] Między Wschodem i Zachodem. Prawosławie i unia (vol. 11: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialogu z Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości), ed. M. Kuczyńska, Warszawa 2017. Kuczyńska M., Przepowiadanie Słowa Bożego. Ze studiów nad homiletyką prawosławną w Rzeczypospolitej, [in:] Język, literatura i kultura Słowian - dawniej i dziś, ed. B Zieliński, Poznań 2001. Kuczyńska M., Ruska homiletyka XVII wieku w Rzeczypospolitej. Ewolucja gatunku – specyfika funkcjonalna, Szczecin 2004. Kuczyńska M., Z Zachodu na Wschód. Obywatele Rzeczypospolitej na ołtarzach Cerkwi rosyjskiej, Krak 2011. Kuźmina D., Katechizmy w Rzeczypospolitej XVI i początku XVII wieku, Warszawa 2002. Lempa F., Intention, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 7, ed. S. Wielgus et.al, Lublin 1997. Libera P., Posługiwanie pasterskie jako amoris officium według św. Augustyna, “Dobry Pasterz” 1993, no. 13. Litak S., Kościół unicki obrządku greckiego na styku kultur w XVI-XVIII wieku, [in:] Belarus – Lithuania – Poland – Ukraine, ed. J. Kłoczowski, J. Pelen-ski, Lublin–Rzym 1994. Litak S., Struktura i funkcje parafii w Polsce, [in:] Kościół w Polsce, vol. 2: Wieki XVI–XVIII, ed. J. Kłoczowski, Kraków 1970. Lubac H. de, Wstęp. Teologia “Dialogu o kapłaństwie”,[in:] Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, Krak 1992. Łabyncew J., Szczawińska Ł., W mieście zwanym Zabłudowem, Białystok 1995. Maciejewski A., Ideał kapłaństwa u Ojców Kościoła, “Ateneum Kapłańskie” 1979, vol. 92. Magruk A., “Przeto ktokolwiekby jadł chleb i pił z kielicha Pańskiego niegodnie (…) sąd własny je i pije” (1 Kor 11, 27–29) – czyli o właściwym przygotowaniu się do Świętej Eucharystii według nauki Ojców Kościoła, “EΛПІΣ.” Czasopismo Teologiczne Katedry Teologii Prawosławnej Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku” 16, 2014. Melnyk M., Preekumenizm i konfesionalizm prawosławnych dążeń zjednoczeniowych w I Rzeczypospolitej (1590–1596), Olsztyn 2013. Melnyk M., Problematyka antropologiczna w pismach Piotra Mohyły, Olsztyn 2005. Melnyk M., Pilipowicz W., Kazania i komentarze sakramentalno-liturgiczne zTrebnika św. Piotra Mohyły, Olsztyn 2003. Między Wschodem i Zachodem.Prawosławie i unia (vol. 11: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialoguz Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości,), ed. M. Kuczyńska, Warszawa 2017. Minczew G., “Cała świątynia staje się mieszkaniem Boga”. Bizantyńskie mistago-gie – wykładnia i komentarz liturgii niebiańskiej, [in:] Symeon z Tessaloni-ki, O świątyni Bożej, Krak 2007. Minczew G., Święta księga – ikona – obrzęd. Teksty kanoniczne i pseudokanoniczne i ich funkcjonowanie w sztuce sakralnej i folklorze prawosławnych Słowian na Bałkanach, Łódź 2003. Mironowicz A., Sobory wileńskie 1509 i 1514 roku, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 5: Synody Cerkwi Prawosławnej w I Rzeczypospolitej, 2014. Mironowicz A., Sylwester Kossow biskup białoruski, metropolita kijowski, Bia- łystok 1999. Mironowicz A., Prawosławie i unia za panowania Jana Kazimierza, Białystok 1997. Myszor W., Przygotowanie do kapłaństwa w IV i V wieku w Kościele Wschodnim, “Vox Patrum” 13–15, 1993–1995, vol. 24-29. Naumow A., Język – deklaracja przynależności czy narzędzie, [in:] Idem, Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002. Naumow A., Księgi w Ławrze Kijowskiej, [in:] Idem, Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002. Naumow A., Pierwsze unickie służebniki, [in:] Idem, Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002. Naumow A., Rusin na szlakach renesansowej Europy, [in:] Franciszek Skoryna zPołocka. Życie i pisma, transl. and ed. M. Walczak-Mikołajczakowa, A.Naumow, Gniezno 2007. Naumow A., Skoryna o słowie i piśmie, [in:] Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002. Naumow A., Skoryna o edukacji, [in:] Domus Divisa. Studia nad literaturą ruską w I Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2002. Naumow A., Teologiczny aspekt druku (na materiale najstarszych wydań cerkiew-nosłowiańskich), [in:] Najstarsze druki cerkiewnosłowiańskie i ich stosunek do tradycji rękopiśmiennej, ed. J. Rusek, W. Witkowski, A. Naumow, Krak 1993. Naumow A., Tradycja kijowska w prawosławiu polskim, [in:] Prawosławie.Światło wiary i zdrój doświadczenia, ed. K. Leśniewski, J. Leśniewska, Lublin 1999. Naumow A., Twórczość liturgiczna w kręgu Mohylańskim, [in:] Wiara i historia. Z dziejów literatury cerkiewnosłowiańskiej na ziemiach polsko-litewskich, Krak 1996. Naumow A., Utwory południowosłowiańskie w cerkiewnosłowiańskim piśmiennictwie w Rzeczypospolitej, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 2: Kościół prawosławny na Bałkanach i w Polsce – wzajemne relacje oraz wspólna tradycja, 2011. Nodzyńska L., Opracowanie, [in:] Pateryk Kijowsko-Pieczerski czyli opowieści oświętych ojcach w pieczarach kijowskich położonych, Wrocław 1993.Nowak A.Z., Artykuły wstępne w księgach liturgicznych, jako źródło wiedzy dla celebransów w metropolii kijowskiej w XVI–XVII w., [in:] Ad fontesliturgicos 5. Літургійні коментарі як джерело літургіології, ed. В.Рудейко, Львів 2015. Nowak A.Z., Bracka oferta wydawnicza a odnowa kapłaństwa w Rzeczypospolitej – wybrane przykłady (pierwsza połowa XVII w.), [in:] Ośrodki kultury dawnej Słowiańszczyzny i ich znaczenie dziejowe(Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 12), ed. M. Kuczyńska, J. Stradomski, Kraków 2017. Nowak A.Z., “Co za rozum zamyka w sobie ta księga”. Rama wydawnicza druków cerkiewnych jako źródło wiedzy o księdze, “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 7: Dawna cyrylicka księga drukowana: twórcy i czytelnicy, 2016. Nowak A.Z., “Filary wytrwałości”, “diamenty stateczności”, “pałace wiary” –barokowe rozważania o cnocie stałości w prawosławnej literaturze oko-licznościowej (Rzeczpospolita XVII w.), [in:] Szczelina światła. Ruskie malarstwo ikonowe. Tom poświęcony pamięci Romualda Biskupskiego wrocznicę śmierci, ed. A. Gronek, Kraków 2009. Nowak A.Z., “Księgi cerkiewne” w pouczeniach dla kapłanów (XVII-wieczne starodruki w metropolii kijowskiej, [in:] Starodruki cyrylickie w zasobach parafialnych pogranicza polsko-słowackiego, ed. J. Grycz, Gorlice 2014. Nowak A.Z., Materiały niekonieczne w księgach liturgicznych: objaśnienia dla kapłanów na przykładzieantimensionu, [in:] O miejsce książki w historii sztuki, ed. A. Gronek, Kraków 2015. Nowak A.Z., Pieczerska oferta wydawnicza w pierwszej połowie XVII wieku arozwój kaznodziejstwa prawosławnego, [in:] Rola monasterów w kształtowaniu kultury ukraińskiej w wiekach XI–XX, ed. A. Gronek, A. Nowak, Kraków 2014. Nowak A.Z., Posługa duszpasterska w