Reps of UOC-MP Deny Validity of Anathema Declared on Ivan Mazepa
On March 20, 2013, Rector of the Uzhhorod St. Cyrill and Methodius Theological Academy and Avhustyn Voloshyn Carpathian University, Commissioner of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate on matters of higher education and science, Professor, Archimandrite Viktor Bed’ served a memorial litia for the repose of the soul of Ukraine’s Hetman Ivan Mazepa, reported Religion.in.ua with reference to the website of the Uzhhorod St. Cyrill and Methodius Theological Academy.
The memorial litia was served on occasion of the 374th anniversary of birth of Ivan Mazepa. The memorial prayer service ended at the monument to the victims of political repressions in Uzhhorod because Hetman Mazepa was anathemized by church hierarchs due to the political will of Czar Peter I of Moscow for his support of the Swedish army of Charles XII. It was noted that Ivan Mazepa was a great sponsor and patron of the Kyiv Metropolitanate and defender of the state independence of Ukraine.
According to the report of the academy, in 1918, upon the proclamation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, representatives of the Ukrainian authorities asked Metropolitan Antonii of Kyiv to serve a memorial service for Hetman Ivan Mazepa. Metropolitan Antonii sent a telegram to Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia with the request to cancel the anathema as one imposed for political reasons. The Head of the Russian Orthodox Church sent a response saying that on the basis of the decisions of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of 1917-1918, which condemned the practice of declaring anathemas for political faults, the anathema on the hetman is to be considered cancelled. The decision of the Local Council of ROC gave Metropolitan Antonii of Kyiv the canonical right to give his blessing for serving the memorial service for Hetman Ivan Mazepa of Ukraine which was completed by his Vicar, Bishop Nazarii.
According to Professor Archimandrite Viktor Bed’, the anathema on Ivan Mazepa “even if it was declared, has not been valid since the moment of declaration thereof as it was declared contrary to Church canons, namely, out of political motives without observation of the unity of the fullness of the Church and under the pressure of the Moscow Emperor Czar Peter I. Therefore, under such conditions, even the question of lifting thereof is not to be considered from the canonical point of view.”
