Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitskii on the See of Kiev (1918–1920)

This abridged translation of the paper, which will be presented at the conference in November 2021 in Belgrade. It has been posted here to enable conference participants to supply their questions to the presenter beforehand. The translation has been paid by the Fund to Assistance to the Russian Church Abroad.

Although Antony Khrapovitskii retained the title “Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia” until the end of his life, he did not actually serve as Metropolitan of Kiev for very long: from just 1918–1919. However, this short period was filled with many events in the political, social, and church life of the Ukraine. It therefore deserves close attention and concentrated analysis. We will try here to give a general overview of Metropolitan Antony’s ministry while on the See of Kiev in the broader ecclesiastical and sociopolitical context.

Election to the See of Kiev

The very circumstances of Metropolitan Antony’s election to the See of Kiev were unconventional, and this is the first important point to which attention must be drawn.

The Metropolitan See of Kiev had been vacant since the death of Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoiavlenskii), who was brutally murdered on January 25 (February 7), 1918.[1]For details, cf.: Venok na mogilu Vysokopreosviashchennogo mitropolita Vladimira († 25 ianvaria 1918 g.) [A Grave-offering for His Eminence Metropolitan Vladimir]. Ed. Archpriest F. Titov. Кiev, … Continue reading Vicar Bishop Nikodim (Krotkov) of Chigirin was then in temporary charge of the Metropolis of Kiev.[2]Cf. S. Kuzʹ⁠mina. “Nykodym (Krotkov), sviashchennomuch” [“Hieromartyr Nikodim Krotkov”], in: M. L. Tkachuk, V. S. Briukhovetsʹ⁠kyy, ed. Kyivsʹ⁠ka dukhovna akademiia v imenakh: … Continue reading During the Bolsheviks’ short term in power in Kiev, the Church could not hold elections for a new Metropolitan. It was only after the Ukrainian Central Rada returned to power in Kiev on March 4 (17), 1918, that this really began to be discussed.

Apparently, shortly after the Bolsheviks left Kiev, Bishop Nikodim appealed to Patriarch Tikhon for permission to hold a Kiev diocesan council to elect a new metropolitan. As a result, on April 2 (March 20) and April 10 (March 28), 1918, the Patriarch and the Holy Synod  authorized a diocesan council with the goal of electing a metropolitan of Kiev.[3]V. I. Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy. Tserkva v Ukrainsʹ⁠kiy Derzhavi 1917—1920 rr. (doba Getʹ⁠manatu Pavla Skoropadsʹ⁠kogo): Navch. posibnyk. [The Church in the Ukrainian State from 1917–1920 … Continue reading

It is worth recalling here that the procedure for electing diocesan bishops was hotly debated after the February Revolution of 1917. There was a strong public demand for a revival of the tradition of electing bishops. As a result, on July 5, 1917, the Holy Synod approved General Rules for the Election of Diocesan Bishops. These stipulated that the election of eparchial bishops must take place at diocesan councils involving bishops and clergy of the diocese and parish delegates. The elected candidate was then to be approved by the Holy Synod.[4]This document was published in Tserkovnye vedomosti [Church Bulletin] 1917/29 (15 July), pp. 210–221.

It is worth recalling here that the procedure for electing diocesan bishops was hotly debated after the February Revolution of 1917. There was a strong public demand for a revival of the tradition of electing bishops. As a result, on July 5, 1917, the Holy Synod approved General Rules for the Election of Diocesan Bishops. These stipulated that the election of eparchial bishops must take place at diocesan councils involving bishops and clergy of the diocese and parish delegates. The elected candidate was then to be approved by the Holy Synod.[5]This document was published in Tserkovnye vedomosti [Church Bulletin] 1917/29 (15 July), pp. 210–221.[/ref However, on April 29 (16), 1918 a coup d’état took place in Kiev, bringing Hetman Pavlo … Continue reading

This meant that the state recognized the special status of the Orthodox Church and intended for fundamental issues of church life to be decided in cooperation between the church and the state. Therefore, the Hetman and his government believed that the appointment of a new metropolitan should take place with involvement by the state authorities. A Ministry of Confessions was created as part of the Hetmanate government. On May 16, 1918, by order of the Hetman, Vasilii Vasilievich Zenʹ⁠kovskii, a Professor at Saint Vladimir University who later became a renowned religious philosopher and professor at Saint Serge Theological Institute in Paris,[6]Cf. A. T. Kazarian. “Zenʹ⁠kovskii Vasilii Vasilʹ⁠evich”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moscow, 2009. Vol. XX.  pp. 96–108. was appointed to the post of Minister of Confessions.[7]For the order of appointment, see: O. Lupanov, ed. Ostanniy getʹ⁠man: iuvileynyy zbirnyk pamʹ⁠iati Pavla Skoropadsʹ⁠kogo. 1873-1945 [The Last Hetman: An Anniversary Anthology in Memory of … Continue reading This appointment was made just days before the Kiev diocesan council convened

It should be made clear that neither Skoropadʹ⁠skyi nor Zenʹ⁠kovskii sought full independence for the Ukrainian Church. Rather, they both supported the ‘autonomist’ position, believing that by this point in history, the Ukrainian Church should have received autonomy while remaining within the Moscow Patriarchate. Nevertheless, for them, the question of the prerogatives of the Ukrainian state in the election of the Metropolitan of Kiev was crucial.

As for the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Rada, it was created in early December 1917 and consistently advocated the Ukrainianization of church life and the complete separation of the Ukrainian Church from the Moscow Patriarchate. Understandably, the Church Rada was in opposition to the episcopate. The Rada fervently supported the idea of convening a second session of the All-Ukrainian Council and electing a new metropolitan at it. Members of the Rada hoped to have their own candidate for metropolitan at the Council.