refleksji prawosławnych w XVII w. – wybrane zagadnienia, “Київська Академія” 9, 2011. Nowak A.Z., Reforma duchowieństwa wschodniego w Rzeczypospolitej w świetle ogólnego programu odnowy Kościoła, [in:] Między Wschodem i Zachodem. Prawosławie i unia (vol. 11: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialogu z Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości), ed. M. Kuczyńska, Warszawa 2017. Nowak A., Rolaprozopopei w ukraińskiej poezji elegijnej XVI–XVII w., [in:] Język, literatura, historia Ukrainy, ed. W. Mokry, Krak 2003. Nowak A.Z., Symbole władzy i odpowiedzialności biskupiej w kulturze duchowej metropolii kijowskiej do początku XVIII w., [in:] Symbole władzy. Władza symboli, ed. M. Dyras, B. Suchoń-Chmiel, T. Kwoka, Kraków 2014. Nowak A.Z., Synodalne źródła nauk dla kapłanów w metropoliikijowskiej do XVII w., “Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej”, vol. 5: Synody Cerkwi Prawosławnej w I Rzeczypospolitej, 2014. Nowak A.Z., Źródła wiedzy dla kapłana - przedmowy w siedemnastowiecznych nomokanonach metropolii kijowskiej, [in:] Chrześcijańskie dziedzictwo duchowe narodówsłowiańskich, Series III, vol. 2, Chrześcijaństwo w kulturze, sztuce i historii, ed. Z. Abramowicz, K. Korotkich, Białystok 2016. Nowakowski P., Pierwsze pontyfikały obrządku bizantyjsko-słowiańskiego (XVII/XVIII w.) jako przykład łączeniawschodniej i zachodniej tradycji liturgicznej w Cerkwi Greckokatolickiej, [in:] Harmonijne współistnienie kultury Wschodu i Zachodu na Ukrainie, ed. W. Mokry, Krak 2000. Nowakowski P., Pontyfikał Vat. Slav. 44 z końcaXVII wieku – świadek historii Unii brzeskiej w diecezji przemyskiej, [in:] Piśmiennictwo cerkiewnosło-wiańskie i sztuka cerkiewna w kulturze Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego iKo rony Polskiej(Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 6), ed. M.Kuczyńska, W. Stępniak-Minczewa, J. Stradomski, Kraków 2011. Nowakowski P., Problematyka liturgiczna w międzywyznaniowej polemice po Unii Brzeskiej (1596–1720), Krak 2004. Nowicka-Jeżowa A., Pokolenia trydenckie między tradycją a wyzwaniami przyszłości, [in:] Formowanie kultury katolickiejw dobie potrydenckiej. Powszechność i narodowość katolicyzmu polskiego (vol. 6: Kultura Rzeczypospolitej w dialogu z Europą. Hermeneutyka wartości), ed. J. Dąbkowska--Kujko, Warszawa 2016. Ogijenko I., Język cerkiewno-słowiański na Litwie i w Polsce w w. XV–XVIII, “Prace Filologiczne”, vol. 14, 1929. Ostapczuk J., Ewangelie czytane na wszelką potrzebę, różnorodne w cyrylickich starych drukach tetraewangelii, [in:] Zbrojne i ideologiczne konflikty w dawnym piśmiennictwie Słowian i ich echa w nowszej kulturze(Krakow-sko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 11:), ed. M. Kuczyńska, J. Stradomski, Krak 2015. Ostrogorski G., Dzieje Bizancjum, Warszawa 2015. Ozorowski M., Hipacego Pocieja podstawy unickiej teologii pozytywno-pole micznej, Warszawa 2012. Pałucki J., Izydor z Peluzjum, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 7, ed. S. Wielgus et. al, Lublin 1997. Paprocki H., Misterium Eucharystii. Interpretacja genetyczna liturgii bizantyjskiej, Krak 2010. Pawlikowska-Butterwick W., Konkubiny w życiu prałatów i kanoników wileńskich w XVI–XVII wieku. Uwagi o recepcji uchwał Soboru Trydenckiego w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim, [in:] Tridento visuotinio Bažnyčios susi-rinkimo (1545–1563) įtaka Lietuvos kultūrai, ed. A. Aleksandravičiūtė, Vilnius 2009. Pawlikowska-Butterwick W., Problemy z wdrażaniem reformy trydenckiej wbiskupstwie wileńskim w XVI wieku, “Rocznik Lituanistyczny” 1, 2015, . Podskalsky G., Chrześcijaństwo i literatura teologiczna na Rusi Kijowskiej (988–1237), Krak 2000. Prawosławne oficyny wydawnicze w Rzeczypospolitej, ed. A. Mironowicz, U.Pawluczuk, P. Chomik, Białystok 2004. Rękopisy cerkiewnosłowiańskie w Polsce. Katalog, ed. A. Naumow, A. Kaszlej in collaboration with E. Naumow, J. Stradomski, Krak 2004. Romaniuk K., Jankowski A., Kapłaństwo w Piśmie Świętym Nowego Testamentu, Krak 1994. Rusek J., “Oktoich” Szwajpolta Fiola a rękopiśmienne Oktoichy w księgozbiorach polskich, [in:] Najstarsze druki cerkiewnosłowiańskie i ich stosunek do tradycji rękopiśmiennej, ed. J. Rusek, W. Witkowski, A. Naumow, Krak 1993. Rusiecki M., Katechizm [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 8, ed. A. Szostek et. al, Lublin 2000. Ryś G., Celibat, Krak 2002. Salij J., „Kto dąży do biskupstwa, dobrego zadania pragnie” (1 Tm 3, 1) w interpretacji św. Tomasza z Akwinu, [in:] ”W tym, który umacnia” – Księga pamiątkowa ku czci J.E. Ks. Bp. Prof zw. EdwardaOzorowskiego z okazji 25-lecia sakry biskupiej, 40-lecia kapłaństwa i 30-lecia pracy w AWSDwBiałymstoku, Białystok 2004. Senyk S., The History of the Church in Ukraine, vol. 2: 1300 – to the Union of Brest(Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 289), Roma 2011. Skoczylas I., Sobory eparchii chełmskiej XVII wieku. Program religijny SlaviaUnita w Rzeczypospolitej, [Studia i materiały do dziejów chrześcijaństwa wschodniego w Rzeczypospolitej, vol. 4], Lublin 2008. Słowiński J.Z., Katechizmy katolickie w języku polskim od XVI do XVIII wieku, Lublin 2005. Sojka S., Intelektualno-duchowa formacjakapłanów według zasad św. Grzegorza Wielkiego, “Vox Patrum” 13–15, 1993–1995, vol. 24–29. Sparrow-Simson W.J., Introduction, [in:] The letters of St. Augustine, London 1919, . Stanula E., Gennadiusz I,[in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 5, ed. L. Bieńkowski et. al, Lublin 1989. Stanula E., Patrystyczna literatura o kapłaństwie. Przegląd bibliograficzny, “Vox Patrum” 13–15, 1993–1995, vol. 24–29. Starowieyski M., Czasy Jana Chryzostoma i jego pasterska pedagogia, [in:] Jan Chryzostom i monastycyzm w okresie młodości, ed. N. Widok, Opole 2008. Starowieyski M., Wstęp. Dialogo kapłaństwie, [in:] Św. Jan Chryzostom, Dialog o kapłaństwie, Krak 1992. Stradomski J., Pierwiastek południowosłowiański w XV-wiecznych zabytkach prawnych Cerkwi prawosławnej w zbiorach rękopisów Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej, [in:] The Orthodox Church in the Balkans and Poland. Connections and Common Tradition, ed. by A. Mironowicz, U. Pawluczuk, W. Wal czak, Białystok 2007. Stradomski J., Rękopisy i teksty. Studia nad cerkiewnosłowiańską kulturą literacką Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i Korony Polskiej do końca XVI w., (Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne, vol. 10), Kraków 2014. Stradomski J., Spory o “wiarę grecką” w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, Krak 2003. Stręk-Jodłowa L., Ideał kapłanawedług św. Efrema, “Vox Patrum” 7, 1987, vol. 12–13. Szafrański