The Resolutions of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) as a Source for the History of the Russian Orthodox Church

This publication analyzes Metropolitan Anthony’s resolutions recorded in the Journal of Incoming and Outgoing Correspondence throughout the Kievan Diocese during 1918. It has been prepared in the framework of utilizing the individual research project entitled “The Kievan Metropolitan See From 1917 to 1921: Problems of Interpreting Historical Sources.” 

One would think that the biography of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (1863-1936), one of the outstanding hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church of the first half of the twentieth century, cannot contain gaps, since in addition to the ten-volume work by Bishop Nikon (Rklitsky), [1] Bishop Nikon Rklitsky , Zhizneopisanie Blazheneishego Antoniia, Mitropolita Kievskogo i Galitskogo, 10 vols., New York, 1958-1960) there are numerous works on his life and activity.  However, many sources, particularly those dealing with Metropolitan Anthony’s tenure at the Kievan See (1918-1919), turned out to be outside his biographers’ field of vision for various reasons. Some of them started being used in research in the late 1990’s, and this pertains not only to documents from the so-called “special storage.” Historians had long had access to such sources as journals recording incoming and outgoing correspondence. However, researchers would often ignore the possibilities that the journals offered for the study of the “day to day” life of a hierarch, which basically consisted of the bureaucratic routine in diocesan administrative affairs. Considering that the Consistory’s archives for the period of the Revolution and the Civil War have been preserved only in fragments, the list of correspondence also allows us to track changes in the volume and specific character of matters in diocesan administration. Thus, the hierarchical resolutions are a source allowing us to determine the particular characteristics in the style of a particular bishop’s management and to reconstruct the nuances of interactions of the diocesan administration with the Supreme Church Authority, government institutions, and so on. It must be admitted, however, that in most cases the opportunities of this source are limited by the particularities of bureaucratic routine. His Eminence would simply glance at Consistory decisions, and close to eighty per cent of the resolutions were brief instructions, such as “approved” or “to be fulfilled.” In this respect Metropolitan Anthony acted atypically, since he would leave resolutions rich in content upon petitions and minutes of the Consistory meetings. Some of them allow us not only to determine the essence of the matters under consideration but also their details, relating to a petitioner’s behavior, the metropolitan’s attitude, motivations of his actions, etc. Our documental essay relies upon excerpts from the journal regarding incoming and outgoing correspondence throughout the Kievan Diocese for the second half of 1918, which is the first period of Metropolitan Anthony’s tenure at the Kievan See. This journal is kept in the Central Governmental Archives of Ukraine in Kiev (f. 182 [Office of the Kievan Metropolitans], op. 1, d. 295). It is in rather good condition (without deletions or illegible spots) and reflects the portrayal of the life of the Kievan Diocese and, to an extent, of the Church throughout all of Ukraine in 1918. The resolutions are being published according to the norms of current Russian orthography and in italics. Textual amplification of the resolutions is given in brackets, and abbreviations by ellipsis. Dates are given according to how they appeared in 1918, according to both the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Some of the resolutions are being published for the first time. [2]The text of most of these resolutions is reproduced in a review publication prepared by the editors of the Australian periodical Tserkovnoe Slovo based on the material collected by me: … Continue reading

Considering the large volume of the material, we have divided the resolutions according to the basic themes of the matters under consideration. With a nod to convention, they can be placed into two major groups:

I. The Organization of the Diocesan Administration

We include in this group:

1. Matters dealing with clergy assignments, transfers, and penalties
2. Monastery matters
3. Marriage matters

II. Church-State Relations and the Ukrainian National Movement

Resolutions dealing with the following problems are basic to this group:

1. The nationalistic and revolutionary movement among the clergy
2. Relations with the secular authorities
3. The All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council and the prerogatives of the Metropolitan of Kiev

The Organization of the Diocesan Administration

The journal registering incoming and outgoing correspondence is a large book actually containing two lists, one dealing with the Kievan Diocese and the other with the Monastery of the Caves. Only about 4000 [3]The number of resolutions cannot be established with absolute exactitude, since in certain instances they were made erroneously by secretaries. (Items were recorded twice, in different registers, or … Continue reading issued in 1918 have been preserved, with 3,689 dealing with diocesan matters. The journal’s pages were divided into four uneven columns denoting 1) numerical order, 2) day and month the papers were received, 3) a summary of the paper’s contents, and 4) the hierarch’s resolution. From January 2/15 to January 21/February 3. 1918 the resolutions were by Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoiavlensky), who was murdered by the Bolsheviks on January 25/February 7.

The last resolutions by the martyred bishop that were recorded in the journal included:

1. Permission for the disbursement of a sustenance allowance for the members of the All-Ukrainian Council from the funds in the account of the metropolitan’s residence
2. Permission to ordain to the priesthood one of the deacons whom the metropolitan “examined and who displayed sufficient book knowledge and plentiful mental development.” And on January 30/February 13 we read about the receipt of a proposal by Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky), a member of the All-Russian Local Council, to entrust the management of diocesan affairs, due to the untimely repose of Metropolitan Vladimir, to His Eminence Nikodim (Krotkov), Bishop of Chigirin, Secon Vicar of the Diocese of Kiev, since the First Vicar, Bishop Basil (Bogdashevsky) of Kanev declined the position. Consequently, resolutions by Bishop Nikodim are already present in the journal starting of February 1/14. Resolutions calling for a convocation of a council to elect a new metropolitan. They include:

• • Housekeeping (provisions for the delegates)
  • Correspondence with the secular authorities (with the Bolsheviks, later with the Ukrainian Central Rada, and since April 29 with the administration of Hetman Skoropadsky.

There were notifications to the candidates for the Kievan See with an inquiry requesting presentation of candidacy (such inquiries were sent to Metropolitans Arseny (Stadnitsky), Platon (Rozhdestvensky), Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Evlogy (Georgievsky), and Bishop Basil (Bogdashevsky).  After Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was elected on May 6/19 His Eminence Nikodim continued administering the diocese, and Metropolitan Anthony’s resolutions begin on June 7/20 and end on December 5/18, i.e. on the day of his arrest by the Directorate of Ukrainian National Republic.