The stance of the state authorities was unequivocal: the Metropolitan of Kiev must be elected by an All-Ukrainian Church Council. Accordingly, both the Hetman himself and Minister Zenʹ⁠kovskii advocated for convening of a second session of the Council without delay. Still, Bishop Nikodim, the temporary administrator of the Diocese of Kiev, supported by the majority of the episcopate of the Ukrainian dioceses, advocated for electing a metropolitan at a Kiev Diocesan Council. Bishop Nikodim insisted on this election procedure, appealing to a decree of Patriarch Tikhon stating that the metropolitan was to be elected at a council of the Diocese of Kiev.

Both the Hetman and the Minister of Confessions held consultations with the episcopate, trying to persuade the bishops that a new metropolitan should still be elected at an All-Ukrainian Council. However, these consultations did not yield any results. The episcopate unequivocally supported carrying out Patriarch Tikhon’s directives and holding the election at a diocesan council, which was scheduled to open on May 5 (18).

As expected, the Diocesan Council was opened on May 5 (18), 1918, at St. Sofia Cathedral in Kiev. Zenʹ⁠kovskii came to the opening. Addressing the delegates, he requestion that the election of the metropolitan be postponed until a second session of the All-Ukrainian Council had been convened, and stressed that the Cabinet of Ministers of the Ukraine would not recognise the metropolitan’s authority were he to be elected by a diocesan council and not an All-Ukrainian one.[8]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., p. 123.

However, the Diocesan Council refused to go along with the government. By 270 votes to 5, it resolved to hold the election of the metropolitan at that precise time. In addition, by 267 votes to 11, the Council declared that it was unnecessary for the government to approve the metropolitan elected at the All-Ukrainian Council.[9]Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 74.

On 19 (6) May, elections for Metropolitan of Kiev were held at the Kiev Diocesan Council. Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii) won with 167 votes.[10]Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 74.

At the time, Vladyka Antony was Metropolitan of Kharkov. After the elections in Kiev, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Ukraine decided not to recognise the election until Metropolitan Antony’s credentials could be confirmed by an All-Ukrainian Council. Until such a time, the government continued to view him as the Metropolitan of Kharkov and Bishop Nikodim (Krotkov) as the administrator of the Diocese of Kiev.

Curiously, Metropolitan Evlogii says nothing in his memoirs about the conflict with the Ukrainian government over the election of Metropolitan Antony. Similarly, he says nothing about his intentions to accommodate the government’s wishes and reach a compromise with the patriarch. He says bluntly that it was decided to send the documents to Moscow for approval immediately after the elections. The only question was how technically to accomplish this. “We were faced with the question of how to send the election documents to Moscow for approval,” Metropolitan Evlogii wrote. “On the one hand, the Bolsheviks were on the way to Moscow, and the Germans on the other […] We discussed this and decided to entrust this difficult mission to Bishop Nikodim of Chigirin (Vicar Bishop of Kiev). He managed it perfectly, and returned with approval papers for Metropolitan Antony election and with an official acknowledgement that the elections had been carried out properly.”[11]Metropolitan Evlogii Georgievskii, Putʹ moei zhizni [My Life’s Journey]. It is clear from this account that it was originally decided to send Bishop Nikodim to the patriarch with a request to approve the election results.

The Ukrainian government perceived this move by the episcopate as an act of direct deception, causing the relationship between the Church and the Ukrainian authorities to deteriorate further. A telegram was nevertheless sent to Moscow on behalf of the government. According to Zenʹ⁠kovskii, it asked the patriarch “to refrain from approving the decision of the Diocesan assembly until he had received materials from us explaining the position of the government, which wishes to postpone the elections.”[12]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., p. 127. It is quite characteristic that, even then, there were proposals in Kiev to break off further contact with Moscow and take the path of proclaiming of autocephaly with the help of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Yet neither Vladimir Zenʹ⁠kovskii nor Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi supported these ideas.

Despite the government telegram from Kiev, the election of Metropolitan Antony was approved in Moscow. On June 4 (May 22) 1918, Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod issued a decree approving the election of the Metropolitan of Kiev.[13]Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 75. However, Zenʹ⁠kovskii rejected any attempt to prohibit the new metropolitan from coming to Kiev by force. His point of view won out in the government. Zenʹ⁠kovskii managed to convince the Hetman that the only way out of this situation was to call a second session of the All-Ukrainian Council immediately in order to bring an end the conflict. Metropolitan Antony remained Metropolitan of Kharkov from the government’s point of view his new posistion could be confirmed by the All-Ukrainian Council.

In order to persuade the bishops to convene an All-Ukrainian Council, Zenʹ⁠kovskii decided to organize a meeting of the bishops with Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi. The bishops were soon invited to breakfast with the Hetman. Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi himself later recalled that this meeting was attended by all Ukrainian bishops (15 people).[14]Skoropadskii, op. cit., p. 251. But this is clearly inaccurate. Zenʹ⁠kovskii, who was present at this meeting, says that no more than 5 bishops came to the breakfast with the Hetman, among whom, again, Archbishop Evlogii was the most senior.[15]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., p. 139. During his conversation with the hierarchs, Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi, in his own words, “strongly demanded that a date be set for the convening of the Council.”[16]Skoropadskii, op. cit., p. 251. He said that the Council was absolutely necessary for the preservation of peace in the church in the Ukraine. Zenʹ⁠kovskii’s calculation proved correct. The bishops could not refuse the direct request from the Hetman. Archbishop Evlogii replied that “the bishops were ready to grant the Hetman’s wishes”. Zenʹ⁠kovskii believed that among the bishops, even before the meeting with the Hetman, the “party of concessionists,” headed by Archbishop Evlogii, had come out on top. The supporters of irreconcilable opposition to the Ukrainian government, led by Bishop Nikodim, were in the minority.[17]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., pp. 139–140. In addition, the Hetman gave the episcopate his assurances that the state would cover the costs of convening and holding the Council.