A., Wójcik W., Celibat (Kościół Zachodni), [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, edit. F. Gryglewicz et. al, Lublin 1985. Szegda M., Bazyli Wielki, [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2, ed. F. Gryglewicz et. al, Lublin 1985. Szegda M., Działalność prawno-organizacyjna metropolity Józefa IV Welamina Rutskiego (1613–1637), Warszawa 1967. Szegda M., Wcik W., Celibat (Kościoły Wschodnie), [in:] Encyklopedia Katolicka, vol. 2 ed. F. Gryglewicz et. al, Lublin 1985. Szkolnictwo prawosławne w Rzeczypospolitej, ed. A. Mironowicz, U. Pawluczuk, P. Chomik, Białystok 2002. Szymusiak J.M., Grzegorz Teolog. U źródeł chrześcijańskiej myśli IV wieku, Po znań 1965. Taft R., Great entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Rome 1978. Taft R., The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today, Collegeville 1986. Taft R.F., Through their own eyes. Liturgy as the Byzantines saw it, Berkeley 2006. The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, vol. 1, ed. J.A. McGuckin, Chichester 2011. Walczak B., Językowe konsekwencje unii brzeskiej. Postulaty badawcze, [in:] Czterechsetlecie Unii Brzeskiej. Zagadnienia języka religijnego, ed. Z. Lesz- czyński, Lublin 1998. Walter Ch., Sztuka i obrządek Kościoła bizantyńskiego, Warszawa 1992. Ware Kallistos, Kościół prawosławny, transl. W. Misijuk, Białystok 2002.Wawrzeniuk P., Shumliansky and the legacy of Petro Mohyla, [in:] Confessional Civilising in Ukraine. The Bishop Iosyf Shumliansky and the Introduction of Reforms in the Diocese of Lviv 1668–1708, Sertns hskola 2005. Wronkowska-Dimitrowa M., Triod Kwietny z Krakowskiej Oficyny Szwajpolta Fiola (1491 r.): studium filologiczno-językowe pierwszego cyrylickiego triodu drukowanego, Bydgoszcz 2010. Zagski D., Akomodacje modelu doskonalenia w odniesieniu do poszczególnych stanów i grup wiernych, [in:] Ai σωτηρίας όδοί. Model doskonalenia chrześcijańskiego w świetle ekshortacji pastoralnych Grzegorza z Nazjanzu,Toruń 2007. Ziomek J., Renesans, Warszawa 1999. Żelazny J., Biskup Ojcem. Zarys eklezjologii syryjskiej na podstawie ”Konstytucji Apostolskich”, Krak 2006. Алмазовъ А., Тайная исповѣдь въ Православной Восточной Церкви: Опыт внѣшней исторіи, Одесса 1894. Афанасьева Т.И., Древнесловянские толкованияна литургию в рукописной традиции XII–XVI вв., Москва 2012. Афанасьева Т.И., К вопросу о редакциях славянского перевода Диатаксиса Божественной литургии патриарха Филофея Коккина и обавторстве его древнерусской версии, [in:] Лингвистическое источниковедение иистория русского языка, ed. А.М. Молдован, Е.А. Мишина, Москва 2013. Афанасьева Т.И., Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великого третьего типа. 1: Диатаксис патриарха Филофея Коккина, [in:] Ea-dem, Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великого в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI–XV вв.), Москва 2015. Афанасьева Т.И., Молитва Херувимской песни “Никтоже достоин”, [in:] Eadem, Литургии Иоанна Златоуста и Василия Великого в славянской традиции (по служебникам XI–XV вв.), Москва 2015. Афанасьева Т.И.,Толкование на литургию как разновидность толковых текстов в древнеславянской письменности и его история в славянской рукописной традиции XII-XVI вв., [in:] Письменность, литература, фольклор славянских народов. История славистики. XV международный съезд славистов (Минск 2013), Москва 2013. Балик Б.І., Інокентій ІванВинницький, єпископ перемиський, самбірський, сяніцький (1680–1700), Рим 1978. Белякова Е.В., Издание памятников каноническoго права в XVI-XVII вв. и использование канонов в московских печатних изданиях, [in:] Е.В. Белякова, Л.І. Мошкова, Т.А. Опарина, Кормчая книга: от руко писной традиции к первому печатному изданию, Москва–СанктПетербург 2017. Белякова Е.В., О составе Хлудовского Номоканона: К истории сборника “Зинар”, “Старобългарска литература” 37–38, 2007. Белякова Е.В., Поучения киевских митрополитов как источник по истории образования духовенства, “Europa Orientalis. Studia z dziej Euro py Wschodniej i Państw Bałtyckich” 6, 2015, . Белякова Е.В., Cостав и происхождение статей Печатной Кормчей, [in:] Е.В. Белякова, Л.І Мошкова., Т.А. Опарина,Кормчая книга: от рукописной традиции к первому печатному изданию, Москва–СанктПетербург 2017. Белякова Е.В., Циклы поучений священникам в Кормчих западнорусской редакции, “Slavistica Vilnensis” 2016. Бондар Н., Історико-книгознавчий огляд видання “Миръ з Богомъ человѣку” (1669) та його примірників, [in:] Інокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ–Львів 2010. Броджі Беркофф Д., “Мир з Богом чоловіку” як система моральної філософії, [in:] Інокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ–Львів 2010. Буцьора Я., До проблеми покаяння у трактаті “Мир з Богом чоловіку”: богословский аналіз, [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ–Львів 2010. Ваврик М., До історії єпископської присяги в XV-XVI вв., [in:] Miscellanea in Honorem Cardinalis Isidori (1463–1963), Roma 1963. Ваврик М., Церковні друкарні i видання в українській католицькій церкві 17-го ст., “Analecta Ordinis P. Basilii Magni”, 15, Рим 1974. Ваврик М., Цінний пам’ятник обрядовости київської митрополії XV–XVI ст., [in:] Miscellanea in Honorem Cardinalis Isidori (1463–1963), Roma 1963. Возняк М., Історія української літератури, vol. 1, Львів 1992. Голубев С., Кіевскій митрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 1, Кіевъ 1883. Голубев С., Кіевскіймитрополит Петр Могила и его сподвижники, vol. 2, Кіевъ 1898. Голубинский Е.Е., Исторія Русской Церкви, Періодъ второй, Московскій, vol. 2, 2 половина тома, Москва 1911. Готц P., Таинства в истории отношений между Востоком и Западом, Москва 2014.Грабович Г., Авторство й авторитет у Івана Вишенського: діалектика відсутності, [in:] До історії української літератури, Київ 1997.Грушевський М., Історія української літератури, vol. 5, part 2, Київ 1995.Гуцуляк Л.Д., Божественна Літургія Йоана Золотоустого в київськіймитрополії після унії з Римом (період 1596–1839 рр.), Львів 2004. Ґаладза П., Аналіза Служебника Петра Могили 1639 р., [in:] LEITURGIARION. The service-Book of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Basil the Great, and the Presanctified Gifts, and the daily services pub-lished at the Monastery of the Caves Kiev, 1639 with the blessing of Metropolitan Peter (Mohyla) of Kiev-Halych and All Rus Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Fairfax–Lviv–New York 1996. Ґаладза П., Літургічне питання і розвиток богослужень напередодні берестейської унії аж до кінця XVII століттi, [in:] Берестейська унія та внутрішне життя Церкви в XVII століття. Матеріали Четвертих “Берестейських читань”,Львів, Луцьк, Київ, 2–6 жовтня 1995 р.,ed. Б. Ґудзяк, О. Турій, Львів 1997. Димид М., Єпископ Київської Церкви (1589–1891), Львів 2000.