Thus, resolutions by three hierarchs [4]To be more precise, there were four, since the journal contains a few resolutions by Bishop Nazarii (Blinov) of Cherkassy, Third Vicar of the Kievan Diocese. The diocesan administration was … Continue reading have been preserved in the journal for 1918, which allows us to compare the “management style“ of each.  Metropolitan Anthony appears as being more “open“ and emotional, since only in his resolutions do we see a departure from bureaucratic clichés, as well as detailed explanations of various resolutions. Both Metropolitan Vladimir and Bishop Nikodim would limit themselves to simply stating the resolution, and whenever there was anything unclear, they would forward the matter to the Consistory for reexamination.

After Metropolitan Anthony came to Kiev there were changes not only in the content and scope of the resolutions, but even in the journal’s outer appearance. Until then resolutions were copied by the office secretary from the original into the journal by hand, and, as amazing as it may seem, the secretaries frequently had extremely poor penmanship. But already by June 21/July 5 information started being entered into the journal by typewriter.

The innovations had more of an effect upon the outer aspects of the activity of the chancery personnel, but in no way did they increase the twists and turns of the bureaucratic machine. Work flowed in the chancery in a rather plodding manner and matters would become lost or postponed for unknown reasons. Metropolitan Anthony made the following comment regarding one such instance:”The Consistory has dawdled in this matter for over two weeks. I have delt with consistories in Kazan, Ufa, Volhynia, and Kharkov, and nowhere have they dawdled so shamelessly. With this in view I avoid sending matters to the Consistory, but even when there is a minimal number the same delays occur.”

The great number of appeals to the metropolitan regarding matters outside his competence did nor enhance the effectiveness of the work done by the organs of diocesan administration. Vladyka Anthony gave sharp responses to such requests, to which many resolutions bear expressive witness. For instance, the widow of the priest Nazarevich requested assistance securing her rights to property that was purchased. “The petitioner should turn to attorneys, and I am not one of them.”

The metropolitan had the same reaction to petitions that were drawn up in improper form. On one of them, consisting of tens of sheets, and in addition made more onerous by poor calligraphy, Anthony wrote: “The handwriting is illegible. Rewrite it and make the effort to make your statement on a single sheet of paper.” On another one (carelessly written on a postcard) he wrote, “The young ignoramus who sent a postcard instead of a petition is to be dismissed.”

Certain priests simply inundated the consistory with reports and petitions. With respect to one such petitioner Anthony wrote: “To the consistory. To be kept on hand from now on. I will not respond to this, since I have known Father Gobchansky for over ten years as an abnormal person.”

It would sometimes happen that petitioners would forget themselves and would allow the use of improper expressions in petitions. Priest Samson Zadorozhny accused Vladyka of cruelty and that in view of this all that remains is for him to become a sectarian presbyter. The metropolitan placed the following resolution on this letter: “To the priest threatening to switch to sectarianism either give no response or respond by placing him under trial.”

Some petitioners would appear in person in an inappropriate state. After a visit by a delegation of parishioners of the St. Nicholas Church of the Desert with a request to be transferred from the Diocese of Chernigov to the Diocese of Kiev, Vladyka wrote: “The petitioners appeared in an inebriated state with an aroma of denutarat.” [5] In this case, self-distilled vodka. I am forwarding their petition, which was rude and Bolshevist, to His Eminence Pachomios [6] Bishop Pachomios (Kedrov) of Chernigov and Nezhin. , since this matter has nothing to do with me. The petitioners may not have known that I have no authority over Chernigov, but the deacon had to know this and is therefore subject to punishment.“ After the deacon tried to make excuses the metropolitan wrote a supplementary resolution: “Denaturat and disinfectant have different odors, but if I took the second for the first, I am very glad. I hope to be fully convinced of my mistake in the future.“

Thus, even a superficial acquaintance with the conditions under which Metropolitan Anthony had to operate is sufficient to be convinced that they basically differed from those before the Revolution.  On one hand there was an increase in the amount and themes of the matters that required resolution by the immediate ruling hierarch, while on the other hand the turbulent political climate would break into church matters, either through unrestrained and inebriated visitors or especially through a huge number of disciplinary cases involving clergy. We have tracked the various particularities and conditions under which the archpastoral activity of His Eminence Anthony took place in greater detail based on his resolutions on the following issues:   

Matters dealing with clergy assignments, transfers, and penalties

His first resolution (on June 7/20, 1918) dealt with a petition by a military priest to be granted a position in the Kievan Diocese: “I have twenty requests, but no vacancies.” From then on His Eminence repeatedly turned away petitioners wishing to receive a parish in the Diocese of Kiev (mostly priests fleeing the Soviet Union and former military clergy). For example, already on July 23/August 5 one of the petitions has this resolution: “There is not a single vacancy, and there are already 82 petitioners, and nine of them are academicians” (graduates of theological academies). In the fall even bishops who were unable to get to their sees were asking to come to Ukraine, such as Bishop Gabriel Chepura of Chelyabinsk, who was appointed to run the pastoral school at St. Gregory Biziukov Monastery in the Kherson Diocese, or Euthymius Lapin of Yakutsk (about whose appointment there is no precise information). Vladyka Anthony advised petitioners to turn to diocesan hierarchs of Russian dioceses (his response to a petition from Fr. A. Svyatnov, a priest of the Warsaw Diocese: “Direct you requests to Great Russian dioceses, but, of course, not to the Moscow Regions [which were under Bolshevik control – A. S.]”) In response to a request by the Commission of Military Clergy at the Ministry of War regarding the preference of former military clergy to be assigned to parishes the metropolitan wrote: “I consider it my duty to inform the Commission that I am filling almost all of the vacant parishes in the diocese with military or refugee priests.” The most persistent petitioners (mostly from dioceses where the metropolitan had served) could expect to find such comments upon their petitions as “My friend, stay in your place for now. I have dozens of petitions, but there are no vacancies. Send your petition in about three months, if you get bored.” Some of the clergy allowed themselves to “blackmail” Vladyka, threatening to go to the Unia if their requests were denied. The metropolitan categorically termed such clergymen as “spiritual Bolsheviks,” and this expression can be found in his resolutions several times.