The second session of the All-Ukrainian Council was scheduled to open on June 20 (7), 1918. Metropolitan Antony was to arrive in Kiev a few days before the beginning of the Council. In this situation, V. Kolokoltsev, the Minister of Land Affairs in the Hetmanate government, was entrusted with meeting Metropolitan Antony in Kharkov and discussing the subsequent course of action with him in private. On June 16, Kolokoltsev reported by telegram to Kiev that Metropolitan Antony planned to arrive in Kiev in the near future (the next day) to attend the opening of the second session of the Council. In addition, in conversation with Kolokoltsev, Metropolitan Antony said that he “considers only Kiev region to be under his jurisdiction, which does not extend rest of the country”.[18]Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 77. Metropolitan Antony thus regarded himself as head of the Diocese of Kiev only, and not the first hierarch of all the dioceses in the Ukraine.

Apparently, Metropolitan Antony arrived in Kiev as early as June 17 and took up lodging in the Kiev Caves Lavra. It was at the Lavra that Zenʹ⁠kovskii met with him and explained the government’s position. He insisted that the authority of the Metropolitan should be confirmed by the All-Ukrainian Council. Only then would he be recognized by the state authorities.

The Council sessions began the next day, June 21. On that day, Zenʹ⁠kovskii attended the Council. He delivered a lengthy speech to the attendees, in which he talked about the relationship the Hetmanate government planned to build up with the Church.[19]For a shorthand record of the talk, see: Ostanniy getʹ⁠man…, pp. 337–349. Zenʹ⁠kovskii emphasized that under the new political conditions, the Church was free to decide on all its internal affairs independently.

On the same day, at about 5 p.m., Metropolitan Antony informed Zenʹ⁠kovskii by letter that the Council had “nearly unanimously” recognized him as Metropolitan of Kiev. That same evening, Zenʹ⁠kovskii reported this to a meeting of the Cabinet. He hoped that now “that the Council had taken place, the relations between the government and the Church would be devoid of all the difficulties which have hindered the normal development of Church life up to now”.[20]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., p. 168. As a result, Metropolitan Antony’s authority was confirmed by the Hetman.

On June 26, 1918, Zenʹ⁠kovskii sent a new circular to the Kiev Ecclesiastical Consistory revoking that of June 17 and effectively confirmed Vladyka Antony’s powers as administrator of the Diocese of Kiev.[21]Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 78.

Relations with the Hetmanate Government

As we have seen, the very election of Metropolitan Antony to the See of Kiev had already entailed a conflict with the Ukrainian government. This clash between the Church and the Hetmanate government over a seemingly private matter revealed a deeper problem: the mechanisms of state-church relations remained unclear in the new political reality, and this was the source of the conflict. Metropolitan Antony (as well as other bishops) tried to appeal to pre-revolutionary realities; however, the Ukrainian authorities viewed the situation differently.

It should be said that after his arrival in Kiev, Metropolitan Antony immediately declared his total loyalty to the Hetmanate government. As we have seen, he spoke in a peace-loving manner with Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi and Minister Zenʹ⁠kovskii. He clearly expressed his full loyalty to the government in a sermon before the opening of the second session of the All-Ukrainian Council. Zenʹ⁠kovskii recounts this speech as follows: “Before the prayer service, Metropolitan Antony came out to preach. In a very florid speech, he spoke about Little Russia and its particular devotion to the Orthodox faith, its struggle for the faith, and then moved on to the present and spoke very loftily of the fact that Kiev was just beginning then to return to normal life. Metropolitan Antony’s speech did not contain any unpleasant political innuendo such as one might expect from him; it was only too pompous and elevated. At the prayer service, a polychronion was intoned to ‘the Hetman of All Ukraine and his government’.”[22]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., pp. 163–164.

On June 18 (July 1), 1918, during the second session of the All-Ukrainian Council, a new formula for commemorating the government during the Divine Liturgy was also approved. It read as follows: “For the God-preserved authorities of the Ukraine, its blessed Hetman Pavlo, and their entire house and army”.[23]Starodub, Vseukrainsʹ⁠kyy pravoslavnyy tserkovnyy Sobor, p. 59.

Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi himself was a man of faith, brought up in the tradition of Orthodox Christianity. At the same time, he believed that a radical renewal of church life was necessary. In his memoirs, he wrote: “Personally, I am a deeply religious Orthodox Christian. I am infinitely attached to our Orthodoxy, but I cannot look without sincere regret at what our Church has become, thanks to the outrageous policy pursued by the old government of Russia toward it. The faith has been strangled; all that is living and holy in our religion has been killed and killed, leaving only dead, cold ritual.[24]Skoropadskii, op. cit., pp. 252–253. The hetman therefore believed that under the new conditions, it was necessary to give freedom to the Church, so that the popular spirit could freely create new forms of church life. This is why he fully supported the idea of convening an All-Ukrainian Council, seeing it as a way to liberate the Ukrainian national spirit.

The Hetman recalled that he was “apparently on good terms” with Metropolitan Antony. At the same time, they were very different people. Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi writes that Metropolitan Antony was “an old-school Black Hundredist, and knows how to do nothing other than imprison, shoot, and ask for police assistance in swaying the masses and asserting the status of Orthodoxy. I can say frankly that he would not be able to create a warm atmosphere in the church.” It is very typical in this respect that Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi contrasted Metropolitan Antony with Patriarch Tikhon: “Thank God that His Eminence Tikhon was elected to the Patriarchal Throne. He is ten heads above Antony.”[25]Ibid.

Metropolitan Antony treated Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi with evident respect. For him, the Hetman still embodied a monarchical form of government. Metropolitan Antony was a monarchist through and through, which is why he was sympathetic to the attempt to create a Ukrainian monarchy in the form of a Hetmanate. In addition, Hetmanate Ukraine was a sure alternative to Bolshevik Russia. Like many opponents of Bolshevism, Metropolitan Antony kept hope alive that the liberation of Russia from the Bolsheviks would begin from Kiev.

Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi recalled that Metropolitan Antony even offered to arrange his coronation, but the Hetman took it as an attempt by the Metropolitan to find “strings to pull”. He therefore declined this offer.[26]Ibid.

