Orthodoxy of Ukraine during the occupation, 1939-1944: confessional transformations and political contexts

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Orthodoxy of Ukraine during the occupation, 1939-1944: confessional transformations and political contexts

Oleksandr Lysenko1, Mykola Mykhailutsa2

1 Institute of History of Ukraine NAS of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine)

2 Odessa National Maritime University (Odesa, Ukraine)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the research paper is to analyze the influence of the social and political conditions on changes in confessional life in the occupied Ukrainian lands during World War II.

The scientific novelty: it is claimed that it was social and political conditions that caused drastic changes in the confessional map of Ukraine in 1939-1945. The determinant factor of the occupation policy - the destruction of the established confessional configuration that traditionally existed on Ukrainian lands in the USSR, Poland and Romania - has been proven. Autocephalous tendencies in Orthodox life in the General Governorate, Reichskommissariat `Ukraine' and `Transnistria' were studied. The personal visions of the leading Orthodox bishops regarding the institutional status of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine are reflected. The specific approaches of the German and Romanian administrations to the organization of church life are highlighted.

Conclusions: it is proved that despite the attempt to create a single Orthodox Church in the territory occupied by the Wehrmacht, this did not happen due to the position of the German leadership and different views of the hierarchs of the Orthodox churches. It has been proven that all institutional changes of the occupiers grossly violated the existing traditions and canonical norms, which deprived the Church of its autonomy. It was determined that multiconfessionalism and the lack of autocephalous status of Ukrainian Orthodoxy complicated the process of forming a single Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The influence of the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as the opposition of Berlin, made this process impossible during the war.

It is noted that the Romanian administration in the occupied south-western lands of Ukraine (`Transnistria'), with the support of the Romanian Orthodox Mission, contributed to the revival of Christianity, relied on the pre-revolutionary church organization, clerics and monarchism. The Ukrainian-phobic attitudes of the majority of Romanian bishops and the occupation authorities which led to the fight against the sprouts of Ukrainian autocephaly are shown. It has been proven that the rebuilt churches, the restoration of services in them, the involvement of hundreds of clerics, Christian charity and charity, raising children in the spirit of piety, etc., contributed to the revival of ancient Christian traditions and, at the same time, were a tool for the affirmation of the occupation regime.

Keywords: World War II, Ukraine, Orthodox Church, autocephaly, Romanian Orthodox Mission in Transnistria

АНОТАЦІЯ

ПРАВОСЛАВ'Я УКРАЇНИ В ПЕРІОД ОКУПАЦІЇ 1939-1944 РР.: КОНФЕСІЙНІ ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЇ ТА ПОЛІТИЧНІ КОНТЕКСТИ

Олександр Лисенко1, Микола Михайлуца2

1 Інститут історії України НАН України (Київ, Україна)

2 Одеський національний морський університет (Одеса, Україна)

Мета статті - проаналізувати вплив суспільно-політичних умов на зміни конфесійного життя в окупованих українських землях у роки Другої світової війни.

Наукова новизна: стверджується, що саме суспільно-політичні умови спричинили кардинальні зміни на конфесійній мапі України у 1939-1945 рр. Доведено визначальність чинника окупаційної політики - руйнування усталеної конфесійної конфігурації, що традиційно існувала на українських землях в СРСР, Польщі та Румунії. Досліджено автокефальні тенденції у православному житті в Генеральному губернаторстві, Райхскомісаріаті «Україна» й у «Трансністрії». Відображено особисті візії провідних православних архієреїв щодо інституційного статусу Православної Церкви в Україні. Виокремлюються специфічні підходи німецької та румунської адміністрації до організації церковного життя.

Висновки. Доведено, що попри спроби творення єдиної Православної Церкви на окупованій Вермахтом території, цього не сталося через позицію німецького керівництва та різні погляди ієрархів Православних церков. Доведено, що усі інституційні зміни окупантів грубо порушували існуючі традиції та канонічні норми, що позбавляло Церкву її автономності. Визначено, що поліконфесійність і відсутність автокефального статусу українського православ'я ускладнили процес формування єдиної Православної Церкви України. Вплив Московської патріархії, а також протидія Берліна, унеможливили цей процес у роки війни.

Зазначено, що румунська адміністрація в окупованих південно-західних землях України («Трансністрія») за підтримки Румунської православної місії сприяла відродженню християнства, опиралась на дореволюційну церковну організацію, кліриків і монархізм. Показано українофобські настрої більшості румунських архієреїв та окупаційної влади, що призводило до боротьби з паростками української автокефалії. Доведено, що відбудовані храми, відновлення в них богослужінь, залучення сотень кліриків, християнська доброчинність і милосердя, виховання дітей у дусі благочестя тощо, сприяло відродженню давніх християнських традицій і, водночас, було інструментом ствердження окупаційного режиму.

