Ukrainian schools (Chernigov, Lviv). Much has been made of two tendencies they
allegedly represented, one seemingly pro-Catholic, the other pro-Protestant, but the
lines should not be drawn sharply. These churchmen sensitively applied concepts
from all current Christian experiences to the needs of Orthodoxy, and aspects of each
trend were supported in one or another aspect of Petrine religious reform. Stefan
Javorskij, for example, is known for a strong defense of the Church as an institution
separate from the state that needs independent clerical leadership (patriarch), as well as
for defense of tenets of the faith commonly criticized by Protestants, such as icons and
mysteries. He came to this position not only from the Jesuit-inspired curriculum in
which he was raised but also mindful of Ukrainian Orthodoxy’s struggles to reform
itself in response to Protestant and Counter-Reformation Catholic challenges. To
dismiss this approach as“philo-Catholic”is a very narrow reading.
The same might be said for interpretations of Javorskij’s colleague, Feofan
Prokopovich, often considered pro-Protestant. Prokopovich, invited to St. Peters-
burg in 1716, had been influenced by Martin Luther’s works during his training in
Lviv, Cracow, and Rome (in part because he rejected the Catholic aspects of
his training in Rome), and as Rector of the Mohyla Academy had added to its
Jesuit-inspired scholastic curriculum elements of Protestant theology such as
justification by faith and eschatology that he considered complementary to
Orthodox doctrine; he also incorporated the modern scientific work of Galileo,
Copernicus, and Brahe.
A good example of how fruitfully these Orthodox leaders deepened Russian
Orthodoxy with their knowledge of contemporary Christianity and intellectual
trends can be found in catechisms produced in Peter I’s time. Peter Mohyla’s
Catechismhad been standard in Russian Orthodoxy since 1684, but its scholastic,
didactic, and very long format suited it more for clerics to learn from than for
teaching the faithful. Around 1718 Feofan Prokopovich produced a primer with a
catechism based in part on Martin Luther’sLarge Catechism; it enhanced the
aspects of Orthodoxy that complemented the current vogue forPolizeistaatorder.
It was a forceful statement of loyalty to Church, state, and God the Father; it
condemned superstition, magic, and diversions from the faith. By the 1740s
Prokopovich’s primer and catechism had become the standard in Russian semin-
aries; it went through sixteen editions in the eighteenth century. A contemporary of
Prokopovich, however, Ukrainian-educated metropolitan of Rostov Dimitrij Tup-
talo wrote an Orthodox catechism for his religious school in Rostov around
1702 – 9; like Prokopovich’s, it gained popularity by mid-century and went through
several editions by end century. Tuptalo’s catechism emphasized different aspects
of the faith than Prokopovich’s; as Gary Marker details, contrasting to Prokopo-
vich’s forceful focus on spiritual and lay authority, Tuptalo’s catechism worked
empathetically through issues of faith and dogma, focusing on Gospels, Incarna-
tion, redemption, forgiveness, and in particular the intercessory power of the
Mother of God. Modern in tone, neither work tilted either to Protestantism or
Catholicism but integrated aspects into Orthodox practice and belief. Although
later generations of church historians have tried to dismiss the Petrine Church,
or the entire eighteenth-century Orthodox experience, as alien from Orthodox
Maintaining Orthodoxy 411