Діонисій Митрополитъ, Пасторологія святого Іоанна Лѣствичника, “EΛПІΣ.” 1927, 3.Дмитриев М.В., Между Римом и Царьградом. Генезис брестской церковной унии 1595–1596 гг., Москва 2003.Дмытревскій И., Историческое, догматическоеи таинственное изъясненіе на литургію, Мосвка 1856.Довга Л., Наука про покуту в українських текстахXVII ст., [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ–Львів 2010.Довга Л., Система цінностей в українській культурі XVII століття, Київ–Львів 2012. Довга Л., Соціальна утопія ІнокентіяГізеля, [in:] Україна XVII ст.: суспільство, філософія, культура, ed. Л. Довга, Н. Яковенко, Київ 2005.Жуковський А., Аналіза Требника Петра Могили, [in:] Требник Петра Могили (reprint), Canberra–Mchen–Paris 1988. Жуковський А., Петро Могила й питання єдности церков, Київ 1997. Запаско Я., Ісаєвич Я.,Пам’ятки книжковогo мистецтва.Каталог старо друків виданих на Україні, Львів 1981. Итигина Л.А., Белорусские старопечатные предисловия XVI – первой половины XVII в. (просвитительные тенденции), [in:] Тематика и стилистика предисловий и послесловий. Русская старопечатная литература 16-первая четверть 18 в., Москва 1981. Ісаєвич Я., Літературна спадщина Івана Федорова, Львiв 1989. Ісаєвич Я., “Lycaeum trilingue”: Концепція тримовної школи у Європів XVI ст., [in:] Острозька давнина, ed. I. Mицько, Львів 1995. Ісаєвич Я., Першодрукар ІванФедоров і виникнення друкарства на Україні, Львiв 1983. (Ісіченко) Архиєп. Ігор, “Миръ з Богомъ человѣку” в контексті богослов’я покаяння, [in:] Іннокентій Ґізель,Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ–Львів 2010. Ісіченко І., Історія Христової Церкви в Україні, Харків 2003. Історія української культури у п‘яти томах, vol. 2, Київ 2001; vol. 3, Київ 2003. Каратаєвъ И., Описаніеславяно-русскихъ книгъ, печатанныхъ кирриловскими буквами, vol. 1: Съ 1491 по 1652 г., Санктпетербург 1883. Кириличні рукописні книги у фондах Львівської наукової бібліотеки ім. В.Стефаника НАН України. Каталог, vol. 1: XI–XVI ст., ed. М.М. Кольбух, Львів 2007. Кметь В., “Життєписи єпископів грецького обряду” – пам’ятка української історіографії другої половини XVII ст., [in:] Lwów, miasto – społeczeństwo – kultura. Studia z dziejów Lwowa, ed. K. Karolczak, vol. 4, Krak 2002. Кніга Беларусі 1517–1917. Зводный каталог, ed. Г.Я. Галенчанка et al., Мінск 1986. Корзо М.А, История одного текста. Поучение об исповеди в составевиленских Полууставов XVII в., “Studi Slavistici” XIII, (2016); . Корзо М.А., “Мир з Богом чоловіку” Інокентія Ґізеля у контексті католицької моральної теології кінця XVI – першої половини XVII ст., [in:] Інокентій Ґізель, Вибрані твори у 3 томах, vol. 3, Київ–Львів 2010. Корзо М.А., О некоторых изданиях киевской митрополии в рукописном наследии Евфимия Чудовского, “Славяноведение” 2, 2014 Корзо М.А., Образ человека в проповеди XVII века, Москва 1999. КорзоМ.А., РусскаякатехетическаятрадицияXVII – первой половиныXVIIIв.: к постановке исследовательской задачи, [in:] Человек в культуре русского барокко, ed. М.С. Киселева, Москва 2007. Корзо М.А., Толкование Декалога в рукописных Учительных Евангелиях конца XVI – начала XVII века, [in:] Theatrum humanae vitae. Студії на пошану Наталі Яковенко, Київ 2012. Корзо М.A., Украинская и белорусская катехетическаятрадиция конца XVI-XVIII вв.: становление, еволюция и проблема заимствований, Москва 2007. Корогодина М.В., Древнерусское богословие и катехитические текстыXIVв., “Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики”, 4 (58) декабрь 2014. Корогодина М.В., Кормчая книга в Галиции (XVI – начало XVII века), Санкт Петербург 2015. Красносельцев Н., Матеріалы для исторіи чинопослѣдованія литургіи святаго Іоання Златоустаго, Казань 1889. Красноселъцев Н., “Толковая служба” и другія сочиненія, относящіяся къ обясненію богослужинія въ Древней Руси до XVIII вѣка. (Бібліографическій обзоръ), “Православный Собесѣдникъ” 1878, part 2. Крыжановский Е.М., Заботы объ исправленіи требникавъ южно-русской митрополіи до изданія Требника Петра Могилы, [in:] Собраніе сочиненій, vol. 1, part 1: Очерки и изслѣдованія по Русской церковной исторіи, Кіевъ 1890. Крыжановский Е.М., О Требникѣ Кіевского Митрополита Петра Могилы, [in:] Собраніе сочиненій, vol. 1, part 1: Очерки и изслѣдованія по Русской церковной исторіи, Кіевъ 1890. Лотоцький О., Українськi джерела церковного права, Варшава 1931. Лотоцький О., Український Архієратикон, “EΛΠΙΣ” VI, 1932. Мансветовъ И., Митрополитъ Кипріанъ, въ его литургической дѣятель ности, Мосвка 1882.Марковскій М., Антоній Радивиловскій, южно-русскій проповѣдникъ XVIIв., Киев 1894. Марусин М., Божественна літургія, Pим 1992. Марусин М., Погляд на виховання кандидатів духовного стану на Україні, відбитка з “Богословії”, vol. 31–34, Рим 1964. Марусин М., Чини Святительських Служб в Київському Евхологіоні з початку XVI ст., Рим 1966. Маслов С.И., Кирилл Транквилон-Ставровецкий и его литературная деятелность, Киев 1984.Мицик Ю., Передмова, [in:] Феодосій Софонович,Выклад о Церкві Святій, Київ 2002. Мошкова Л.В., Каталог славяно-русских рукописных книг XVI века, хранящихся в Российском государственном архиве древних актов, part 1: Апостол – Кормчая, Москва 2006. Назарко І., Київські і галицькі митрополити. Біографічні нариси (1590–1960), Рим 1962. Неменский О.Б., Свв. Кирилл и Мефодий каккрестителиРуси в православной и униатской мысли Речи Посполитойв первой половине XVII в., “Славянский альманах” 2013. Неселовскій А., Чины хиротесій и хиротоній, Каменецъ-Подольскъ 1906. Никольский К., Краткое обозрѣніе богослужебныхъ книгъ православной церкви, по отношенію ихъ къ церквоному уставу, съ приложеніемъ таблицъ, изображающихъ вседневныя службы, и словаря названій молитословій и пѣснопѣній церковныхъ, Санктпетербург 1895. Никольский К., Пособіе къ изученію устава богослуженія праволавной цервки, Санктпетербургъ 1900. Новак А.З., Традиційні теми повчань для священників у Євангелії Учительному Кирила Транквіліона Ставровецького – континуація і зміна, [in:] Кирило Транквіліон Ставровецький – Проповідник Слова Божого, (“Київське християнство”, vol. 6; “Львівська медієвістика”, vol. 5), ed. Б. Криса, Д. Сироїд, Львів 2017. Огієнко І., Загублений кремянецький стародрук: “Синод луцький” 1638 р.,”EΛΠΙΣ” V, 1931. Огієнко І., Iсторія українського друкарства, Львів 1925. Павловъ А., Номоканонъ при Большомъ Требникѣ, Москва 1897. Пекарский П., Наука и литерaтура в Росиипри Петре Великом, vol. 2: Описание славяно-русских книг и типографий 1698–1725 годов, Санктпетербургъ 1862. Пелешенко Ю., Українська література пізнього середньовіччя (друга половина XIII–XV ст.), Київ 2012. Перетц В.