However, despite his generally smooth personal relations with the Hetman, Metropolitan Antony could not accept the new type of church-state relations that had begun to take shape in the Ukraine. He criticized the Ministry of Confessions and Zenʹ⁠kovskii, accusing the latter of persecuting the Church. Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi writes that Metropolitan Antony “wanted to have everything his own way and hated both the Ministry and the Minister.” He used to say to the Hetman: “Mr. Hetman, beware of the kuteyniks! They are an unfaithful folk.”[27]Ibid., p. 255–256.; kuteynik is an old-fashioned pejorative term for a member the clerical estate or church apparatus[—trans.]., referring to Zenʹ⁠kovskii contemptuously as a ‘kuteynik’.

Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi also did not support the idea of forcibly proclaiming autocephaly. As he wrote in his memoirs, he believed it was necessary to implement a “wide-ranging decentralization” in the Church. As he understood it, this meant that the connection of the Ukrainian Church with the Church of Moscow “must be spiritual, in the person of the Patriarch.” At the same time, “positively all church affairs” should be decided immediately in the Ukraine. In addition, autonomy was to be manifested in the fact that “the highest-ranking clergy should be appointed from the ranks of the local people.” We can thus say that in the church sphere, the Hetmanate government sought to implement an autonomist policy.

Addressing the delegates to the second session of the All-Ukrainian Council, Zenʹ⁠kovskii said that one of the most important tasks that ought to be solved by the Council was the organization of a “supreme church authority in the form of a council or board.”[28]Ibid., p. 340. It was this Council (or Board, or Synod) that was to become the highest church authority in the Ukraine in the intervals between All-Ukrainian Councils. Zenʹ⁠kovskii assumed that a Synod for the Ukrainian Church would be formed at the second session of the All-Ukrainian Council, and that this would be the body with which the Ministry of Confessions would eventually cooperate in resolving pressing matters. However, no Synod was formed at that time. Moreover, the Council did not resolve that Metropolitan Antony was the primate of the Orthodox Church on the territory of the Hetmanate. Therefore, after the second session of the Council, Metropolitan Antony remained only the Ruling Bishop of the Diocese of Kiev. The Council did not delegate any authority to him to examine matters concerning all of the Ukraine.

In a situation when there was no Synod in Kiev, and Metropolitan Antony had no authority to act as head of the entire Orthodox Church in the Ukraine, Zenʹ⁠kovskii communicated directly with diocesan bishops and made decisions regarding regional issues without discussing them with Metropolitan Antony. At the same time, Metropolitan Antony viewed this as interference by the Minister in the affairs of the Church and criticized Zenʹ⁠kovskii’s activities rather harshly. Therefore, even after the second session of the Council, relations between Metropolitan Antony and the Ministry of Confessions were conflictual in nature.

We could give several vivid examples of this, but shall dwell briefly here on only one of them: the conflict over the Kiev Ecclesiastical Consistory.

At the time of Metropolitan Antony’s arrival in Kiev, the Ecclesiastical Consistory, which had been the traditional body of diocesan governance from the 18^th century onward, was still functioning there. In the Russian Empire, the Consistories had had a special status: they were headed by secretaries who were doubly subordinate to the Ober-procurator and the ruling bishop.[29]For details, cf.: Archpriest V. Tsypin. “Dukhovnaia konsistoriia” [“Ecclesiastical Consistory”], in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia], Vol. 16. Moscow, 2007. pp. 392–394. The Consistory was thus not completely under the control of the bishops. Later, already in exile, Rev. Prof. Feodor Titov wrote that it was the Ober-procurator and the secretaries of the Ecclesiastical Consistories under him who had real power in the Church during the Synodal period. He called the Consistory secretaries “the spies of the Ober-procurator,”[30]T. Titov. “Ruska pravoslavna crkva pred revolucijom i za vreme revolucije” [“The Russian Orthodox Church before and during the Revolution”], in: Glasnik Srpske patrijaršije. God II [Bulletin … Continue reading and referred to the Synodal system itself as “procuroro-papism” or “bureaucratic papism.”[31]T. Titov. “Ruska pravoslavna crkva pred revolucijom i za vreme revolucije” [“The Russian Orthodox Church before and during the Revolution”], in: Glasnik Srpske patrijaršije. God II [Bulletin … Continue reading

It is quite obvious that the pre-revolutionary consistory system did not agree with Metropolitan Antony’s ideas about episcopal authority. He was a well-known critic of the Synodal system, and it is therefore only logical that he counted on breaking with the former character of diocesan administration in Kiev, in which the ecclesiastical consistory had played a key role.

When Metropolitan Antony took over the See of Kiev, he attempted to disband the Kiev Ecclesiastical Consistory, replacing it with a Diocesan Council that would be an exclusively ecclesiastical body and subordinate only to the ruling bishop. In his actions, he referred to the Resolution of the All-Russian Church Council “On Diocesan Administration,” which no longer provided for the existence of diocesan consistories. According to this resolution, bishops were to “administer their dioceses with assistance from” a permanent and “continuously operational administrative and executive institution, consisting of elected members” – a Diocesan Council, not an Ecclesiastical Consistory.[32]The full text of the Resolution was published in: Tutunov, op. cit., pp. 274–283. On August 2 (July 20) 1918, Metropolitan Antony informed the Ministry that the consistories in the Ukrainian dioceses had been replaced by eparchial councils. On the same day, he sent a notice of dismissal to the staff of the Kiev Consistory.[33]Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 108. This effectively meant eliminating the influence of the Minister of Confessions on diocesan administration.

However, Zenʹ⁠kovskii qualified these actions of the metropolitan as illegal and forbade the secretary of the Consistory, Nikolai Luzgin, to refer matters to the Diocesan Council. As a result, the council members were unable to assume their duties. Zenʹ⁠kovskii insisted that the consistory boards were organs of state authority and therefore could not be abolished by the church unilaterally. He also believed that even in the new conditions, it was not possible to do away with the subordination of the diocesan administration to the state altogether. While in Bolshevik Russia church and state were separate, and the state itself thus refused both to fund and to oversee church administration, the situation in Ukraine was quite different. There was a Ministry of Confessions, with which the Church had to coordinate diocesan administration, among other things. Zenʹ⁠kovskii believed that the All-Russian Council’s Resolution had been drawn up “according to the position of the Church under the Bolsheviks, that is, in the absence of any connection between the Church and the state, with complete separation of Church and state.”[34]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., p. 180.

