Rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy Archbishop Sylvester of Bilogorodka about the relationship between the Academy and the National Historical and Cultural Preserve “Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra”.
The situation around the termination of the agreement between the National Historical and Cultural Preserve “Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra” and the monastery of the same name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has shown how fragile the relations of the Church and state structures can be in an absolutely seemed to be a secular state.
A little history. Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra as an architectural complex is a state property now. At the same time Lavra, as well as all other monasteries and temples, before the establishment of Soviet power in Kyiv, of course, belonged to the Church. Only after the revolution the Bolsheviks declared the nationalization of all church property. In fact, nationalization meant the transition of church property into state property. It is clear that no abstract “people” ever owned the property taken away from the Church.
In 1988, as the Soviet Union was inexorably approaching its end, the state handed over some of Lavra’s churches and buildings to the Church. The monks gradually returned to the monastery. In 1989 the revival of Kyiv Theological Seminary which was also located on the territory of Lavra began. In 1992 the revived Kyiv Theological Academy also began its work. Before the revolution, the Kyiv Academy and the seminary were located in other buildings which were also expropriated by the Soviet state and which were not returned to the Church.
Thus, the Soviet state became the owner of the Church’s premises by taking them from the Church. It is well known that after the collapse of the “world system of socialism” in the countries of the so-called Soviet camp there were various forms of restitution for property taken away by the Communists. Not only church property, of course. But now we are specifically talking about property that belonged to religious organisations. Restitution was carried out, for example, in Romania, the Baltic States, etc. In Ukraine (as well as in Russia and Belarus) restitution of property, including religious one, unfortunately, did not take place fully. Accordingly, today the Ukrainian state owns the architectural complex of Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, which it inherited from the Soviet regime.
In recent weeks, the media have repeatedly written that the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary are located on the territory of Lavra illegally because the agreement of 2013 contains a clause that prohibits the monastery to sublease any premises to other organizations. But let me remind you: The Academy and Seminary were located on the Lavra’s territory many years before 2013. At that time, the monastery and all other church institutions (the Academy, the residence of the Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Chancellery of the Kyiv Metropolitan Church) were considered a united church-administrative complex.
The archive of the Kyiv Theological Academy still keeps the document of 1990 (the existence of which should know both the employees of the Preserve and participants of numerous commissions and experts). This is an act of handing over to the Church some facilities on the territory of the Laura. This act says that the general director of the Preserve Y.D. Kibalnik, fulfilling decision of the Soviet of Ministers of USSR of April, 28, 1990 №99 “About transfer of some objects of museum association “Kyiv-Pechersk state historical-cultural reserve” to Ukrainian Orthodox Church”, transfers these buildings to Church. The rector of the Kyiv Theological Seminary at that time, archpriest Petro Vlodek, received these buildings from the Preserve. At the bottom of the document was signed by J.D. Kibalnik and archpriest Petro Vlodek, and also the seal of the Preserve and the seal of the Kyiv theological seminary! These buildings now house the administrative part and classrooms of the KTA (building 64) and the KTA Library (building 63). Thus, the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary received the use of these buildings directly from the Preserve, and not from the monastery. Therefore, there has never been any sublease in the relationship between the Academy and the monastery!
There is another important document concerning the problem of church property. It is the letter of Patriarch Alexius II to the Minister of Justice of Ukraine V.V. Onopenko of December 29, 1993 (reference number 1398). Here Patriarch Alexy wrote: “We declare that the Moscow Patriarchate has no claim to any movable or immovable church property of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church”. By the way, it is in this document that Patriarch Alexy calls the Blessed Letter on granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church autonomy in governance the Tomos.
Thus, first the USSR and then the independent Ukraine, without restitution of confiscated church property, nevertheless, through various legal documents provided religious organizations with the opportunity to use this property.
Religious life in Ukraine has always been complex and multivectoral. The question of property has also required a delicate approach. A myth has now been spread about the privileged position of the UOC in these matters compared with the predecessor of the OCU – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP). They say that the state gave the Lavra to the UOC and the UOC-KP was deprived of support from the state. But let us recall the facts.
The St. Michael of Golden-Domed Monastery, which was reconstructed at the expense of the state (it was recreated in 1997-1998), was given to the UOC-KP (now it is used by the OCU). Many ancient temples and monasteries in the 1990s were given by the state for the use of the UOC-KP: Vydubytskyy monastery, St. Theodosia male monastery, St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral, the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker (Church of St. Nicholas Pritisk), the Church of Nativity (Shevchenko Church), etc.
By the way, a rhetorical question, did the state conduct an inspection of monuments of architecture, which were transferred not to the UOC, but to other religious communities? How did the state authorities treat the new constructions on the territories of these monuments? After all, if all faiths are equal under the law, it would be logical to check those monuments that are now, for example, in the use of the OCU…
So how was the relationship between the Preserve, the monastery and the Academy developed? In spite of the stories of monstrous violations and infringement of the rights and authorities of the Preserve employees, for many years there have been quite constructive relations. Because both sides understood that Kievo-Pecherskaya Lavra is a value! For the Preserve it is historical and architectural value, for the monastery it is a spiritual value.
The Church understands and remembers that in the Soviet period the museums were often the saviors of temples from destruction. After all, in the brutal 1920s and 1930s, churches were sometimes barbarously destroyed. And it was the staff of museums who made it possible to preserve monasteries and churches as cultural monuments. Many Soviet restorers, jewellers, artists have done enormous work in saving church antiquities.
The workers of the Preserve have knowledge and experience, allowing to observe the preservation of temples and antiquities of Lavra. All these years the Kyiv Theological Schools have not just been on the territory of Lavra, but tried to get hold of the rich experience of the Reserve staff. The KTA and the Preserve prepared joint scientific publications, held scientific conferences and exhibitions together.
In 2011, a cooperation agreement was signed between the KTA and the Preserve. One of the results of this agreement was the introduction to the curriculum of such subjects as “History of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra” (the course was read by an employee of the Preserve Yaroslav Litvinenko), “Preservation of Monuments of Church Art” (the course up to the current academic year was read by the Deputy Director General of the Preserve for Research Konstantin Krainiy).
In conclusion, I would like to note that the barrier between the church and museum, the Church and the state, science and theological schools, artificially created by the Bolsheviks has been practically overcome in the last thirty years. But are we not witnessing the construction of a new barrier?
Rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy Archbishop Sylvester of Bilogorodka
Просмотров: 46