Н., Опыт характеристики общественной и бытовой морали вукраїнской литературе XVII в., [in:] Idem, Исследования и материалы по истории старинной Украинской литературы XVI–XVIII веков, Москва–Ленинград 1962. Перетц В.Н., Стихотворная“Похвала кн. Владимиру”, [in:] Idem, Исследования и материалы по истории старинной Украинской литературы XVI–XVIII веков, Москва–Ленинград 1962. Петровъ Н., Краткое обозрѣніє рукописей Кіево-Софійской библіотеки, Кіевъ 1901. Петровский А., “Учителное извѣстіе” при славянскомъ служебникѣ, “Христианское чтение” 1911, vol. 235, part 2; vol. 236, part 1–2. Петрушевичъ А.С., Архіератиконъ кіевской митрополіи съ половыни XIV столѣтія, по списку съ конца 16 столѣтія, Лвовъ 1901. Пилипович В., Владика Інокентій Винницький у дослідженнях перемиських істориків, [in:] Катихисіс або бароковий душпастирський сад, ed. В.and Д. Пилиповичі, Перемишль 2007. Пилипович Д., Катихисіс єп. Інокентія Винницького в богословському контексті епохи, [in:] Катихисіс або бароковий душпастирський сад, ed. В. and Д. Пилиповичі, Перемишль 2007. Покровский А.И., O соборах Юго-Западной Руси 15-17 веков, “Богословский вестник” 1906, vol. 3, no. 9. Попелястий В., Богослов’я таїнства покаянняна основі текстів Требникамитрополита Петра Могили,“Acta studiosа: богословський науковий збіник”, 7: Літургійний випуск, 2014. Рудь С., Літургія св. Івана Золотоустого в першій половині XVII ст., [in:] Унійний з’їзд у Львові, ed. В. Кучабський, Львів 1938. Сеник С., Берестейська унія і світське духовенство: наслідки унії у перших десятиліттях, [in:] Берестейська унія та внутрішнє життя Церкви y XVII столітті. Матеріали Четвертих “Берестейських читань”, Львів, Луцьк, Київ, 2–6 жовтня 1995 р.,ed. Б. Ґудзяк, О. Турій, Львів 1997. Сазонова Л.И., Украинские старопечатные предисловия конца XVI - первой половины XVII в. (борьба за национальное единство), [in:] Тематика и стилистика предисловий и послесловий. Русская старопечатная литература 16-первая четверть 18 в., Москва 1981. Сазонова Л.И., Украинские старопечатные предисловия конца XVI - первой половины XVII в. (особенности литературной формы), [in:] Тематика и стилистика предисловий и послесловий. Русская старопечатная литература 16-первая четверть 18 в., Москва 1981. Сінкевич Н.,“Патерикон” як морально-дидактичний твір, [in:] Eadem, “Патерикон” Сильвестра Косова: переклад та дослідженняпам’ятки, Київ 2013. Cкочиляс І., Запровадження метричних книг у Київській православній митрополії в другій половині XVII століття, “Генеалогічні записки Українського геральдичного товариства”, 2001, vol. 2. Скочиляс I., Галицька (Львівська) єпархіяХІІ–ХVIII ст.: Організаційна структура та правовий статус, Львів 2010. Скочиляс І., Релігія та культура Західної Волині нa початку XVIII ст. За матеріялами Володимирського собору 1715 р., Львів 2008. Скочиляс І., Собори Львівської єпархії XVI–XVIII століть, Львів 2006. Соколовъ И.П.,Ученіе римско-католической церкви о таинствѣ священства. Историко-догматическій очеркъ, С.-Петербургъ 1907. Соловій М.М., Божественна літургія, історія – розвиток – пояснення, Львів 1999. Соловій М.М., Великий А.Г., Святий Йосафат Кунцевич, його життя ідоба, Торонто 1967. Соневицький Л., Український Єпископат Перемиської і Холмської Єпархій в XV-XVI ст., Рим 1955. Строев П.,Обстоятельное описание старопечатных книг славянских ироссийских, хранящихся в библиотеке [...] графа Федора Андреевича Толстого, Москва 1829. Сумцов Н.Ф., Очерки исторіи южно - русскихъ апокрифическихъ сказаній ипѣсенъ, “Кіевская старина” 6, vol. 19, 1887 (сентабръ). Тафт Р., Візантійський обряд. Коротка історія, Львів 2011. Тимошенко Л., „Жаль намъ души и сумнѣнья Вaшей Милости” (київський митрополит Онисифор Дівочка перед викликами часу), “Дрогобицький Краєзнавчий Збірник”, X, 2006. Тимошик М., Жива душа народу: митрополит Іларіон (Іван Огієнко) про церкву в житті українців (вступ), [in:] Любім свою Церкву, Київ 2015. Титовъ Ф., Типографія Кіево-Печерской Лавры. Историческій очеркъ (1606–1616–1916), vol. 1: (1606–1616–1721), Кіевъ 1916. Титов Ф., Поставленіе во діакона и священника и избраніе епископа въ древней Западнорусской Церкви, или Кiевской митрополiи въ XIV-XVI в.в., “Труды Киевской Духовной Академии” 1902, no. 5. Федорів Ю., Кобринський Синод 1626 р., “Богословія” 1974, no. 38. Флоря Б.Н., Восточные патриархи и западнорусская церковь, [in:] Брестская уния 1596г. и общественно-политическая борьба на Украине и в Белоруссии в концеXVI – начале XVII в., part 1: Брестская уния 1569 г. Исторические причины, Москва 1996. Флоря Б.Н., Исследования по истории Церкви.Древнерусское и славянское средневековье: Сборник, Москва 2007. Флоря Б.Н., Епископы, православная знать и братства. Вопрос о реформе церкви в последние десятилетия XVI в., [in:] Брестская уния 1596г. иобщественно-политическая борьба на Украине и в Белоруссии в конце XVI – начале XVII в., part 1: Брестская уния 1569 г. Исторические причины, Москва 1996. Франко I., Апокріфи і леґенди з українських рукописів, vol. 4: Апокріфи есхатольоґічні, Львов 1906. Харламповичъ К.В., Западно-русскія православныяшколы 16 и начала 17 вѣка, Казань 1898. Хойнацкий А., Западнорусская церковная унія въ ея богослуженіи и обрядахъ, Кіевъ 1871. Чуба Г., Українські рукописні учительні Євангелія, Львів 2011. Чуба Г., Українські Учительні Євангелія [in:] Рукописна україніка у фондах Львівської Науковoї Бібліотеки ім. В. Стефаника НАН України та проблема створення інформаційного банку даних. Матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції 20–21 вересня 1996 року, Львів 1999. Чуба Г., “Учительне Євангеліє”1616 р. у перекладі Мелетія Смотрицького в контексті української гомілетичної літератури,“Київська Академія” 2–3, 2006. Чухліб Т., Львівський єпископ Йосиф Шумлянський – військовий діяч та дипломат Корони Польської (60-ті роки XVII – початок XVIII ст.), “Україна: культурна спадщина, національна свідомість, державність”,21, 2012. Шманько Т., Латинізація та окциденталізація: прояви і наслідки, [in:] Pro Oriente. Берестейска унія (1596) в історії історіографії: спроба підсумку, ed. Й. Марте, О. Турій, Львів 2008. Шманько Т., Статті морально-канонічного характеру в рукописних служебниках і требниках XVI–XVII ст., “Київська Академія” 7, 2009. Шульц Г.Й., Візантійська літургія, свідчення віри та значення символів, Львів 2002. Щапов Я.Н., Византийское и южнославянское правовое наследие на Руси XI–XIII вв., Москва 1978. Щапов Я.Н., Восточнославянские и южнославянские рукописные книги в собраниях Польской Народной Республики, part 1: Рукописи собраний Варшавы и Кракова (№№ 1–93), Москва 1976. Щапов Я.