When he met with Metropolitan Antony to discuss this problem, Zenʹ⁠kovskii explained that the Church in Ukraine was not separate from the state. It was therefore impossible to implement the model of government now accepted in Russia. If the Church insisted on changing forms of diocesan administration without the consent of the state, the state would be forced to abandon the recognition of internal church acts recorded in parish registers. This would entail the state taking over, for example, marriage and divorce cases. As Zenʹ⁠kovskii recalled, Metropolitan Antony “extremely disliked” this point of view.[35]Ibid., p. 182.

In this conflict, Metropolitan Antony tried to get the Hetman on his side. On August 25 (September 7), 1918, he sent a letter to the Hetman accusing the Ministry of Confessions of oppressing the Church, and even stated that “never before in the history of the Russian Church has there been such persecution as under Zenʹ⁠kovskii”.[36]Starodub, “Ministr-bogoslov”, pp. 11–18.

“Persecution” was, of course, an obvious exaggeration. The minster was not persecuting the Church in any way. The process of searching for new forms of Church-state relations in dramatically altered historical circumstances could but engender strife.

However, Zenʹ⁠kovskii occupied the post of Minister of Confessions for only five months. On October 19, 1918, the Hetman approved a new, more nationally-oriented Cabinet. In the new government, Oleksandr Lototsʹ⁠kyi was made Minister of Confessions. He officially assumed office on October 28.

The Hetman later asserted that “the new ministers followed the policy of the old cabinet in their own special areas, and in general nothing changed.”[37]Skoropadskii, op. cit., p. 422. However, this can hardly be recognized as true with respect to confessional politics. Unlike Zenʹ⁠kovskii, Lototsʹ⁠kyi was a principled supporter of Ukrainian ecclesiastical autocephaly. While Zenʹ⁠kovskii in general was in favor of the peaceful coexistence of Ukrainian and Russian cultures in the new state, Lototsʹ⁠kyi had a nationalistic stance. Zenʹ⁠kovskii later wrote that Lototsʹ⁠kyi was “an irreconcilable enemy of Russia.”[38]Zenʹ⁠kovskii, op. cit., p. 298.

While Zenʹ⁠​kovskii believed that at this moment in history, it was sufficient to achieve real autonomy for the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine, Lototsʹ⁠kyi, having taken office, immediately declared his desire for autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. He believed that autocephaly should be enacted by the state at the legislative level. Later, in exile, Lototsʹ⁠kyi recalled that he was able to convince the Council of Ministers “that its church policy was wrong”. The government almost unanimously agreed that what was needed was not autonomy, but autocephaly for the Ukrainian Church.[39]Quoted from: Ulʹ⁠ianovsʹ⁠kyy, op. cit., p. 35.

On October 30, 1918 (i.e. just two days after Lototsʹ⁠kyi took office), the third session of the All-Ukrainian Council began in Kiev. The new minister visited the Council on November 12 and gave a keynote speech. In it he clearly stated that the new priority of state policy from now on was to achieve the autocephaly for the Ukrainian Church. As can be seen from this speech, Lototsʹ⁠kyi considered the proclamation of autocephaly exclusively in the political plane. For him, the Church, dependent on Moscow, was a vehicle for ideas hostile to the Ukraine. That is why the connection with Moscow had to be severed. Speaking at the Council, he unequivocally stated that an independent state must have an independent church. At the same time, Lototsʹ⁠kyi rejected the idea of separating the Church from the state and insisted that the state must control church life.[40]His speech was published in: Ostanniy getʹ⁠man…, pp. 349–351.

This speech aroused dissatisfaction at the Council such as one would expect. As Lototsʹ⁠kyi writes, the bishops immediately told him that even in Bolshevik Russia, “they saw more freedom for the Church” than in the system of church-state relations Lototsʹ⁠kyi was proposing. The bishops therefore declared that they would prefer Church and state to be separated. In response to this, Lototsʹ⁠kyi said that all those who prefer Bolshevik Russia are free to resettle there. As for the separation of the Church from the state, Lototsʹ⁠kyi believed that from a financial point of view, it would be beneficial to the state, but if it were carried out, the bishops had to understand that in the eyes of the state, the Church would turn into a “private institution,” equal in rights to commercial, industrial, and other institutions. At the same time, the state would keep a close eye on possible harmful activities of Church ministers.[41]Ostanniy getʹ⁠man…, p. 351.

Despite Lototsʹ⁠kyi’s tough statements, state confessional policy did not undergo much change at this time. Documents show that even after Zenʹ⁠kovskii’s resignation, the Ministry continued to work within the paradigm established by him and implemented the projects he had initiated.

Attempt to Revoke the Anathema against Ivan Mazepa

Another curious subject serves as a vivid illustration of the non-linear relationship between Metropolitan Antony and the Hetmanate government: the attempt to revoke the anathema on Hetman Ivan Mazepa.

We should recall that Mazepa was placed under ecclesiastical excommunication (anathema) in 1708 by a direct order of Emperor Peter I.[42]Cf. letter of Peter I to Metropolitan Stefan Iavorskii dated October 31, 1708, in: Pisʹ⁠ma i bumagi imperatora Petra Velikogo. T. VIII. (Iiulʹ-dekabrʹ 1708 g.) [Letters and Papers of Emperor … Continue reading After that, a curse on Mazepa was added to the text of the service for the Sunday of Orthodoxy in use in the Russian Church during the Synodal period.[43]Cf. Priest K. Nikolʹ⁠skii. Anafematstvovanie (otluchenie ot Tserkvi), sovershaemoe v pervuiu nedeliu Velikogo Posta: Istoricheskoe issledovanie o Chine Pravoslaviia [The Act of Anathematization … Continue reading While Ivan Mazepa’s name was removed from this service in 1869,[44]Cf., e.g.: Posledovanie v nedeliu Pravoslaviia [Order of Service for the Sunday of Orthodoxy]. Saint Petersburg, 1893. p. 30–31. the church did not lift the curse on him.