As is evident from the journal, Metropolitan Anthony tried to assign the better prepared pastors to parishes, considering the fact that the average level of the clergy was quite low.  It is noted in the resolution on Priest Gnedashevsky’s report dated July 3/16 that “704 priests were ordained in ten Ukrainian dioceses between 1915 and 1918, of whom only 116 do not lack education.” More typical were petitions from deacons (many had no theological education), requesting ordination to the priesthood. The metropolitan satisfied such requests unwillingly, frequently refusing to make assignments to parishes in large population centers. The metropolitan’s response to the petition by Deacon Kir-Demianovsky to have him assigned to his parish was candid: “I cannot entrust a parish of  six thousand to a simpleton.” Dozens of similar petitions likewise did not get Vladyka’s support. For instance, one of them, dated April 17, bore the inscription “Serve God as a deacon, like St. Ephraim the Syrian.” If an ordination to the priesthood was still allowed, the chances for a newly baked priest to obtain a parish were slim. We see practically identical resolutions in the petitions from Priests George Sergeev and George Komarnitsky regarding transfers: “I cannot assign you to a village which archpriests are requesting,” and “Archpriests and academicians are asking to go Batieva Gora [currently under Kiev, A. S.].” And Vladyka replied to a priest of a small sparsely populated spot called Gulianiki who was requesting a transfer to the large village of Rusalovka with this: “To the petitioner: Rusalovka requires an experienced and enlightened pastor, while you should thank God for Gulianiki.”

The metropolitan passed requests by psalmists to be ordained to the diaconate to Bishop Nikodim (Krotkov) of Chigirin for his consideration. “For the future I am allowing you to ordain worthy psalmists to the diaconate according to your discretion.” (resolution dated June 22/July 5)

Metropolitan Anthony tried not to indulge priests who grumbled against the hardness of pastoral work. His advice to Nicholas Sagaidahovsky, who requested to be transferred to another parish due to the extreme illiteracy of his flock, is interesting: “Put up with this for a while, and something good will happen to those people.” But in certain instances, he had to yield to the persistence of the petitioners. A priest from the village of Belgorodka asked to be transferred from a village where most of the residents were sectarians (Stundites) or to grant him retirement: The hierarchical resolution stated: “To the petitioner, permission granted. But it is too bad that seeing a wolf you are abandoning the flock.”

Matters dealing with the unworthy behavior of clergy were a separate problem. In the chaotic conditions some of them took part in political action, while others were suspected of other types of sins, such as bootlegging, drunkenness, or debauchery. But Vladyka regarded the abovementioned “church Bolshevism” as deserving the greatest sanctions. He issued the following resolution regarding the matter of one such priest: “Priest Tkachuk is a Bolshevik and a nihilist. He has started a “revolutionary committee” made up of monks at his monastery [7] The Lebedin Women’s Monastery. and complained about the monastery to the Bolsheviks. But since his actions occurred before the Council‘s definition [8] The metropolitan had in mind a decision of the All-Russian Council. was published he is to be transferred and placed under the dean‘s supervision.“ The metropolitan imposed the following resolution to the complaint against Psalmist Basil Peisansky by the dean of the third district of the Cherkassy Region: “The psalmist is a Bolshevik, and the Holy Council has ruled that such should be fired through the Religious Department and, if needed, the police should be summoned for assistance. He should immediately leave the village to do menial work at the monastery, directed by the Consistory, and in a month he can request a place, but no closer than 150 versts from the present one. His family should leave as well. If he doesn‘t comply an investigation should be started, which will, of course, permanently deprive him of any clerical rank.“ Even if the guilty party expressed a willingness to repent, His Eminence would be in no hurry to allow him to serve. He issued the following resolution in response to the Consistory’s inquiry regarding Priest Basil Goskovsky’s petition expressing repentance for transgressions that were allowed due to ”revolutionary muddleheadedness”: ”Inform Priest Goshkovsky that I read his letter closely as well as his entire case, in which I noted items that were not mentioned in the letter, such as drunkenness, profligacy with the help, and shouts of ’Away with all the hierarchs.’ In a word, he is a typical Bolshevik. If Father Goskovsky has repented, he must go to the consistory to explain himself.” Sometimes the metropolitan would exhibit leniency toward parish priests but utmost strictness toward monastics. His resolution in the matter of the Priests Shevchenko and Levitsky, who “took over parishes on their own will“ was relatively mild: ”Considering the conditions of total destruction that are prevalent I am limiting myself to a severe reprimand and a warning that they will be put on trial if this happens again, and then they will recall these acts.” But there is no evidence of a liberal attitude in the case of Hieromonk Nicanor of the St. Sophia Metropolitan Residence, who was accused of not complying with the orders of the diocesan leadership: ”He is to be fired, and if he doesn’t go within a week, the police will be asked to assist. The report to His Holiness the Patriarch should have a reference to the new law regarding Bolshevism.” The reasons for leniency toward the white clergy are partly given in the following resolution in the matter of Psalmist Theodore Voitsekhovsky, dated July18/31: ”The psalmist deserves dismissal from clergy status, [9] This refers to a psalmist in the rank of a reader-chanter. but since this status still remains not only a means for serving the Church, but also for the sustenance of clergy families, this will be limited to this Bolshevik’s transfer with a warning that the next infraction will lead to a dismissal from the clergy.”

Among the “abuses of serving” which had not been widespread until 1917 was the increasing practice of serving treby beyond one’s own parish. After examining one such case (of Afanasy Bogachevsky) the metropolitan wrote upon the report which gave the reasons which made the priest leave his parish and engage in free-lancing “To the Consistory. No answer was given to the last question, just an evasive one, which causes us to regret that Father Bogachevsky took on the priestly rank, which he regards not from a pastoral perspective, but from a perspective of a hireling.” (Resolution of October 2/15)

It is unlikely that the abovementioned resolutions can lead to far reaching conclusions regarding the nature of Metropolitan Anthony relationships with the clergy under him, but he undoubtedly showed himself to be an administrator paying close personal attention to personnel transfers and imposing punishment in a balanced way, although with a tendency toward harshness.

Monastery Matters

Since most of the matters were decided by the Lavra Spiritual Council and the metropolitan as the archimandrite in charge only approved the minutes of its meetings, relatively few resolutions on Lavra matters (and monastery matters in general) have been preserved. Here are some:

In 1918 new monasteries were being started in the Kievan Diocese. These were mostly sketes, which formed into separate communities. There was, in particular, the Lavra skete Tserkovshchina, which the metropolitan personally inspected and found to be “flourishing.” It was this skete that was given the responsibility for the Zverenets Caves, a historical monument containing evidence of a monastery in the twelfth century. We read this on the attitude of the guardian and warden of the churches at the Zverenets Caves Prince V. D. Zhevakhov toward the transfer of the caves to a monastery of the Kievan Diocese: “The caves have been examined, the papers have been read, and Abbott Manuel has expressed his agreement to the placement of the Zverenets Caves under the aegis of the Tserkovshchina Skete.”