Н., Некоторые юридические и канонические памятники в славянской письменности XII-XV вв., [in:] Методическое пособие по отношению славяно-русских рукописей для Сводного каталога рукописей, хранящихся в СССР, vol. 1, Москва 1973. Щепкинa М.В., Переводы предисловий и послесловий первопечатних книг, [in:] У истоков русского книгопечатання, Москва 1959. Щурат В., Два письма еп. Іннок. Винницкого. Причинок до істориї ЗападноРускої Церкви XVII в., Жовква 1907. Яковенко Н., “Європа” в українському сприйнятті: між географією таоцінковою амбівалентністю, [in:] Дзеркала ідентичності. Дослідженняз історії уявлень та ідей в Україні XVI – початку XVII століття, Київ 2012. Яковенко Н., Нарис історії середньовічної та ранньомодерної України, видання трете, перероблене та розширене, Київ 2006. Яковенко Н., У пошуках Нового неба. Життя і тексти Йоаникія Ґалятовського, Київ 2017. Ясіновський А.,Внесок острозького культурного осередку в розвиток української богословської думки (кінець XVI – початок XVII століть), “Ковчег.Науковий збірник із церковної історії”, vol. 3, ed. Б. Ґудзяк, І.Скочиляс, О. Турій, Львів 2001. Ясіновський А., Про венеціансько-острозькі культурні контакти: “Синтагматіон” Гавриїла Севера, [in:] Україна XVII ст. між заходом та сходом Європи.Матеріали І-го українсько-італійського симпозіуму 13–16 вересня 1994 р., Київ - Венеція 1996. Ясіновський А., “Синтагматион” Гавриила Севера: греческий оригинал иукраинский перевод, “Славяне и их соседи”, vol. 6: Греческий и славянский мир в средние века и раннее новое время, Москва 1996. Index Aaron (Bible) 95, 211 Abramowicz Z. 45, 403 Adrian (Hadrian) I, pope 169, 173, 397 Adrian (Hadrian) II, pope 286 Afanasieva T. 203, 204, 269, 270, 276, 285, 407 Agaton, pope 241 Ahab (Bible) 107 Alberti A. 13, 398 Aleksandravičiūtė A. 237, 404 Almazov A. 300, 302, 304, 305, 316, 317, 320, 321, 333, 342, 344, 348, 389, 390, 392, 407 Ambrose, St 111, 112, Amfilokh, king 277, 288 Ammonius, monk 136, 137 Ananias (Bible) 107 Andronicus (Andronicos) II the Elder (Palaeologus), emperor 166, 168 Annas (Bible) 330 Anthony the Great, St. 136 Aristenes Alexy 176, 205 Athanasius III Patellaros (Patellaris), partiarch 42, 198, 199 Athanasius of Alexandria 42, 141, 311 Augustine, St. 111, 125, 132, 133, 135, 297, 395 Balaban Gedeon, bishop 15, 19, 23, 24, 26, 36, 39, 53, 98, 102, 178, 213, 356, 370 Balaban Teodor 22, 53 Balsamon Theodore, canonist 176, 179, 195 Balyk B. 152, 219, 407 Baranovych Lazar, bishop 54, 55, 70, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 253, 259, 370 Baron A. 111, 173, 215, 240, 395, 396, 397, 398 Barvinskyi B. 122, 388 Basil I, emperor 174 Basil the Great, St. 21, 22, 23, 51, 83, 54, 135, 138, 139, 148, 154, 155, 171, 173, 174, 176, 253, 255, 256, 269, 272, 275, 288, 291, 295, 321, 334, 357, 395 Beda Venerabilis 339 Benedict, St. 136, Beneshevich Vladimir 114, 153, 168, 172, 388, 389, 391 Besarab Matei 34 Bida K. 40, 101, 371 Bielakova Elena 9, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 173, 341, 407, 408 Bieńkowski L. 57, 150, 156, 157, 207, 232, 262, 264, 398, 405 Bilkevych Sylvester, metropolitan 53 Birkowski Fabian 236 Blastares Matthew, canonist 24Błońska M. 21, 398 Bobrykovych Yosyf, bishop 155 Boiarskyi Ivan, bishop 16 Bondar N. 85, 408 Borkowski Andrzej 9, 151, 154, 177, 183, 248, 251, 366, 398 Brogi Bercoff Giovanna 9, 13, 15, 85, 298 Broniewski Marcin (Philalet Christo-phor) 121, 197, 237, 238, 241, 242, 247, 385 Browne Ch. 139, 141, 396 Brylinskyi Arsenii, bishop 122 Brzuszek B. 264, 398 Bubczyk R. 145, 398 Bucholc M. 398 Budnyi Symon 34 Buslaiev F. 45, 51, 390, 392 Butsiora Yaroslav 87, 408 Byliński J. 197, 385 Caba A. 172, 215, 396 Caiaphas (Bible) 175, 330 Callistus, patriarch 40 Chepiha I. 88, 371 Chetvertynskyi Stefan, prince 81, 342 Chodkiewicz Jan Karol 151 Chodynicki Kazimierz 147, 398 Chomik P. 14, 15, 404, 406 Chuba Halyna 8, 9, 64, 99, 415 Chukhlib T. 152, 219, 415 Chynczewska-Hennel Teresa 9 Clement I, pope 240, 241 Constantine (son of Basil I, emper-or) 174 Constas M. 138, 398 Cunningham J.G. 132, 395 Cyprian (of Carthage), Church Fa-ther 264 Cyril Lukaris, patriarch 198 Cyril of Jerusalem, Church Father 236, 285 Cyril, St. 286, 287 Czartoryski Aleksander 120 Czartoryski Jerzy 34 Czerski J. 268, 269, 398 David (Bible) 41, 318 Dąbkowska-Kujko J. 7, 404 Delumeau J. 145, 293, 398 Denisowicz Hilarion 41, 107, 108, 369 Dionysius the Areopagite 132, 203 Divochka Onesyfor, metropolitan 146, 192, 247, 251 Długosz J. 197, 385 Dmitriev Mykhail V. 9, 63, 409 Dmytrievskii I. 195, 268, 283, 409 Domzhyv-Lutkovych Pavlo 65 Dorofieievych Havryil 20, 113, 272 Douglas Mary 344, 398 Dovha Larysa 9, 86, 87, 88, 105, 409 Drozdowski M.R. 143, 399, 400 Dymyd M. 120, 409 Dyras M. 118, 403 Dzielska M. 132, 397 Dzięgielewski J. 145 Eborowicz W. 133, 395 Eckmann A. 111, 398 Elias of Novgorod, bishop 299 Elias, prophet (Bible) 107, 273, 314 Elisha (Bible) 169 Elymas (Bible) 107 Ephrem the Syrian, Church Father 111, 135, 136, 154, 155 Ephrem, monk 114 Eudoxia, empress 107 Eusebius, bishop 174 Eusebius, Church Father 236 Eustache 128 Euthymius of Tirnovo 270 Ezekiel, prophet (Bible) 42 Fałowski A. 65, 398 Fedoriv Y. 184, 232, 393, 414 Fijałek J. 145, 237, 398 Filimoniuk M. 195, 399 Fiodorov (Fedorov) Ivan 15, 33 Fiol Schweipolt 14, 81 Floria B.N. 120, 145, 177, 248, 414, 415 Franko Ivan 277, 393, 415 Frick D.A. 34, 64, 99, 100, 181, 370, 373, 399 Frycz-Modrzewski Andrzej 237 Galadza Petro 26, 27, 66, 262, 338, 409 Galatovskyi Yoanykii 40, 41, 49, 88, 89, 100, 101, 104, 277, 278, 304 Garzaniti M. 13Garzonio P. 13Gehazi (Bible) 169Gennadius I, patriarch 174, 175 Germanos, patriarch 91, 220Gil A. 9, 399Gizel Innokentii 85, 86–90, 105, 131, 132, 162, 189, 190, 211–220, 225, 253, 254, 295–297, 310, 315, 320, 322, 332, 335, 338, 358, 372 Glezna Iona, metropolitan 137Golenkovskyi Varlaam 74, 81, 136, 137, 268, 279, 280, 283, 284, 293, 294, 301, 306, 307, 310, 313, 316, 324, 325, 327, 333, 372 Golubiev Stepan 60, 68, 70, 73, 74, 76, 130, 156, 194, 256, 258, 259, 312, 373, 376, 378, 381, 391, 408 Golubinskii E.E. 341, 408 Gotts P. 335, 409Gregory Dialogist (the Great), pope 111, 112, 125, 135, 288 Gregory of Nazianzus (Nazianzen, the Theologian), St. 42, 111, 132, 135, 138, 139, 141–143, 155, 275, 396 Gregory of Nyssa, St. 236Gregory the Elder, St. 135Gronek A. 30, 35, 41, 104, 264, 399, 403, 406 Grycz J. 291, 403Gryglewicz F. 237, 406Gudziak Borys 26, 36, 67, 119, 120, 145, 146, 151, 177, 178, 184, 248, 251, 262, 399, 409, 413, 416 Hadrian I (v. Adrian I) Hadrian II (v. Adrian II) Halenchanka Heorhii 22, 66, 67, 410 Haraburda Vasyl 98 Harasimowicz J. 278, 399 Hermogenes, bishop 174, 179 Herod I, king 342 Hodana T. 143, 399 Horbach (Horbatsch) Oleksa 