Prior to 1918, the possibility of revoking the anathema on Ivan Mazepa was not discussed. It was first discussed in Kiev after Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi came to power. Apparently, soon after the arrival of Metropolitan Antony in Kiev, the Hetman asked him to initiate the process of revoking the anathema from Ivan Mazepa. Dmytro Dontsov recalled that Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi himself had told him that he had demanded quite categorically that Metropolitan Antony send a telegram to Patriarch Tikhon with a request to revoke the anathema.[45]D. Dontsov. Rik 1918. Kyiv [Kiev 1918]. Toronto, 1954. p. 33. Vladyka Antony complied with this request. Unfortunately, we do not have the text of this telegram at our disposal, so we can judge its content only by indirect evidence.

We can assume that the telegram was sent to Moscow in early July (N.S.). Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi was planning to organize celebrations in Kiev in honor of Ivan Mazepa on June 27 (July 10), the day of the next (209^th) anniversary of the Battle of Poltava. This was the first time in more than two hundred years that the military victory of Emperor Peter the Great at Poltava was not celebrated in the Ukraine as a state and church holiday. Instead of this holiday, which was associated with monarchical Russia, Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi wanted to arrange a Ukrainian national celebration, which was inconceivable without a requiem service for Ivan Mazepa. A memorial service for Mazepa could be held only on the condition that the anathema against him was revoked. The Hetman therefore demanded that Metropolitan Antony urgently send a petition to this effect to Moscow.

On (June 26) July 9, the eve of the planned celebrations, Metropolitan Antony spoke at a regular meeting of the second session of the All-Ukrainian Church Council. Regarding the planned memorial service for Hetman Mazepa, he said the following: “I come now to a private, but most passionate issue for all of us. Preparations are underway for a memorial service for Hetman Mazepa on the 27^th.[46]i.e., June 27 (O.S.), the date of the Battle of Poltava. He was excommunicated from the Church, but this was, frankly, gratuitous and unfair. Once, when the anniversary of victory the victory at Poltava was celebrated, and I received an invitation from the Bishop of Poltava to take part in the celebrations, I told him directly that I would rather agree to honor Mazepa than Peter, whom I considered and still consider the main enemy of Orthodoxy. Hetman Mazepa was a political figure. He found that the secession of the Ukraine was necessary for the good of the country, which is why he rebelled. For this he, like Grishka Otrepʹ⁠iev,[47]Until 1869, the order of service for the Sunday of Orthodoxy featured anathemas for two traitors: Grigorii Otrepʹ⁠iev (Pseudo-Demetrius I) and Ivan Mazepa. was anathematized. Not to mention the fact that there is no anathema rite whatsoever in the ancient hieratika, the very excommunication of Hetman Mazepa is supposed to have been revoked, a petition to this effect having already been submitted to the Council[48]i.e., the first All-Russian Church Council, which met in Moscow from 1917–1918., of which the Patriarch and myself are signatories. The Patriarch will revoke the excommunication, and I myself will serve a memorial service for Hetman Mazepa; I will even speak about his merits for the Ukraine. Until that time, of course, no good Christian should take part in a requiem for Hetman Mazepa, because such a requiem would be revolutionary in nature.[49]Central State Archive of the Supreme State Authorities and Governining Bodies of the Ukraine, Fonds 1071, Series 1. File 68. ff. 171–173; File 220. ff. 74v–75.

Metropolitan Antony thus recognized the injustice of imposing an anathema on Hetman Ivan Mazepa and had no objection in principle to serving a memorial service for him, but he considered this possible only after receiving official permission from Patriarch Tikhon.

Researchers have not found any official documents stating that Patriarch Tikhon had revoked Ivan Mazepa’s excommunication. Moreover, the minutes of the Episcopal Conference held in Moscow on July 21, 1918 (discussed below), unequivocally indicates that the Patriarch had not revoked the anathema on Hetman Mazepa.

On July 9, 1918, there was a meeting of the Hetman’s government at which the plan of the celebrations scheduled for July 10 were discussed. The meeting began at 10 p.m. with a report by Prime Minister F. A. Lizogub. He proposed that July 10 be proclaimed a national memorial day for Mazepa and to make this day a day off from work. He also proposed that all members of the government should come to the memorial service in St. Sophia Cathedral on the following day. However, the Cabinet of Ministers did not support the Prime Minister’s initiative. It was suggested that the role of Hetman Mazepa in the history of the Ukraine was still controversial, so it was inappropriate to make July 10 a national holiday. The proposal to make this day a non-working day was also rejected. At the same time, the government decided not to prevent civil servants from attending the memorial service. However, they were obliged to “return to their official duties” after the service. As for the members of the government, a majority vote declared their presence at the memorial service to be undesirable.[50]Central State Archive of the Supreme State Authorities and Governing Bodies of the Ukraine. Fonds 1064, Series 1. File 6. ff. 93–93v.

A memorial service for Hetman Mazepa was celebrated by Bishop Nazaryi, accompanied by several Ukrainian priests, at 12 p.m. on July 10 at St. Sophia Square in Kiev. Reports of this service were published in the Kiev newspapers.[51]Cf., e.g.: “Panakhyda po Getʹ⁠manovi Mazepi” [“Panikhida for Hetman Mazepa”], in: Nova Rada 110 (July 10, 1918); M. Syvyy. “Anatema” [“Anathema”], in: Nova Rada 114 (July 14, … Continue reading A number of eyewitness accounts have also survived.[52]V. Andriievsʹ⁠kyy. Z mynulogo. T. II. Vid Getʹ⁠mana do Dyrektorii. Ch. 1: Getʹ⁠man [From the Past. Vol. II. From the Hetman to the Directorate]. Berlin, 1923. pp. 81–93; Dontsov, op. cit., … Continue reading Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi and members of the government were not present at the memorial service. In the texts of speeches made by the clergy on St. Sophia Square (retold by V. Andrievskii), there is no mention of Patriarch Tikhon lifting the anathema on Ivan Mazepa. All this confirms the assumption that there was no direct sanction from the Moscow Patriarch for the memorial service. For this reason, neither Metropolitan Antony, nor Hetman Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi came to St. Sophia Square.