In certain (although very rare) cases conflicts between monks were brought to the metropolitan for trial. For instance, on June 26/July 28, 1918, he wrote on the report from Hieromonk Juvenal, superior of the monastery in Kanev, which had explanations of Monk Nikon’s complaint: ‘To Father Superior: Announce to Nikon that he is in devilish delusion regarding his virtue, which no good monk has ever done. Even the Apostle Paul boasted only of his infirmities.”

There were a few requests to defrock during the year, but only in one case did the diocesan authorities allow this due to the persistence of the petitioner (this case had to do with Hieromonk Konon of the Lavra).

Metropolitan Anthony likewise gave permission for various matters indirectly concerning the Lavra. Thus, on September 28/October 11he wrote on a letter from Ivan Ogienko, rector of the newly opened Kamenets-Podolsk University, asking that university be blessed by obtaining one of the five existing copies of the sixteenth century Ostrog Bible in the Lavra library: “To the Lavra Spiritual Council.  This is to be brought to discussion. Universities are opened infrequently, and we do not need five copies.”

On October 2/15, 1918, Metropolitan Anthony instructed the Spiritual Council to apportion funds to Professor-Archpriest Theodore Titov for a mission to conduct archival work in Tobolsk. He had submitted a report with a learned critique of the accusations against Archbishop Paul (Koniukevich) of Tobolsk (drunkenness and cruel treatment of clergy), which were obstacles to his possible canonization.

Among the matters dealing with the Lavra we also find attempts by the metropolitan to write resolutions in Ukrainian. His response to a request by the Commission on Military Clergy at the Ministry of Religious Affairs for permission to obtain church record book blanks from the Lavra printing press for military churches contains three incorrect words. To be fair, it should be noted that many officials in the hetman administration were no better at Ukrainian than the metropolitan.

Marriage Issues

Issues dealing with laypeople, particularly marriage issues, were no less complex than disciplinary issues of the clergy. Without question, the World War and the Revolution were instrumental in increasing the number of divorces and situations when the Church could not bless a particular marriage. The problem was also complicated by the fact that documents dealing with divorce proceedings were stored either in Petersburg or in Moscow. In addition, many petitioners conducted their marriages and filed for divorce before 1917, and at that point were living outside the borders of Ukrainian dioceses. Therefore, such disputes had to be settled without all the documents “since there was no possibility of obtaining them at the present time. And there could be no doubt that a marriage was performed, since otherwise there was no point in divorcing.” (Resolution dated September 22/October 5) And to cite an example, a marriage was allowed for a former second lieutenant of the Akhtyrka Hussar Regiment with the sister of her sister’s husband: “Due to the impossibility of getting in touch with the Holy Synod I am allowing the marriage on my own.” Such marriages were allowed in the Western Region, and while this was not the case in the Kiev Province de jure, de facto permissions were given there before 1917 more than once. Similar petitions would come to Kiev from other Ukrainian dioceses. In particular, a petition arrived on September 13/26 from the Poltava Province requesting permission to marry the sister of the husband of the petitioner’s sister. Anthony’s response was “The consistory will provide a memorandum regarding the Holy Synod’s permission for such marriages in the Western Region, and will send a report to His Eminence, the Bishop of Poltava, for his consideration. For I have no right to function in another diocese.”

Besides requests to marry close relatives, there were a great many matters regarding the marriage of minors. A request for sixteen-year-olds to marry brought forth this response: “They can get married in a year.” [10] The practice in the Russian Orthodox Church was for the groom to be at least eighteen and at least sixteen for the bride. The rules were different in the Georgian and Moldavian Dioceses. A different situation took place with Priest Eugene Tsurkanovich, whom the metropolitan suspended in his report to the consistory on July 12/25 for marrying minors. “Priest Tsurkanovich is to be removed and his case should be treated as one involving a spiritual Bolshevik.” But upon receiving explanations from Fr. Eugene himself (August 20/September 2) he rescinded this decision without delay: “I have read this, and found out that the petitioner is from Bukovina, who is unfamiliar with our practice and was apparently received in an unfriendly manner by his fellow brothers. Marriage of minors is a violation of civil law, but not of church law. Marrying on a Thursday is not forbidden by the canons but by Russian custom, so I am allowing Father Tsurkanovich to serve, and I urge an end to this investigation.”

There were also simply amusing requests. A peasant from the village of Sosonka in Podolsk Province, Constantine Dovgan, was asking permission to enter a new marriage after celebrating his eightieth birthday. The metropolitan (who, by the way, was 55) responded, “Think, grandpa, about entering into the future life instead of into a marriage.” In addition, there was a request for a nephew to marry his aunt (the widow of his deceased uncle): “I cannot allow this marriage, the petitioners are banned from Holy Communion until the incest ceases.”  Or something like the following, regarding a husband from a civil marriage until the conclusion of the epitimiia period following the first marriage: “They can be married, but adulterers cannot receive communion for fifteen years (canon of St. Basil the Great), or for three years, according to the Church’s leniency. Vladyka Anthony wrote the following on a petition from Second Lieutenant Iraklii Tumanov (an Armeno-Gregorian) regarding his entering into a second marriage (the petitioner was to blame for the dissolution of the first one): “Allow the marriage to take place under the condition that the groom converts to Orthodoxy before the marriage.”

Senseless marriages were conducted for purely mercantile motives. A peasant from the village of Sosonka in the Podolsk Province asked permission for his nineteen-year-old son to marry the widow of his uncle, who was killed in the war, and whose land holding they wished to keep. The letter contained a hint that if this is denied, the family might turn Catholic. The metropolitan responded to this with the following: “No authority can allow such a marriage, and there is no point in threatening to join the Latin heresy. If money and property are worth more to you than eternal salvation, you will lose it even while being in the Orthodox Church. See, how you have utilized strangulation for the sake of these estates. I am sending a catechism to you.”

A few cases had to do with priests as well. One of them asked to have his suspension lifted and to have an investigation started of a complaint lodged by his wife. Upon figuring out the heart of the matter the metropolitan sent him this reminder: “It is no secret that the Holy Synod has directed that priests who are living separately from their wives must either demand a divorce due to adultery or be themselves suspected of it.”

The problem of regulating marital relationships became so intensified in 1918 that Metropolitan Anthony was obliged to submit an initiative to the third session of the All-Ukrainian Council to find a solution to this issue and to put new rules into action which would bring order to this sphere.