Ключові слова: Друга світова війна, Україна, Православна Церква, автокефалія, Румунська православна місія в Трансністрії

INTRODUCE

orthodoxy ukraine occupation political

Ukrainian and foreign scholars began to actively study the problems of the occupation policy in the religious sphere at the turn of the 80-90s of the 20th century. Firstly, this became possible due to the declassification of many archival funds and simplification of access to them; secondly, in connection with the intensification of the scientific contacts (holding conferences and museum exhibitions, implementation of joint programs and grant projects, internships, etc.); thirdly, the growing demand of the society for the relevant segment of the historical knowledge related to the establishment of democratic rights and universal values, including freedom of conscience, and the revival of a full-fledged religious life in Ukraine after the fall of the communist regime.

The empirical basis in this thematic niche was laid by the works of the direct participants and witnesses of the events of that time - leading religious and public figures, clergymen of different denominations and status: I. Vlasovskyi, I. Ohiyenko (Hilarion), M. Yarushevych, Sylvestr, S. Dzyubina, P. Oliynyk, M. Velychkivskyi and others , as well as archaeographic publications, which contained a lot of interesting documents that reflected the religious life during the German and Romanian occupation of Ukraine .

The Soviet-era literature on religious subjects reflected the atheistic political course of the Soviet leadership, so it had a tendentious, ideological orientation, which protected the state decisions in this sphere. Therefore, before the collapse of the USSR, purely scientific elaboration of this issue took place outside it. Among the most notable publications are the works of F. Heyer, J.S. Curtiss, J. Chrysostomus, H. Firecide, W. Fletcher, W. Alexeev & T.G. Stavrou, R. Armstark, D. Pospielovsky .

In Ukraine, this topic has attracted the attention of such researchers as V. Pashchenko, Y. Voloshyn, V. Hordienko, V. Borshchevych, T. Minenko, N. Stokolos, V. Mylus, I. Hridina, I. Prelovska, A. Smyrnov, as well as the authors of this article . Several substantial works on this topic have been prepared by Polish scholars, but they mainly concern the territory of the Ukrainian-Polish border and enclaves of common residence . Some plots from the occupation era are found in the works of the Russian church historians, part of the works are characterised by apologetics and tendentiousness . Most Russian authors limit their research work to the period of the Great Patriotic War, ignoring the fundamentally important processes that took place between September 1939 and June 1941.

Despite the fact that there were quite a significant number of publications, the scholars have failed to reconstruct a holistic picture of the functioning of Orthodox denominations and religious life in the occupied Ukrainian lands. In this article, the authors will attempt to outline the general religious situation in Ukraine and identify aspects that require special research efforts.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE GENERAL GOVERNORATE AND THE REICHSKOMMISSARIAT `UKRAINE'

The beginning of World War II radically changed the confessional situation in the territories `reunited' with the USSR - Volyn, Halychyna, Bukovyna. On the eve of the war, the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church (PAOC), led by Metropolitan Dionysius, had 5 dioceses, 340 deaneries and 1,160 parishes with 1,792 clergymen, two theological seminaries, and several million believers (predominantly ethnic Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians) . With the fall of Poland, the PAOC became physically divided between Germany and the USSR. The dioceses of Vilno, Volyn, Hrodno, and Polissya became part of the Soviet Union, and Kholmshchyna, Lemkivshchyna, part of Nadsyannia, and Podlasie, which were part of the Warsaw-Kholm eparchies, became part of the General Government.

The confessional jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Seraphim (Lade) was extended to the territories annexed to the Third Reich. In addition, with the occupation of Ukraine and Belarus in some regions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), he was appointed head of all Orthodox communities in the `Eastern occupied lands'. In fact, Seraphim's influence on the activities of the Orthodox `in the East' remained purely symbolic.

The insinuations of the leaders of the Russian Public Committee and the Ukrainian Committee weakened the position of Metropolitan Dionysius. In November, the Nazis placed the bishop under house arrest, and his closest associates - S. Yudenko and Y. Roshchytsky - were later killed in Mauthausen and Dachau, respectively . After that, the Diocese of Warsaw left by him (without resignation) was in the status of a `personal union' with the Diocese of Berlin under the leadership of Metropolitan Seraphim .

