thoroughness. At the same time, as detailed studies of the texts have shown, Mohyla adopted Catholic sacramental theology in the explanatory passages and added some rites and practices of secondary importance that had Roman, but not Orthodox, roots. Nevertheless, the Orthodox in Ukraine adopted his editions without significant opposition.
The climax of Mohyla's work as a systematiser was the publication of his Orthodox Confession of Faith. Although, in this case as well, modern scholars have noted Roman Catholic influence on the formulations he used to state the central truths of the faith, the Confession won the approval of the eastern patriarchs and became the standard formulation of the church's teaching throughout the Orthodox world until the nineteenth century.
It is difficult to overstate Mohyla's accomplishments and impact on Orthodoxy as a whole. The Greek Church, whether under Ottoman rule or in exile, was impoverished, financially and culturally, and vulnerable to strong Roman Catholic and Protestant influence. For its part, the Russian Church was barely beginning to realise its potential as the leading force within eastern Christendom. In 1650, culturally at least, Kiev was the centre of the Orthodox world.4
In the mid-seventeenth century, the Muscovite Church began to feel pressure for change. Like their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, would-be reformers among the clergy strove for consistency and good order in the celebration of the liturgy and attempted to raise the moral tone of parish life. Many of their complaints were not new. In 1636, for example, Ivan Neronov and other parish priests in Nizhnii Novgorod sent a petition to Patriarch Ioasaf, asking for his support in restoring order and dignity to services of worship. The petitioners recited a litany of long-standing abuses - mnogoglasie (the practice of chanting up to 'five or six' different parts of the service simultaneously) and other liturgical short cuts. They also complained at length about rowdy behaviour during services.5 In a series of pastoral instructions, Patriarch Ioasaf strongly supported their demands for pious behaviour during the liturgy. The Nizhnii Novgorod petitioners also attacked the laity's boisterous celebration of non- or
4 I. Sevcenko, 'The many worlds of Peter Mohyla', Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8 (1984), 9-41; S. T. Golubev, Kievskii mitropolit Petr Mogila i ego spodvizhniki [Opyt tserkovno-istoricheskogo issledovaniia] (Kiev: Tip. G. T. Korchak-Novitskago, 1883-98); P. Meyen-dorff,'The liturgical reforms of Peter Moghila: a new look', St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 29 (1985), 101-14; Plokhy, Cossacks and religion, 95-9, 236-46.
5 N. V Rozhdestvenskii, 'K istorii bor'by s tserkovnymi bezporiadkami, otgoloskami iazy-chestva i porokami v russkom bytu XVII v.', ChOIDR 201 (1902, book ii), 19-23.
Was this article helpful?