Church-State Relations and the Ukrainian National Movement

Unfortunately, for most of those who are interested in the history of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine during the Revolution and the Civil War the huge amount of material on Church-state relations during that period remains unknown. This frequently leads to misunderstandings, and it seems to the unenlightened that the situation is reminiscent of the one that came about in Bolshevist Russia. However, this does not fully correspond to reality. Except for the brief presence of Bolsheviks in February, in 1918, at least, only Ukrainian administrations were in charge — the General Secretariat of the Ukrainian Central Rada and the government of the Ukrainian State of Hetman Pavel Skoropadsky. While the first was socialist and, correspondingly, paid little attention to the Church (although without any direct violence), the second one, which was monarchist, openly declared its concern for the Orthodox Church, acknowledging its primacy and apportioning substantial funds to provide aid to clergy and monasteries. Naturally. Church-state relations did not always run smoothly, but the Church always maintained its right to speak out and defended its positions.

The national revolutionary movement among the clergy

One of the problems which Metropolitan Anthony was slated to solve was the investigation of the Temporary Orthodox Church Rada. This organization functioned from November 1917 to January 1918. It was headed formally by Archbishop Alexis (Dorodnitsyn), but actually by Priest Alexander Marichev and Archpriest Basil Lipkovsky. Its main purpose was to call together the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Council and proclaim autocephaly at it. Rada members had conflicts with Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoiavlensky) over this issue. After Vladimir’s martyric death they were accused of disgracefully persecuting the deceased. On July 5/18 Baltic Bishop Pimen (Pegov) reported to Metropolitan Anthony in the name of the All-Ukrainian Council regarding the need to punish the clergy who had been in conflict with the murdered Metropolitan of Kiev: Marichev, Lipkovsky, Sharaevsky, Tarnavsky, Filipenko, Marinich, Fomenko, Pospelovsky, Hierodeacon Porfiry, and Deacon Butvinenko. On July 23/August 3 the Kiev Union of Parish Councils presented a similar request, adding Priest Paschevsky and Deacon Durdukovsky to the list. Vladyka Anthony issued the following resolutions: “To the Consistory: Demand from the named clergymen an explanation of the information about them in the book ‘A Wreath Upon the Grave of His Eminence Metropolitan Vladimir’ [11] This refers to the book by Professor and Priest Feodor Titov of Kiev University, which describes the events from the fall of 1917 to the winter of 1918. and in the diocesan newsletter, and present the explanations to me. The names are to be added to those in the trial roster who have already been told to provide explanations.“

The first explanations were received from Deacon Butvinenko, who was serving at the Baikov Cemetery. [12] This is one of the most famous cemeteries in Kiev. They did not satisfy the metropolitan, and he issued a resolution on August 22/September 4, saying: ”I consider Deacon Butvinenko’s response to be rude defiance of Church authority. He did not prove the necessity of writing to him in Ukrainian, but even if he had been certain of such a necessity he is still obliged not to teach his leadership and not to defy its demands, giving explanations at least in Ukrainian and humbly asking for […}, adducing the precise wording of the directive of the governmental legislative authority. I am now suspending him for disobeying and rudeness until the investigation comes to an end. I suggest that the order for this suspension be sent to him in Ukrainian.” [13]Metropolitan Anthony had a reputation as a staunch ukrainophobe, which he acquired, to put it mildly, due to undiplomatic pronouncements regarding the possibility of using the Ukrainian language … Continue reading

On the deacon’s repeated request (September 3/16) the metropolitan wrote: “Inform the deacon that he is being suspended not because of his attitude toward the late metropolitan, but because of his rude attitude toward his spiritual authorities.” And only after separate explanations and apologies by Deacon Butvinenko was his suspension lifted on September 24/October 7.

The matter was more complicated with other members of the Rada. On October 3/16 the Consistory notified the metropolitan that all the accused, except for the priest Yakov Botvinovsky from the town of Smela, as well as priest Paschevsky and Fomenko, have submitted detailed explanations. The hierarchical resolution was the following: “Members of the former Temporary Rada are explaining that they were in charge of only the initial calling together of the All-Ukrainian Council and did not exhibit any claims to rule the Church at all.” Meanwhile, the Rada was sending to all the dioceses 1) Commissar soldiers with an order saying, ‘that he oversees the diocesan church administration matters, ’requisitioning supplies for the Council, removing those who are unfavorable toward Ukraine,’ and revising consistories and candle factories. The Commissar who arrived in Kharkov announced the Rada’s directive that not a single paper should leave the Consistory without his approval.  2) The Rada sent out a directive to commemorate the church authorities except for the patriarch (for which canons 14 and 15 of the Quinisext Council pass the sentence ‘let him be deposed’). 3) Certain Rada members signed directives forbidding Ukrainian hierarchs from contacting their patriarch other than through the former Department of Religious affairs, and they signed certain papers themselves, while others were signed by Nikon Bezsonov, [14]Nikon (Bessonov), formerly Bishop of Krasnoyarsk, gave up his episcopacy and married in August of 1917. For a while he performed duties in the Department of Religious affairs of the Ministry of … Continue reading who was deposed and openly announced his renunciation of Orthodoxy, for which, according to all the canons of the Councils, as having ecclesiastical contact with the deposed, are they nor likewise themselves subject to deposition?  4) And even earlier they sent out an invitation to the Council before it was approved by the patriarch, while no one can call a council together besides the metropolitan of the region. 5) The All-Russian Council has minutes from the Rada, signed by six persons, which, among other points, state ’Metropolitan Vladimir is to be removed from Kiev.’

Therefore, I am proposing that the Kiev Spiritual Consistory send directives to the members of the former Temporary Orthodox Church Rada with an account of the abovementioned considerations,  demanding explanations from them within a week in response to uncanonical actions listed in the five points indicated.”

Further along Metropolitan Anthony turned this matter over to Bishop Prokopy (Titov) of Elisavetgrad, who was chosen to be head of a special committee of the All-Ukrainian Council investigating the murder of Metropolitan Vladimir. All necessary documents, including copies of the minutes of Consistory meetings and the Lavra Spiritual Council, were also handed over with Metropolitan Anthony’s permission to Archimandrite Matthew (Pomerantsev), who was sent with the same purpose (determining the circumstances of the murder) from Moscow.