The issue of possibly revoking the excommunication on Ivan Mazepa was considered in Moscow on July 21. On that day, “in the cells of His Holiness the Patriarch and under his presidency”, there was an Episcopal Confrence attended by 17 bishops. The Patriarch informed those assembled that “he had received a telegram from Kiev with a petition for the revoking of Hetman Ivan Mazepa’s excommunication”. This petition was motivated by the fact that Mazepa had been anathematized “not for guilt and crimes against the faith and the Church, but against the state (treason against the Tsar)”. The telegram also reported that Mazepa “was devoted to the Orthodox Church, that he had built very many churches, and founded monasteries”. After an exchange of views, the conference concluded that it had “insufficient material for an in-depth judgment”. It was therefore decided to postpone resolution of the matter pending a detailed report from the All-Ukrainian Church Council. Upon receipt of such a report, it would be referred to “a special commission of Council members, canonists, and historians”.[53]Russian State Archive, Fonds 3431, Series 1. File 192. f. 130–130v. are the signatures of Metropolitan Arseny of Novgorod (for chairman) and Bishop Seraphim of Staritsk (secretary).

There is no information about what happened with this case subsequently. The second session of the All-Ukrainian Council ended on July 11, 1918, and the third session met from October 28 to December 16, 1918.[54]Cf. Starodub, Vseukrainsʹ⁠kiy pravoslavnyy tserkovnyy sobor…, pp. 117–134. However, the All-Russian Church Council came to a close on September 20, 1918. Thus, even if the All-Ukrainian Council had submitted a detailed report on Mazepa’s case to Moscow, the All-Russian Church Council would not have been able to discuss it.

Relations with the Directorate Government and Arrest

The Hetmanate ceased to exist on December 14, 1918. Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi abdicated the throne and went into exile. The authority of the Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) was established in Kiev.

At the time of the fall of the Hetmanate, the meetings of the third session of the All-Ukrainian Council continued in Kiev. As early as late November, when Austria-Hungary and Germany capitulated, it became obvious that the Hetmanate government would soon lose its military support. Directorate troops were already approaching Kiev. In this connection, on November (4) 17,  the bishops who were present at the Council appealed to their dioceses to “unite around the Hetman and his new Government, so that, by the united efforts of all the faithful sons of the Ukrainian state, the salvation of all Russia can be accomplished to the glory of the Holy Orthodox Faith and the Church under the guidance of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon”. On November (6) 19, this call was echoed by all the Council delegates.[55]Starodub, Vseukrainsʹ⁠kyy pravoslavnyy tserkovnyy Sobor, p. 147. Both the episcopate headed by Metropolitan Antony and the entire All-Ukrainian Council were thus unequivocally on the side of the Hetmanate government. The UPR Directorate therefore considered the Ukrainian bishops and Metropolitan Antony personally to be a hostile force.

On December 16, the Council was forced to adjourn. On the very last day it met, it adopted a new formula for the commemoration of the authorities. All mention of the Hetman was removed from it. It was now prescribed that prayers should be offered “For our God-protected authorities, the Government, and its army…”[56]Ibid., p. 215. The Council thereby took note of the political changes that had taken place in the country.

After the Council adjourned, the bishops remained in the Kiev Caves Lavra. It was difficult to leave Kiev in conditions of military operations.

At 6 p.m. on December 17, Metropolitan Evlogii (Georgievskii) was arrested in Kiev Caves Lavra. He himself believed that the reason for his arrest was his actions against the Greek Catholics in Galicia during the Russian occupation of Galicia in 1915.[57]A description of the circumstances of the arrest is given by Metropolitan Evlogii in his memoirs: Metropolitan Evlogii, op. cit., p. … At the time of the arrest, the military also announced their intention to arrest Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitskii). However, the Metropolitan of Kiev could be arrested without the sanction of the Directorate government. For this reason, he was still left alone and at large on December 17.

Anticipating possible reprisals, both against himself and against the entire Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Antony held a meeting of bishops in the Lavra on the evening of December 17. At the meeting, the bishops pledged under oath to defend all decisions of the All-Ukrainian Council and to remain subordinate to Patriarch Tikhon. In the event of Metropolitan Antony’s death or his voluntary retirement, it was decided that his successor would be elected at the All-Ukrainian Council, and that, until his election, they should place themselves under Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvenskii) as the most senior hierarch in the territory of the Ukraine.[58]B. I. Andrusishin. Tserkva v Ukrainsʹ⁠kiy Derzhavi 1917-1920 rr. (doba Dyrektorii UNR): Navch. Posibnyk [The Church in the Ukrainian State from 1917–1920 (Era of the Directorate of the Ukrainian … Continue reading

On December 18, Ukrainian soldiers came to the Lavra again and said that they had received orders by telegraph to arrest Metropolitan Antony on behalf of the Directorate. However, they did not present an arrest warrant. The officer had promised that the arrested hierarchs would suffer no violence. At this, Metropolitan Antony was arrested. A crowd of people escorted him to the gates of the Lavra. Here there was almost a clash between the worshipers and the Ukrainian military. However, bloodshed was avoided. Metropolitan Antony, as well as Archbishop Evlogii, were taken to the Versailles Hotel, where all those arrested by the troops of the Directorate were being held in custody.[59]Ibid., pp. 19–20.

Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) left behind a curious recollection of the circumstances of Metropolitan Antony’s arrest. At that time, he was still an archimandrite, and was in Kiev as a Council delegate. Archim. Veniamin, who was present at the arrest of Metropolitan Antony, writes:

“When Austrian Galician officers came to arrest him, a crowd of worshipers, 100–150 people, mostly women—those eternal intercessors—gathered in the Metropolitan Hall. There I was, too.”

“Vladyka,” I asked him loudly over the heads of the crowd. “Say something to us in parting!”

Silence. The Metropolitan said:

“I will be blamed for being against the Ukrainian Church and its autocephaly (stamostyinostʹ), but this is absolutely false!”

These words of his made no impression on the crowd, and I thought with disappointment: “At such a moment, the Metropolitan could not come up with a pure religious statement, but only one about the political struggle for self-styled government (samostyinostʹ), albeit through the Church!”[60]Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov). Na rubezhe dvukh epokh. ….

Lototsʹ⁠kyi, who was then in charge of confessional policy in the government of the Directorate, recalled that the arrests of the bishops had not been coordinated with him. He himself was an unequivocal opponent of such actions on the part of authorities. Moreover, he writes that the head of the Sichi Streltsy, Colonel Eugene Konovalets, had already received orders to execute the arrested hierarchs by firing squad. In his own words, Lototsʹ⁠kyi “only barely convinced him [Konovalets —V.B.] not to crown them with the halo of martyrdom.”[61]Lototsʹ⁠kyy O. Storinky mynulogo. Chastyna chetverta. U Tsargorodi. [Pages from the Past. Part Four. In Tsarigrad]. South Bound Brook, 1966. p. 89–90. Therefore, it was decided not to execute Metropolitan Antony and Archbishop Evlogii and to send them to Galicia, where they were imprisoned in the Vozdvizhenskii Uniate Basilians Monastery in Buczacz (now in Tarnopol Region).

In the night of December 18, both bishops were taken by train to Tarnopol, and from there sent to Buczacz. In the spring of 1919, after Buczacz was captured by Polish forces, they were taken to the Catholic monastery in Bielany, near Kraków. They spent a total of nine months in captivity. It was only through the active intervention of the French military mission that Metropolitan Antony and Archbishop Evlogii were released. In August 1919, they arrived in Novorossiysk (from Poland via Romania and Constantinople).[62]Metropolitan Evlogii gives a detailed account of his term under arrest in his memoirs: Metropolitan Evlogii, op. cit., p. …

After the third session of the All-Ukrainian Council, the Office of the Council of Bishops of All Ukraine, headed by Bishop Dionisii (Valedynsʹ⁠kyi), was considered the highest ecclesiastical authority within Ukraine. After the arrest of Metropolitan Antony, temporary administration of the Diocese of Kiev was entrusted to Bishop Nikodim (Krotkov), but in early January 1919, he was arrested by the Directorate’s troops. Because of this, on January 12, 1919, the Consistory of the Council of Bishops of All Ukraine appointed Bishop Nazarii (Blinov) as the new provisional administrator of Kiev Diocese.[63]Cf. N. P. Zimina. “Nazarii (Blinov), arkhiep.” [“Archbishop Nazarii Blinov”], in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. Vol. 48. Moscow, 2017. pp. 326–327.

Metropolitan Antony would not come back to Kiev until early September 1919, when Denikin’s troops were there. However, the Volunteer Army did not last long in Kiev. In December, Kiev was taken by the Bolsheviks again. Even before that (November 17), Metropolitan Antony had left Kiev and was no longer able to return.

Conclusions

As we can see, Metropolitan Antony actually headed the See of Kiev from June–December 1918, and then again from September–November 1919. Despite the fact that it was a very short period, it was still extremely important both for the church life of the Ukraine and for Metropolitan Antony personally.

It was a time of rupture with the old way of life. The Russian Empire had ceased to exist. The Soviets had come to power in Russia. However, for a time there, was an independent Ukrainian state that tried to work out a new mechanism of church-state relations. The period of the Hetmanate of Pavlo Skoropadʹ⁠skyi, when an attempt was made to develop the former traditions of church life organically, is, of course, the most interesting in this respect. It was during his Hetmanate that a  concept for the new status of the Ukrainian Church was clearly formulated. It was granted autonomy within the Moscow Patriarchate. The drafting of regulations on the new order of church administration in the Ukraine was carried out under Metropolitan Antony’s direct leadership.

At the same time, it was a rather difficult and tragic period. On the one hand, we see that Metropolitan Antony was quite loyal to Hetmanate Ukraine and welcomed the establishment of this monarchical form of government. Curiously, he was not against the revocation of anathema on Hetman Ivan Mazepa, considering him a victim of the policies of Peter I.

On the other hand, Metropolitan Antony hoped that Hetmanate Ukraine was only an intermediate stage on the road to restoring a united Russian state. He can therefore by no means be considered a sincere supporter of Ukrainian independence. His agreement on the new status of the Church in Ukraine should be understood more as a compulsory tactical step.

In addition, his relations with V. V. Zenʹ⁠kovskii, the Minister of Confessions, were mired in conflict. Metropolitan Antony, a long-standing critic of the Synodal system of church governance, simultaneously did not accept the new, already democratic, form of Church-state relations, insisting that the Church should not be controlled in the slightest by state bodies.

The relationship between Metropolitan Antony and the Kiev Theological Academy was also conflictual. He did not accept the faculty’s desire for liberal reforms and therefore, as in 1908, tried to stop the reform movement in the Academy and bring the Academy under his control.

The UPR Directorate, which had come to Kiev after fall of the Hetmanate, considered Metropolitan Antony one of its main enemies. For this reason, he was arrested and held prisoner for nine months. Metropolitan Antony’s return to church administration in Kiev was short-lived. In 1920, he was for a time in Crimea, which was then under the control of Admiral Wrangel’s forces, before finally going into exile.

It is our hope that Metropolitan Antony’s ministry in Kiev will continue attract the attention of researchers. Even today, there are episodes in this subject that are poorly explored.