St. Petro Mohila gets attacked by folks who think he used too many Roman Catholic ideas. Some defend him against this because his blend of theology is uniquely Ukrainian. I defend him because he is an icon of general Christian evangelism.
===========
Few people outside of Ukraine know much about St. Petro Mohyla. Most who have heard of him learned of him through the standard critique of his theology: that the Metoroplitan of Kyiv was an aristocratic Latinizer who only stands out only because the times in which he lived were so bad for Orthodoxy in Ukraine. However, it quickly becomes clear as you read more about St. Petro that
- He would have done well in any time and place and
- That it is to Ukraine’s (and Orthodoxy’s) great benefit and thanks to God’s mercy that he lived when and where he did.
Of all the aspects of his life and work, I am probably the most impressed with St. Petro’s ability to assess the spiritual and educational situation in Ukraine and to recognize and utilize the most useful tools available to improve this situation. The best example of this is his use of Western ideas, explanations, and method of presentation to define the essence and boundaries of Orthodoxy to the Ukrainian people (another example is his classical Academy). Some argue that he went too far in this effort. I disagree: it does not take much in the way of charity to “rescue” the teachings and confession of St. Petro Mohyla (there used to be copies of the Confession on the internet; I could no longer find them when I edited this article on 5/15/2015).
Error #1: “Substance”
The first alleged “major error” in his confession involves his use of the term “substance” when describing the necessity of having a pure sacrifice of bread and wine for the Liturgy. The critique is that the word smuggles in heretical baggage in the guise of an innocuous noun: substance is a “foreign” word that “denies the eastern thought of the Liturgy.” Evidently being precise about the quality of the bread and wine subverts the mysterious and otherworldly character of Orthodoxy, but I just do not see it. I agree that the clarification is unnecessary, but unless one assumes that the whole catechism (and Mohyla’s work in general) is a Latin Trojan horse, then it a stylistic problem rather than a heresy. I also think that when people make huge inferences from such limited data we learn more about their agenda/biases than we do about the subject matter being studied. [FWIW, the term “substance” is still in use… even among the Russians and the OCA. See for instance, Fr. Arkady’s work on the subject, page 4… this work has since published]. The same goes for “species” when describing the Gifts after consecration: St. Petro is using this term to tell the reader that the Gifts still look like bread and wine after they are consecrated.
Error #2: “Intention”
The second alleged error involves intention. Again, this seems unnecessary, especially given the low indicator provided to determine intention (i.e. basically that the priest is paying some attention to the service he is conducting). But is it heretical? Do we as Orthodox believe that an automaton could perform a valid Liturgy? Of course not. In fact, no less a commentator than Nicholas Cabasilas talks of intention in the same manner as St. Petro. Again, hints of Latin views regarding unworthily partaking are not enough to make “intent” problematic unless one assumes St. Petro is intending to smuggle other things in with it. You have to go much further to make “heretical hay” of this datum.
Error #3: “Transubstantiaion”
The third major critique involves the Metropolitan’s use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the fact that an act of the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The Orthodox critique of transubstantiation has to do with Western attempts to explicate the process by which the change is made. But is that what St. Petro is doing in this case? A charitable reading is that he was explaining that the Orthodox believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (vs. the confusion introduced by Patriarch Cyril in 1629, who erroneously claimed that communion was of bread and wine that represented Christ’s body and blood). The same goes for his description of the timing of the change. The Orthodox view is that this is a profound Mystery, and just as we do not get into the business of explaining how it takes place, neither do we presume to know exactly when. According to some, St. Petro describes the change as taking place immediately after the Epliclesis. While this is more detail than required, his point is that such a change does place, and that the Holy Spirit works through the words of the priest to bring it about.
[Here is what my copy says; “… O Lord, send down from Heaven thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these Gifts now lying before thee; and make this Bread the precious Body of thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of thy Christ, changing them by thy Holy Spirit. At these Words there is wrought a Change in the Elements, and the Bread becomes the very Body of Christ, and the Wine his very Blood; the Species only remaining, which are perceived by the Sight;…” (Mogila, P. (1898). The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church. (J. J. Overbeck & J. N. W. B. Robertson, Eds.) (p. 80). London: Thomas Baker.)]
There are other minor problems but they are similar in scope to these.
The Real Problem
Even if critics can be convinced that these are innocuous, some would still argue that the western presentation itself is heretical. But this criticism is illogical. One can find problems with Mohyla’s facts and methods only if you assume he is a Latinizer. The problem is that these facts and methods are also used by the same critics to indicate Mohyla’s very identity as a Latinizer. This is circular reason at its finest: using the same data to prove both the presence of an attribute and its consequences. If, on the other hand, you are charitable and assume that St . Petro was bringing the fullness of Orthodoxy to the people in language and concepts they understand, you cannot help but admire his brilliance. Personally, I join with the Council of Jassy in 1642, the Patriarchs of all the Eastern Sees in 1643, and the Council of Jersusalem in 1672 rather than St. Petro’s detractors. Recognizing the need for his work and the fact that theology is always done in community, they modified/corrected then and blessed his Confession. I have not heard that he ever rejected these amendments.
In summary, St. Petro had no agenda other than to give his flock access to the truth.
Of course, YMMV. Then again, in full disclosure, I like having the Western Rite Orthodox around,
wouldn’t mind at all if the Roman Catholics brought their Liturgy with them when we are reunited in Universal Orthodoxy, don’t mind “baptizing” previously an-Orthodox words and concepts whenever it helps teach people about Christ, His Church, and His plan for our salvation (in fact, if you look through earlier posts, you will notice that I adopted the “Four Spiritual Laws” for Orthodox use… quick: somebody call the UltraOrthodox Guardians of Purity!)
A Final Word
One must wonder what critics of St. Mohyla would have said about the methods missionaries have used when teaching Orthodoxy to the natives of Siberia and Russian Alaska, sub-Saharan Africa, and even the United States. For instance, would my calling the Gospel the “Word of God” get me, a former Protestant, accused of degrading the eternal Logos? Would someone be accused of heresy for explaining to Muslim inquirers that icons are the Word of God written with paint, or that Communion is the perfected form hinted at when Muslims memorize and recite the Koran?]. The truths of Orthodoxy are eternal, but the languages we use to teach them in are not. Certainly the use of St. Petro Mohyla’s confession would be inappropriate in many places and times (as would the stories and methods used to teach native Americans in Alaska etc.). But at his time and for his place, it probably was probably right on the mark.
Note: for a much better and more thorough take, see Fr. Ihor Kutash: Kyivan Metropolitan Petro Mohyla and Church Unity or buy a copy of Fr. Andriy Partykevich’s book; Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kiev and the Orthodox Confession of Faith.