As far as the abovementioned priests are concerned, whenever their names came to the surface, the metropolitan would take into account their past transgressions.  Thus, he wrote on the request by the Serdiukovka Special Division to allow Father Marinich to fulfill pastoral duties in that military unit: “To the Consistory. Prepare a memorandum saying that Father Marinich is one of the main church revolutionaries and a member of the former Church Rada leading a life of intemperance.”

This matter did not end up being fully resolved in the summer-fall period of 1918, and metropolitan Anthony had to return to it in the second period of his sojourn in Kiev, in the fall of 1919.

Relations with the Civil Authorities

Metropolitan Anthony developed complex relations with the new quasi-monarchist authorities. Although the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine did support the hetman coup on April 29, 1918 (in particular, Bishop Nikodim of Chigirin, who was ruling the Kievan Diocese, blessed Hetman Pavel Skoropadsky just before the coup), the new regime still regarded His Eminence Metropolitan Anthon to be not the most appropriate candidate for the Kievan See that was vacant after Metropolitan Vladimir’s death.  Assuming that the Kiev hierarch would acquire the status of Metropolitan of all Ukraine, the Ministry of Religious Affairs proposed that the election be postponed until the Second Session of the All-Ukrainian Council. [15]See the reminiscences of these events by the Minister of Religious affairs, Professor Zenkovsky: Protopresbyter V. Zenkovsky, Piat‘ mesiatsev u vlasti (15 maia-19 oktiabria 1918 g.), (Moscow: M. A. … Continue reading But the Kievan Diocesan Council did not agree to this proposal and voted in favor of Vladyka Anthony being head of the diocese. The second candidate, who also received a significant number of votes, was Bishop Dimitri (Verbitsky) of Uman, who was regarded as a moderate ukrainophile.

Upon arriving in Kiev, the metropolitan attended an audience with the Hetman, where he was told that the governmental authorities, regardless of any decisions, regard him before his confirmation by the All-Ukrainian Council, as Metropolitan of Kharkov. Relations really started improving only after the appropriate formal confirmation. This can be traced also in the metropolitan’s resolutions. Thus, he wrote on July 21/August 3 to Colonel Lvov, who had requested intercession with the hetman to receive allowance that was underpaid: “I hardly know Pan Hetman, having encountered him only four times. And I can give you only one piece of advice. Write a report about your difficulties to the Minister of War.” And he wrote this on the petition of Ivan Golubovsky, director of the Comrat Modern School, regarding his interceding before Ukrainian authorities or the Holy Patriarch to provide him with some kind of employment opportunity: “If I give this letter to the minister, you will never obtain anything. You need to write not about the tsar or Russia, but about   Ukraine. Submit a petition to him in Ukrainian, explaining that you are a native of the Kholm Diocese, while mentioning me can only harm you.” Nonetheless the metropolitan considered praying for the governmental authorities to be his absolute duty and punished clergy who transgressed this demand. After the Consistory and the Ministry of Religious affairs announced that in the town of Belaya Tserkov and at the Vorzel Station near Kiev only the Russian governmental authorities were commemorated, His Eminence Anthony wrote: “Send an order to both places that they should commemorate according to the formula established by the All-Ukrainian Council: ‘Our God-Protected Ukrainian Nation and its Right-Believing Hetman Pavel…’, and, in addition, they should explain why they were commemorating incorrectly.” (September 5/18)

In the fall the metropolitan and the hetman drew closer, and already on September 13/26 he wrote the following resolution on a petition by N. Novorinsky, a representative of the Voronezh Council of Churches requesting his intercession before the hetman regarding the purchase of flour and grain in Ukraine: “Your request has been reported to Pan Hetman by me, and our apparent Overlord has promised to take action.”

The improved relations between the hetman and the metropolitan are also evidence of a very loyal attitude of the new authorities toward Russian monarchists, for in his reminiscences the hetman notes that apparently their unspoken head in Kiev was no other than Metropolitan Anthony. [16] See the reminiscences of Hetman Skoropadsky, P. Spogadi, Kinets 1917-gruden 1918 rr. (Kyiv: Philadelphia, 1995), 197-199. but even if personally Vladyka Anthony had no significant differences with the hetman, he did have serious friction with the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Inimical relations developed for the metropolitan both with Professor Basile Zenkovsky, the first Minister of Religious Affairs and with his successor, Alexander Lototsky. Considering the complexity of this subject we will pinpoint only the basic points of these conflicts.