48, 68, 84, 379 Hosea, prophet (Bible) 40 Hoshovskyi Yurii, bishop 56 Hozjusz Stanisław, bishop 223 Hrabovych Hryhorii 143, 409 Hrushevskyi Mykhailo 52, 142, 144, 409 Huculiak L.D. 327, 409 Ieremin I.P. 122, 389 Ignatius of Antioch (Bohonosec) 271, 340, 396 Ilarion Metropolitan (v. Ohienko Ivan) Ioan II, metropolitan 208, 238 Ioan, monk (v. Elias, bishop) 299 Isaievych I. 33, 53, 54, 56, 69, 70, 73, 84, 90, 113, 328, 399, 409, 410 Isichenko Ihor 9, 32, 87, 410, 416 Isidore of Pelusium, St. 83, 126, 127, 174, 428 Itihina L.A. 33–35, 410 Jan III Sobieski, king 151, 152 Jankowski A. 160, 203, 405 Janocha M. 278, 399 Jaroszewicz-Pieresławcew Zoja 15, 22, 33, 34, 69, 98 Jeremias II Tranos, patriarch 17, 123, 151, 153, 177, 198, 247, 248, 250, 251 Jerome, St. 111 Jezebel (Bible) 107 Joakhim V, patriarch 177, 248, 249, 254 Jobert Ambrois 9 John Chrysostom, St. 28, 40, 48, 49, 51, 80, 81, 83, 84, 95, 102, 106, 109, 111, 112, 121, 126, 128, 129, 133–135, 154, 155, 157, 158, 170, 187, 189, 200, 231, 236, 264, 269, 272, 273, 275, 276, 288, 291, 292, 310, 324, 325, 370, 372, 374, 375, 380, 383, 384 John Climacus (Of the Ladder, Si-naites), St. 111 John IX Agapetos, patriarch 99 John of Damascus, St. 91, 112 John Scholasticus, patriarch 172 John the Silent (the Hesychast), St. 136 Judas Iscariot 169, 174, 175, 185, 308 Justinian I, emperor 114, 165, 167, 174, 239 Kabasilas Neilos 91 Kabasilas Nicholas 91 Kaim A. 237, 399 Kalinkowski S. 215, 395-398 Kalnofoiskii Atanasii 106, 107, 278, 369 Kania Władysław 111, 112, 135, 396, 399 Karataiev Ivan 16, 22, 33, 66–70, 328, 410 Karnkowski Stanisław 75 Karolczak K. 178, 410 Karpovych Leontyi 64 Kaszlej A. 51, 404 Kawecka-Gryczowa A. 15, 70, 399 Kelly J.N.D. 135, 157, 399, 400 Kempa Tomasz 9 Kharlampovych K.V. 14, 415 Khodkevych Hryhorii 15, 120 Khoinackyi A. 31, 415 Kiprian (Cyprian), metropolitan 26, 45, 63, 269, 319, 320, 353, 390 Kisiel Adam 34 Kłoczowski J. 57, 150, 156, 398, 400 Kmet V. 178, 219, 410 Kokkinos Philotheus, patriarch 269, 316 Kolbukh M. 50, 410 Kolobanov V. 52 Kolosova V.P. 17, 286 Kopystenskyi Mykhailo, bishop 123 Kopystenskyi Zakharia, bishop 20, 38, 40-42, 81, 109, 122, 147, 179, 180, 224, 227, 228, 274, 283, 284, 328, 330, 331, 375, 376 Korecki Samuel 34 Korogodina M.V. 51, 63, 411 Korotkich K. 45, 403 Korzo Margarita 9, 12, 39, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 74, 76, 86, 89, 93, 262, 264, 293, 335, 399, 410, 411 Kossov Sylvester, bishop 15, 52, 54, 56, 68, 69, 93, 106, 155, 193, 227, 228, 264, 308, Kostomarov M. 51, 392 Kozlovskyi Trofymovych Isaia 72, 76, 79, 212, 217, 230, 263, 265, 267, 349, 378, Krasieński Borzobohaty J. 146 Krasnoselcev N. 91, 270, 271, 285, 411 Krekoten V.I. 17, 386 Krysa B. 101, 412 Kryzhanovskii E.M. 39, 319, 411 Kuchabskyi V. 270, 413 Kuczara Konrad 9, 177, 400 Kuczborski Walenty 75 Kuczyńska Marzanna 7–9, 18, 21, 35, 49, 98–102, 115, 143, 185, 224, 232, 400–404 Kuntsevych Yozafat 26, 67, 71, 75, 137, 184, 196, 198, 255, 256, 263, 280, 297, 298, 303, 309, 311, 333, 334, 390 Kuschelevyi-Bezborodko H. 51, 392 Kuźmina D. 72, 72, 400 Kwoka T. 118, 403 Kyprian, metropilitan 26, 45, 51, 63, 238, 270, 319, 320, 352, 353, 390 Kyryl II(III), metropolitan 52, 166– 169, 205, 209, 210, 221, 341 Kyseleva M.S. 76, 411 Labyntsev Yurii 67, 98, 401 Lausos, chamberlain 136 Ledesma de Pedro 86 Ledesma Jacob 71 Lempa F. 335, 400 Leon VI the Philosopher, emperor 174 Leontius of Rostov, St. 51 Leontius, bishop 174, 175 Leszczyński Z. 223, 406Leśniewska J. 120, 402 Leśniewski K. 120, 402 Lewin P. 41, 106, 369 Libera P. 111, 400 Litak Stanisław 156, 261, 400 Lototskyi Oleksandr 8, 14, 16, 22, 50, 54, 59, 83, 125, 126, 133, 137, 192, 394, 411 Lubac H. de 273, 400 Lupu Vasile 34 Macedonius, heretic 169, 175 Maciejewska A. 132, 397 Maciejewski A. 112, 401 Magruk A. 264, 401 Makarii (Bulgakov) 52 Maldzis U.M. 16, 394 Malyshevskyi I.I. 164, 183, 216, 245, 392 Mamonych Leon Kozmych 16, 22, 26, 28, 65, 98, 287, 356, 377 Mansvietov I. 269, 270, 352, 411 Marchant Jacques 74 Mark (the Ascetic) 136 Markovskii M. 104, 156, 392, 411 Marte Y. 109, 415 Marusyn M. 52, 116, 117, 165, 166, 192, 195, 232, 234, 268, 271, 276, 391, 411 Mary Magdalene (Bible) 328 Mary the wife of Cleopas (Bible) 328 Maslov S.I. 101, 412 Maximus the Confessor, St. 276 Maximus the Greek, St. 285McGuckin J.A. 277, 406 Melnyk Marek 9, 36, 87, 102, 119, 130, 401 Methodius, St. 287 Migne J.-P. 112, 171, 395, 397 Milkowicz W. 147, 387, 388 Minczew Georgie 276, 277, 285, 401 Mironowicz Antonii 8, 9, 14, 15, 68, 116, 155, 193, 401, 404, 406 Misijuk W. 153, 406 Mohyla Petro 10, 18, 19, 27–29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 57, 60, 67, 72, 74–76, 79, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 97, 99, 102, 108, 110, 116, 129, 130, 151, 152, 155, 156, 178, 194, 196, 198, 199, 212, 217, 228, 230, 256–259, 263, 265, 267, 284, 293, 296, 298, 299, 304, 309, 310, 312, 314, 315, 319–323, 326–328, 330–340, 342, 345, 347–350, 356, 357, 359, 362, 364, 377, 378, 381, 391, Mokry W. 65, 115, 403 Moldovan A.M. 270, 407 Moses, prophet 151 Moshkova L.I. 24, 59, 73, 341, 407, 408, 412 Mouzalon Nicholas, patriarch 165 Mykytas V.L. 18, 386 Myshyna E.A. 270, 407 Myszor W. 112, 401 Mytsko Ihor 185 Mytsyk Yurii 90, 91, 383, 412 Naaman (Bible) 169 Naumow Aleksander 9, 14, 15, 33, 51, 81, 102, 120, 229, 262, 287, 323, 350, 354, 355, 401, 402, 405 Naumow E. 51, 404 Nazarko I. 145, 412 Neselovskyi Atanasii 53, 115–118, 133, 165, 186, 203, 204, 233, 234, 258, 282, 342, 346, 350, 353, 391, 393, 394, 412 Niemienskyi O.B. 287, 412 Nikolskii K. 319, 331, 334, 412 Nikon, patriarch 39, 91, 193 Nodzyńska L. 136, 388, 402 Nowak A.Z. 101, 149, 224, 288, 291, 301, 342, 348, 399, 402, 403, 412 Nowakowski Przemysław 9, 108, 115, 336, 353, 403, 404 Ohienko Ivan 15, 32, 55, 69, 268, 382, 397, 412 Oparina T.A. 52, 173, 341, 407, 408 Origen 125 Ortholog Theophil (v. Smotrytskyi Meletii) Orzechowski Stanisław 237, 238 Ostapczuk J. 21, 404 Ostrogorski G. 174, 404 Ostrogskyi Konstantyn, prince 15, 33, 223, 240 Ozorowski M. 145, 404 Pachomius the Great 136 Padovese L. 111, 340, 396 Palladius of Gallatia, bishop 136Pałucki J. 126, 404 Panova S.I. 270 Paphnutius of Thebes, bishop 246 Paprocki H. 268–270, 404 Paul, apostle 5, 17, 48, 81, 83, 105, 124–126, 129, 130, 134, 159– 161, 170, 187, 189, 190, 205, 215, 243, 245, 253, 254, 267, 268, 275, 292 Pavlov Aleksy 23, 24, 51, 52, 168, 205, 220, 227, 239, 332, 412 Pawlikowska-Butterwick W. 145, 237, 404 Pawluczuk U. 14, 15, 404, 406 Pelenski J. 156, 400 PeleshenkoY. 