In September 1940, the Council of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in Poland divided the Diocese of Warsaw into the Warsaw, Kholm-Podlaskie and Krakow-Lemko dioceses. The Diocese of Kholm and Podlasie developed activities mainly due to the personal qualities of Archbishop Hilarion (I. Ohienko), ordained in October 1940. An outstanding scholar, an experienced politician, he showed remarkable organizational skills in diocesan affairs, had political experience, enjoyed authority among church and public circles, and he was considered to be the best candidate for the position of head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

In September 1940, the Germans authorized the return of Metropolitan Dionisius to the post of head of the Orthodox Church in the General Governorate. He immediately tried to regain jurisdiction over Volyn and Polissya, made some changes in the administrative division of the Warsaw Metropolitanate and the new staff appointments, which led to fundamental differences among the bishops.

Meanwhile, in an effort to normalize church life in the newly annexed sub-Soviet regions, in the autumn of 1939, the bishops extended the activities of the Holy Synod of “the Holy Orthodox Church within the borders of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus” consisting of Archbishop of Polissya and Pinsk Oleksandr (Inozemtsev), Archbishop of Volyn and Kremyanets Oleksiy (Hromadskyi), as well as the co-opted Bishop of Ostroh Simon (Ivanovskyi). However, the ruling Bolshevik elite, which were accustomed to governing the confessional sphere `manually', had their own plans for structural change in the Orthodox Church in these regions. Until 1939, there were no Orthodox bishops left on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR, and in the USSR as a whole, there were only 4 bishops. In Vinnytsia, Stalin, Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Sumy and Khmelnytskyi regions not a single Orthodox church functioned, in Voroshilovgrad, Poltava and Kharkiv regions only one church in each region was functioning .The Sovietization of Western Ukraine was accompanied by the subordination of the regional Orthodox institutions to the Moscow Patriarchate, the liquidation of parishes, and repression against the clergy. In the summer of 1940, the bishops of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus were summoned to Moscow, where they were to sign a declaration of subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate. Archbishop Oleksiy (Hromadskyi), Bishop Kamin-Kashirskyi Antoniy (Martsenko), Archbishop Panteleimon (Rozhnovskyi) and Bishop Simon (Ivanovskyi) underwent the procedure of entering the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate - the Russian Orthodox Church (MP ROC). Instead, Archbishop Oleksandr (Inozemtsev) and Bishop Polycarp of Lutsk (Sikorskyi) refused to come to Moscow . Under the total control of the Soviet secret services, in fact the leadership of the ROC became an instrument of the Bolshevik policy in the religious sphere of the Bolsheviks. In the strategic perspective, the Moscow Patriarchate planned to subjugate the `reunited' territories and then to absorb the Greek Catholic Church, which the Kremlin considered to be the `Vatican agent' hostile to the USSR. Implementing this project, in 1940 Archbishop Mykola (Yarushevych) was appointed Exarch of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, the ruling Bishop of the Volyn diocese, and in the spring of 1941, he was elevated to the rank of Metropolitan. Archbishop Oleksiy (Hromadskyi) became the head of the Ternopil and Kremenets dioceses, and Bishop Polikarp (Sikorskyi) became the head of the Volodymyr-Volyn diocese.

The occupation of a large part of the USSR by Germany and its allies formed new realities, the configuration of which was determined by the leaders of the Third Reich. With the emergence of several administrative-territorial entities (Reichskommissariat Ukraine; Transnistria, Bukovyna and Bessarabiia Governorates, periodically changing zones of military administration), restrictions were imposed on the movement of clergy and personal contacts of hierarchs. The Germans prevented the emergence of an AllUkrainian Orthodox structure. Even on the eve of the attack on the USSR, the command of the Security Service of the Reichsfuhrer-SS (SD), represented by G. Heydrich, ordered “not to take any action against the desire of the Orthodox Church to spread its influence to the masses. On the contrary, it should be encouraged to insist on the separation of church and state, but the creation of a unified church should be avoided .”

As the physical connection of the Orthodox priests with two hierarchical centres, the Moscow Patriarchate and the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Poland, became impossible after the German attack on the USSR, this immediately gave rise to tendencies away from the centre among Ukrainian bishops. One group, led by Oleksiy (Hromadskyi), decided to build its activities based on autonomy sanctioned by Patriarch Tykhon and the All-Russian Local Council of the ROC in 1918. According to the decisions of this Council, only the election of the ruling Metropolitan of Kyiv and Halych was to receive the approval of the Patriarch of Moscow. In every other way, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was given complete freedom of action. On August 18, he convened a Council of Bishops in the Pochaiv Lavra, which was also attended by Archbishop Simon (Ivanovskyi), Bishops Panteleimon (Rudyk) and Benjamin (Novitskyi). The Council decided:

1. To consider the Ukrainian Church and its hierarchy in canonical dependence on the Russian Church until the Local Council of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine as part of the hierarchy, clergy and laity.