• The Ministry of Religious Affairs regarded the Consistory as its agency, and it appointed and confirmed its staff of personnel. The metropolitan wished to enforce the decision of the All-Russian Local Council and replace the Consistory with diocesan councils, which depended only on the local hierarch. The council members appointed by the metropolitan were never able to start working due to the Ministry’s opposition and support for the old secretary and the members of the Consistory. Metropolitan Anthony wrote the following resolution in this regard: “I earnestly entreat the members of the Diocesan Council not to abandon the activity to which they were called through election by the Kiev Local Church and in which the Holy Patriarch confirmed them. With this in mind I must clarify that 1) The Diocesan Council has received the rights of the Spiritual Consistories, and they will be functioning as members of the Diocesan Council, guided by the unrepealed articles of the Statute of Spiritual Consistories and the determinations of the All-Russian Council, which were accepted by the All-Ukrainian Council. 2) I have informed the Minister of Religious Affairs that the Spiritual Consistories and the office are not at all regarded as organs of governmental authority but as church-state organs, totally on an equal footing with Consistory members and all ecclesiastical ranks in general, and the secretary of the Consistory is privy only to the confidential relations with the Ober-Procurator. 3) In relations with the government authorities, which have not recognized, in all its totality, the new positions regarding church administration that have been worked out by two councils, the Diocesan Council can, without any constraint of conscience, function within the limits of the prior competence of Spiritual Consistories, as Consistory members, and using that title, adding their new title (members of the Diocesan Council). 4) I made a proposal that prior Consistory members are already relieved of their duties while the former secretary remains until the patriarch confirms Mr. Brailovsky as the newly elected secretary, who for now must attend the meetings as an auditor, learning how matters are handled. (July 20/August 2) Nonetheless, the Ministry did not agree to this proposal, and already on July 31/August 13 the metropolitan wrote again on this matter with the following: “the resolution of July 20 was issued as a concession to the wish of the Minister of Religious Affairs that the Diocesan Council, consisting of five members who were elected by the Diocesan meeting prior to the affirmation of the new law regarding diocesan administration, would begin executing their duties according to governmental procedure in the capacity of the Consistory which had been functioning according to statute since 1883. Now, in a new document, the minister is expressing his preparedness to recognize the Diocesan Council as stated in my resolution of July 14, in the total fulness of its rights. However, foreseeing new complications due to Secretary Luzgin’s tendency toward despotism by arbitrarily preventing the handling of matters by the new members of the Spiritual Consistory, who were about to exercise their duties according to the minister’s wishes […], and by allowing himself to send me a rude report with a reference to a circular from former Ober-Procurator Lvov which the Hetman government invalidated. I consider it for the best if the new members of the Spiritual Consistory (the Diocesan Council) would limit for now their governmental rights to the limits of the Statute of Spiritual Consistories of 1883. Thus, they would act according to the July 20 resolution, but under the condition that Mr. Brailovsky would observe the Consistory activities as an auditor at its meetings, and that Father Tregubov serve as chairman of the Diocesan Council on purely ecclesiastical matters that have no governmental significance. In addition, using the authority granted to diocesan hierarchs, I am ordering an audit of the Consistory according to the general resolution, and if the secretary will be creating obstacles even now, he will bring on the suspicion that he is simply afraid of an audit.” This problem was never completely resolved, and the Consistory remained essentially in a double subordination. Although the metropolitan still managed to have his way in certain personnel issues, as, for instance, when he demanded that Consistory worker Pasternak be dismissed: “Worker Pasternak is to be dismissed from the Consistory as a member of the heretical Uniate Church, which was set up exclusively to struggle against Orthodoxy.”
• The Ministry of Religious Affairs demanded that all collections, whether for church needs or charity, that were made in Ukrainian dioceses, remain in Ukraine. In a resolution dated September 26/October 8 the metropolitan directed: “I regard the Ministry’s directive to be illegal, since no one can prevent a Local Church from donating outside its boundaries and for needs other than those of the church. After all, we collected for the Boers and the Messina earthquake. The Consistory is free of insurance obligations, but it should prepare a letter to the patriarch, since the directive cannot be fulfilled.” Petitions were sent to the patriarch, but the matter was never completely resolved. The metropolitan allowed collections even from the candle factory (to which the Ministry particularly objected) to be handed over to Archpriest G. Lenchukov who had arrived at the decision of the Holy Patriarch: “To be fulfilled. For the All-Ukrainian Council confirmed this also.” (This refers to the decision by the All-Ukrainian Council to fulfill all the resolutions of the All-Russian Council). The Ministry ordered the management of the candle factory to discontinue payments from then on, to which the metropolitan noted (on the report of the candle factory management): “The office had no right to issue any orders to the factory, which must fulfill the decree of the Holy Synod to the letter, and I will commit the ‘order’ to my memory.”
• The Ministry of Religious Affairs virtually subjected the Theological Academy to its rule. This issue was never resolved, despite all efforts by the metropolitan and letters to the hetman and the patriarch. Therefore, on the petitions on various issues dealing with the Academy, (admission requests, checking books out of the library, etc.) the metropolitan wrote the following: “According to the new statute the Academy is not subjected to me” or “The Academy is not dependent upon the metropolitan and I have no right to issue any permissions at the Academy.” Changes in the “Statute” of the Kiev Theological Academy, which expanded the metropolitan’s rights regarding the Academy were introduced at one of the last sessions of the All-Ukrainian Council (November 29/December 11, 1918), although they were actually put into action only in September 1919.

Besides the administration of Hetman Skoropadsky the metropolitan had to deal with officials of the German occupation. On July 31/August 12 Metropolitan Anthony had to give explanations  regarding the refusal by Bishop Neophytus (Slednikov) of Kharkov to serve a panikhida for Field Marshal Eichhorn. And on September 22/October 5 he responded to Oberlieutnant Ranke of the political section of the German army regarding anti-German propaganda that was allowed on the feast day of St. Vladimir at Kiev’s St. Michael Golden Domed Monastery: “To the Consistory. Prepare a letter to the head of the political section of the German command saying that as a result of his report regarding the agitation that had taken place an investigation has been conducted and the guilty novice has been transferred under arrest to the monastery’s daughter church.”

Despite the apparent lack of sharp conflicts with the occupation forces [17] The metropolitan spoke German and made personal contact with representatives of the German and Austro-Hungarian command. definite misunderstandings still took place. Perhaps the most scandalous incident was the matter of Apollinary (Yaschurzhinsky), rector of The Vasilkovsky St. Nicholas Church, allowing (at the request of the chaplains of the German units) Protestant and Catholic services to be held at his church. The metropolitan gave this order: ”Yaschurbinsky is to be reprimanded for his unauthorized action and suspended under the dean’s supervision for two weeks. Should another priest be assigned there? The church blessing rite is to be performed.”

More trivial problems were decided at the level of the metropolitan that only indirectly had to do with church authority. For instance, Priest Eugen Gorbachevsky of the village of Svinarki in the Cherkassy Region asked Vladyka for help in releasing his brother, who had been arrested by the German authorities. But for this and other inquiries the metropolitan’s chancery never did receive an intelligible response from the German command.

With all the complexities of dealing with the civilian authorities, both the Hetman Skoropadsky administration and the German command, the position in Ukraine in 1918 bears no comparison with the way in which church-state relations developed in Russian provinces under the Soviets, where hierarchs were totally deprived of the possibility of actively defending the Church’s interests. Ukraine entered the period of chaos somewhat later, and it was precisely Metropolitan Anthony’s arrest on December 5/18 which can be regarded as the endpoint after which a period of disorder began in Ukrainian dioceses along with a pronounced conflict with the government apparatus.

The All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council and the Prerogatives of Metropolitan Anthony

A frequent error by petitioners between June and September 1918 was a naive certainty that Metropolitan Anthony was primate not only for Kiev but for all Ukraine. Not only laity but priests made this error as well. The metropolitan responded to one such priest from the Volhynia Diocese this way: “I’m in charge only of the Kiev Diocese.” Somewhat later the All-Ukrainian Council adopted “The Position on the Supreme Church Authority of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine,” according to which the metropolitan of Kiev received the status of a regional metropolitan of all Ukrainian dioceses. But this had to be brought into force only after confirmation by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Council taking place on September 13/26, 1918.

