THE ASSEMBLY IN THE VILLAGE OF BUSHTYNO IN SUBCARPATHIAN RUS IN 1922 AND BISHOP ELECTIONS
/ЗБОРИ В С. БУШТИНО НА ПІДКАРПАТСЬКІЙ РУСІ В 1922 Р. ТА ОБРАННЯ ЄПИСКОПА/

Iurii DANYLETS

assistant professor, Faculty of History and International Relations, Uzhhorod National University, Narodna Square 3, 88000 Uzhhorod, Ukraine, jurij.danilec@uzhnu.edu.ua, 00380506928781

Abstract

The article studies a difficult period in the history of the Orthodox Church in Subcarpathian Rus, id est, an attempt to elect a bishop from among the local clergy in 1922. Based on the archival documents, historiography and periodicals, the author reveals the state of matters with the Orthodox movement in the indicated territory and determines the reasons that led to this event. The position of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church abroad and the local activists’ position have been clarified. The author concludes that the election of the bishop was also triggered by Czechoslovakian policy, which delayed the approval of the statutes, did not allow the entry of foreign priests to the territory of Subcarpathian Rus, pursued inconsistent policies regarding the institutionalization of the Orthodox Church. The election results were not implemented.

Keywords

Elections, clergy, bishop, assembly, Orthodox church, priest

SUMMARY

The article examines the endeavour to elect a bishop from the local clergy in Subcarpathian Rus in 1922. On the basis of different sources, the author brings the situation with the Orthodox movement in the designated territory to light and outlines the reasons that caused this event. The position of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church abroad and the one of the local activists have been explained.
The author comes to the conclusion that the attempt to elect hegumen Oleksii (Kabaliuk) as a bishop was due to a number of reasons, namely the policy of Czechoslovakia which delayed the approval of the statutes, did not allow the diocese of foreign priests to enter the territory, and adopted erratic policies regarding the institutionalization of the Orthodox Church. Another factor was Bishop Dosyfei’s inability to reach an agreement with the government of Czechoslovakia and complete the organization of the church. An important reason was also the lack of priests. The author notes that Metropolitan Antonii (Khrapovytsky) attempted to resolve the challenging situation. He sought to include the Carpathian Diocese in the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The election results were not implemented, primarily due to the candidate’s insufficient qualifications. The negotiations at the level of two Orthodox churches ended with Metropolitan Antonii’s refusal from the claims to Subcarpathian Russia. The situation with the nomination and election of a bishop showed heterogeneous opinions among the Orthodox population.

(Language: ukrainian)

full text

Back on content