52, 412 Peretts Vladimir 87, 92, 412, 413 Peter of Alexandria, St. 278 Peter, apostle 105, 169, 203 Petrov N. 116, 413 Petrovskii A. 26, 30, 32, 195, 320, 413 Petrushevych A.S. 115, 206, 413 Philalet Christophor (v. Broniewski Marcin) Phinees (Bible) 107 Piekarskii Petr 70, 71, 412 Pietras H. 173, 215, 240, 395–398 Pigas Meletius, patriarch 164, 183, 216, 245, 391, 392 Pilate Pontius 330, 342 Pilipowicz Denys 9, 56, 74, 371, 413 Pilipowicz Włodzimierz 9, 56, 102, 371, 385, 389, 401, 413 Pimin Euzebi 60, 61, 108, 149, 233, 257, 258, 312, 336, 369 Pletenetskyi Elisei 18, 38, 286, 355, 380, 381 Podskalsky G. 52, 299, 404 Pokrovskii A.I. 14, 413 Polotskyi Symeon 58, 59, 101, 103, 139, 141, 381 Popeliastyi V. 67 Popil Ivan, bishop 156, 199, 258 Potii Ipatii Adam, metropolitan 122, 137, 145, 151, 224, 244, 247, 385, 388 Powodowski Hieronim 75 Prokopowicz Tarassy 150, 151, 369 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 132, 397 Pseudo-Germanos 285 Pseudo-Zonaras 23 Puzyna Atanasii, bishop 55, 56, 68, 69, 284, 382 Radyvylovskyi Antonii, archimandrite 101–104, 122, 155, 156, 382, 392 Radziwiłł Mikołaj (The Black), prince 144 Radziwiłł Mikołaj Krzysztof, prince 121 Rafael Archangel (Bible) 318 Rahoza Mykhailo, metropolitan 123, 216, 247 Ratenskyi Petro, metropolitan 51, 238, 271, 272, 299, 392 Rej Mikołaj 98, 99 Romaniuk K. 160, 203, 405 Romanyk Y. 71, 96, 184, 390 Rothe H. 17, 386 Rud S. 270, 413 Rudeiko V. 38, 402 Rusek J. 14, 81, 402, 405 Rusiecki M. 405 Rutskyi Velamin Yosyf, metropoli-tan 12, 184, 186, 232, 234, 264, 382 Ryś G. 153, 236, 237, 317, 405 Rzevuskii Kreuza Leon 26, 67, 263 Sakovych Kasian 46, 57, 73, 108, 182, 183, 193, 221, 226, 229, 257, 335-338, 347 Salij J. 125, 405 Samson (Bible) 18 Sanguszko Roman, prince 120 Sapieha Leon, chancellor 16, 26, 28, 35 Sapphira (Bible) 107 Sazonova Lidia 34, 35, 413 Schaff P. 132, 395Senyk Sofia 9, 119, 146, 184, 185, 232, 234, 255, 405 Serapion of Vladimir, bishop 50, 52 Severos Gabriel, metropolitan 39, 66, 67 Shchapov Yaroslav 24, 26, 52, 114, 116, 166–168, 176, 334, 346, 388, 389, 391, 415, 416 Shchepkina M.V. 33, 416. Shchurat V. 56, 183, 269, 389, 393, 416 Shmanko T. 108, 211, 336, 415 Shults H.Y. 268, 276, 415 Shumlanskyi Yosyf 36, 43, 47, 56–58, 70, 77, 92–98, 117, 125, 151, 161, 162, 188, 194, 200, 206– 209, 219, 221, 228, 229, 235, 259, 299, 302, 309, 316, 385 Sigismund III Vasa, king 181 Simeon of Thessalonica, St. 91, 132, 165, 276, 280, 281, 325, 342, 397, 401 Simon Magician (Bible) 167, 168, 178, 180 Sinkevych N. 106, 413 Skarga Piotr 233, 236, 242, 385 Skaryna Francysk 14, 34 Skochylas Ihor 8, 9, 14, 34, 50, 56, 57, 58, 67, 68, 148, 152, 178, 195, 230, 234–236, 261, 262, 317, 346, 348, 385, 394, 399, 405, 414, 416 Skumin-Tyszkiewicz Teodor 120 Slozka (Sloska) Mykhailo 22, 34, 41, 35, 54, 288, 291, 349, 355, 382 Słowiński J.Z. 74, 75, 405 Smotrytskyi Herasym 17, 244, 386 Smotrytskyi Meletii (Ortholog The-ophil), bishop 34, 40, 64, 65, 78, 98, 144, 160, 181, 183, 190, 262, 263, 288, 370, 383, 386 Sofonovych Feodosii, hegumen 90, 91, 278, 280, 342, 343, 358, 383 Sokolov I.P. 112, 414 Solomon (Bible) 40 Solovii Meletii 27, 32, 39, 91, 137, 268, 269, 274, 285, 414 Soltan Yosyf II, metropolitan 8, 59, 83, 122, 123, 147, 148, 170, 239, 253, 300, 393 Sonevyckyi L. 122, 123, 146, 147, 150, 151, 414 Sparrow-Simson W.J. 405 Stanula E. 112, 172, 405 Starowieyski M. 112, 134, 135, 157, 340, 396, 405 Statius Publius Papinius 291 Stavnitskyi Symeon 92, 93, 383 Stavrovetskyi Kyryl Trankvylion 15, 41, 100, 101, 121, 149, 154, 155, 180, 181, 185, 211, 246, 282, 284, 301, 325, 341, 342, 352, 383, 384 Stępniak-Minczewa W. 115, 404 Stradomski Jan 9, 21, 35, 51, 64, 73, 108, 115, 116, 223, 287, 346, 402, 404, 405, 406 Stręk-Jodłowa L. 11, 406 Stroiev P. 356, 357, 370, 414 Suchoń-Chmiel B. 118, 403 Sumcov N.F. 278, 414 Surazhskyi Malushytskyi Vasyl 240, 241, 386 Susha Yakov 55, 56, 71, 75, 229, 261, 269, 301, 313, 344, 393 Swallow J. 139, 141, 396 Syroiid D. 101, 412 Szafrański A. 237, 406Szczawińska Ł. 98, 401 Szegda M. 157, 171, 186, 234, 238, 239, 246, 406 Szostek A. 262, 405 Szymanowski A. 293, 398 Szymusiak J.M. 135, 406 Świderkówna A. 340, 396 Taft Robet 270, 276, 277, 327, 406, 414 Tarasius (Tarasios) of Constantino-ple, patriarch 83, 173, 174, 176, 179, 397 Tarnovski family 116, 395 Terletskyi Kyryl, bishop 115 Theodore of Mopsuestia, bishop 275 Theodore the Studite, St. 84 Theoleptus, patriarch 17 Theophil of Alexandria, patriarch 205, 206, 397 Thomas Aquinas, St. 125 Tiapynskii Vasylii 16, 34, 222 Tibullus Albius 291 Timothy (Bible) 105, 124–126, 129– 131, 159–162, 164, 205, 215, 243, 245, 253 Titov Khvedor (Fedor) 18–20, 38, 40, 44, 45, 70, 83, 98, 110, 116, 180, 224, 281, 286, 311, 328, 355, 372, 374–381, 384, 414 Titus (Bible) 160, 162, 164, 243, 254 Tryzna Yosyf, archimandrite 19, 39, 280, 310, 311, 384 Tuptalo Dmytro, metropolitan 31, 57, 101, 126, 135, 136, 160, 161, 232, 278, 280, 303, 310, 311, 313, 314, 316–318, 321, 322, 325, 334, 344, 345, 348–350, 357, 384, 393, 394 Turij O. 26, 67, 109, 184, 409, 413, 415, 416 Tymoshenko L. 251, 414 Tymoshyk M. 32, 414 Valerius, bishop 132, 135 Vavryk Mykhailo 52, 59, 66, 68, 117, 120, 165, 166, 168, 191, 192, 408 Velykyi A.H. 137, 194, 388, 414 Voshchanka Maksym 278 Vozniak Mykhailo 185, 408 Vynnytskyi Antonii, bishop 151 Vynnytskyi Innokentii, bishop 60– 63, 74, 79, 117, 152, 182, 219, 259, 302, 305, 306, 313, 370, 388 Vynnytskyi Yurii, bishop 151 Vyshenskyi Ivan, monk 91, 122, 123, 125, 142, 146, 154, 162, 201, 207, 361 Walczak B. 223, 406 Walczak W. 116, 143, 399, 400, 406 Walczak-Mikołajczakowa M. 14, 402 Walter Ch. 276, 277, 406 Ware Kallistos 153, 406 Wawrzeniuk P. 152, 406 Widok N. 111, 397, 405 Wielgus S. 126, 400, 404 Wiszowata-Walczak K. 143, 399, 400 Wiśniowiecka Irina, princes 34Wiśniowiecki Konstanty, prince 120 Witkowski W. 14, 81, 402, 405 Woyna Benedykt 232 Wcik W. 273, 238, 239, 246, 406 Wronkowska-Dimitrowa M. 14, 407 Wujek Jakub 98, 236 Yakovenko Natalia 9, 49, 156, 409, 411, 416 Yaroslav the Wise (Mudryi), prince 114 Yasinovskyi Yurii 67, 76, 68, 416 Yasinskyi Varlaam, bishop 76 Zagski D. 111, 407 Zapasko Yakym 53, 54, 56, 69, 70, 73, 81, 84, 90, 328, 409 Zemka Tarasii, hegumen 38, 67, 90, 195, 196, 224, 225, 275, 284, 285, 286, 292, 308, 309, 326, 327, 340, 358, 374 Zheliborskyi Arsenii, bishop 19, 36, 44, 76, 150, 282, 297, 304, 326, 344, 354, 373 Zheliborskyi Atanasii, bishop 326 Zhokhovskii Kyprian, metropolitan 287, 288, 291–293, 311, 313, 339, 354, 355, 373, 374 Zhukovskyi Arkadii 30, 31, 65, 72, 74, 151, 409 Zieliński B. 98, 400 Ziomek J. 237, 407 Ziornova Antonina 66 Zizanii Lavrentii 65, 71 Zizanii Stefan 65, 216 Znosko A. 153, 154, 157, 179, 215, 218, 220, 221, 255, 297, 346, 396 Zonaras John 24 Zosim 174 Żelazny J. 112, 407