Certain petitioners tried to rush matters and, learning that the powers of the metropolitan of Kiev might be expanded, demanded his judgment on various issues. Thus, retired General Peter Rutkovsky asked him on September 10/23 to order the Kharkov Consistory to hasten the recognition that his marriage was invalid. The metropolitan’s response was: “I have no authority outside the boundaries of Kiev Province. There is no point in trusting the newspapers. By the way, it is likely that the Ukrainian Synod, which is about to be approved by the patriarch, will start functioning in a few days. Send your request there, but without referring to family difficulties. Ask that the marriage be declared illegal and invalid under the influence of pangs of conscience.”

Complaints against individual diocesan hierarchs also came to Kiev. For instance, Priest Daniel Popov conveyed a complaint against Archbishop Theophanes (Bystrov) of Poltava, and Metropolitan Anthony was obliged to respond: “For consideration by Bishop Theophanes. I am just the diocesan hierarch of Kiev, and the Ukrainian Synod has not been confirmed yet by the patriarch, who is the only one who can accept complaints against hierarchs.  Be kind enough to inform Fr. Popov of this and prepare your own (this is my brotherly advice) explanation of his petition, which he has probably prepared for the His Holiness the Patriarch. He partly gives himself away, as shown in his behavior at the Diocesan Assembly, but it is said also about Grabenko [18] Secretary of the Poltava Consistory. that he fully lives up to his surname.”

We find among the memorandums and reports about ten of them containing comments regarding various issues that were discussed at the All-Russian and All-Ukrainian Councils. Some caused Vladyka to be openly irritated. Thus, on a petition from Basil Kovalsky, a priest from the village of Slavgorodka in the Akhtyrka District of Kharkov Province regarding the need to reexamine the ruling of the All-Russian Council on the division of income from collections the metropolitan wrote: “My friend, you are writing absurdities. How can a subordinate council repeal the rulings of one that has supremacy?!” And on the report from Priest Julian Makovsky from the Kanev District regarding the need to declare the determination of the All-Russian Council regarding salaries for psalm readers as being not enforceable on Ukrainian territory “as it is not subject administratively to the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church” we read: “The All-Ukrainian Council has acknowledged the binding force of all rulings of the All-Russian Council, but even if there had not been such a ruling, what you said about the decisions of the All-Russian Council, of which all Ukrainian dioceses have been part and still are, as not being obligatory for Ukraine, can serve as evidence of your thoughtlessness.”

On the threshold of the third session of the All-Ukrainian Council Archpriest Savva Bogdanovich asked that in each province of the whole diocese assemblies of clergy and laity be called to reelect the members of the Council who were participants in the Church Rada, and to discuss certain issues (ukrainiazation, autocephaly, etc.). The metropolitan’s reply was: “To Fr. S. Bogdanovich. Ukrainiazation and autocephaly were rejected by the summer session of the Council and there will be no more judgements about them, while the mentioned members of the former Church Rada have been dismissed from the Council.  I know nothing about the Moscow assembly of clergy and laity, and this matter does not concern me.” 

The third session of the All-Ukrainian Council of 1918 took place already after the conclusion of the All-Russian Council. But after the downfall of the government of Hetman Skoropadsky, whom the All-Ukrainian Council supported in various ways, having issued a special address against the “Petliuravites,” this Council had to cease its activities. Among its first acts the new regime ordered the arrest, first of Archbishop Evlogy, [19] See Metropolitan Evlogy’s reminiscences about these events: Metropolitan Evlogy, My Life’s Journey, trans. Alexander Lisenko (Crestwood NY: SVS Press), 267-269. and Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) afterwards. It should be noted that the hierarchs did not provoke this harshness by the regime. The final resolution of His Eminence Anthony that was recorded in the journal dealt with the permission for the clergy to take part in greeting the troops of the Directorate of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, and the metropolitan granted this permission over the phone. [20]  See the reminiscences about these events of the Minister of Religious Affairs, Alexander Lototsky: Lototsky, O. Storinki minulogo (Warsaw. 1939), 88-89.

Conclusion

Thus, we have attempted to depict church life and what was proximate to it in the Kievan Diocese and throughout Ukraine as a whole, using a single source — the journal of incoming and outgoing correspondence of the Kiev Spiritual Consistory for 1918. This “rough draft in pencil” has no pretensions of being in full color or volume. But sometimes even a black and white engraving, thanks only to the play of light and shadow, can point out some significant nuances that slip away amidst the mosaic nature of colors. In this case the above review, in our view, has allowed us to determine the governing style of an actual bishop, and, specifically, his ability to adapt to work in circumstances of a kaleidoscopic transformation of the political situation. This allowed us to

• Discover the dynamics of consideration and interconnections between matters which were examined by the Consistory and forwarded to the hierarch for confirmation. We can state with a great deal of certainty that the metropolitan managed to lower the level of the bureaucratic “self-sufficiency” of the Consistory apparatus. He investigated matters thoroughly and tried not to rely upon opinions prepared by his underlings. Essentially, this would be one of the reasons why he wrote extensive resolutions rather than simply glancing over the documents submitted to him.
• Bring out the changes which occurred in the interrelations between the ruling bishop and his flock. It is apparent that ambiguous changes were taking place in that system during the first post-revolutionary years — in particular, the activity level of the laity and lower clergy sharply increased, and their opportunities for influencing the hierarch expanded substantially. The reaction of Their Eminences themselves to such a change in their position differed — from a partial withdrawal from all diocesan administrative matters to efforts to resist the “winds of change.” Metropolitan Anthony avoided these extremes and proposed another tactic. While formally encouraging (or at least not hindering) the activity level of all the members of the church body, he made use of the diversity of the given milieu and focused only on “pushing through” his decisions.
• To illustrate by a concrete example the mutual relations between secular and religious authorities which developed in the period of the Russian Empire’s disintegration. Having occupied the see of the Kievan (and in the circumstances of 1918, de facto All-Ukrainian) metropolitan, His Eminence Anthony demonstrated complete loyalty to Hetman Skoropadsky and his government, which was unambiguously reflected in the cited resolutions on matters dealing with church-state relations. While being an opponent of the Church’s ukrainiazation (in the sense of the widespread acceptance of Ukrainian in services, theological education, etc.), Anthony nonetheless readily supported the steps leading to the achievement of full autonomy for “The Russian Orthodox Church in the Ukraine” (This was the title adopted at the third session of the All-Ukrainian Council). As far as it can be judged from available information, Vladyka did not rule out the possibility that the Ukrainian nation would continue its existence in one form or another after the end of the First World War, and that accordingly he would be the primate, if not de jure, then de facto, of an independent Orthodox Church.