2. To return the rights of autonomy and autonomous government to the Ukrainian Church.

3. To grant the authority of the regional Metropolitan to the oldest of the 8 current hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Archbishop Oleksiy, under the 34th Rule of the Apostles.

4. To consider the exarchate in Western Ukraine as having ceased to exist, and the Exarch Metropolitan Mykola, who left his exarchate, the Volyn eparchy and sacred- archimandrite in the Pochaiv Lavra in times of great danger, to have lost his authority in the exarchate, the eparchy and the Lavra .

Archbishops Oleksandr and Polycarp (who preferred to remain under the jurisdiction of Dionysius) did not agree with the decisions of the Council. The deprivation of Mykola (Yarushevych) of the title of Exarch of the ROC in the western lands of Ukraine and Belarus was beyond the competence of the Pochaiv Cathedral and contradicted the canonical subordination of the MP ROC. On October 23, 1941, Metropolitan Dionisius sent a letter to Oleksiy (Hromadskyi) stating the grounds to consider the decisions of the Pochaiv Council illegal: firstly, re-subordination of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine to the MP ROC was impossible as at that time there was no “correct and canonically organized Russian Church”; secondly, the Orthodox hierarchy in parts of the Ukrainian lands, according to the Tomos of the Patriarch of Constantinople dated November 13, 1924, was considered independent and “was in canonical connection with the great Church of Constantinople”; thirdly, contrary to canon law, “the Moscow Patriarchate..., subordinating the territory of our Holy Autocephalous Church, acted contrary to the canonical precepts .”

Realizing that without the support of Kyiv, the influence of the Autonomous Church would be limited, Archbishop Oleksiy visited the city. However, due to his recognition of the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, the local Orthodox clergy and public circles made it clear that they wanted to see a person with a Ukrainian orientation at the Kyiv Archiepiscopal Cathedra. Archbishop Oleksiy went to Kholm to consult with Archbishop Hilarion about the latter's transfer to the Kyiv Cathedra. In November 1941, at the Second Archbishops' Council in Pochaiv Hilarion was elected to the Kyiv Archiepiscopal Cathedra, although he consistently advocated the idea of an autocephalous and patriarchal system of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. At the same time, the Council granted Oleksiy the title of Metropolitan of Volyn and Zhytomyr and Exarch of Ukraine. This step was a significant blow to the ambitions of the supporters of the Autocephalous Church and a weighty application for leading positions in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine. Neither the leader of the apologists of autocephaly Archbishop Polikarp nor Metropolitan Theophilus of Kharkiv and Okhtyrka (Buldovskyi), who had held an independent position for some time, could agree with this.

The formation of an autonomous structure (`Oleksiy's followers') accelerated the formation of the autocephalous hierarchy in the lands that were part of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine. With the support of the activists of the autocephalous movement from Volyn, Metropolitan Dionisius restored jurisdiction over Volyn and extended it to the Dnieper region. On August 11, 1941, he informed the Ukrainian bishops about the creation of four new dioceses - Zhytomyr, Kremenets, Lutsk and Polissya. The letter defined the principles on which the activities of this branch of the Autocephalous Church were to be based: 1) national character; 2) autocephaly; 3) the Council organization, giving the laity a wide range of opportunities for governing the Church. The proponents of autocephaly in Kyiv welcomed the actions of Dionysius. Former priests and believers of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) that was formed in 1921 initiated an organizational meeting where the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council (AUOCC) was restored; it dealt with the Ukrainianization of Orthodox life and the unification of autocephalous structures in all Ukrainian lands . On December 24, 1941, Metropolitan, on the basis of the Tomos of 1924, appointed Archbishop of Lutsk and Kovel as the `Administrator of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church in the liberated lands of Ukraine' .

The necessary number of bishops were lacking for the full functioning of the Autocephalous Church. Following the advice of Metropolitan, at the beginning of February 1942, Archbishop Polikarp went to Archbishop Oleksandr of Pinsk and Polissya. On 7-10 February, during the Council of Autocephalous Ukrainian Bishops, Ivan Huba (adopted the monastic name Ihor), Nikanor Abramovych and Archimandrite Heorgii Korenistov were ordained as bishops. At the Second Council of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Kyiv, May 9-17, 1942), Photii (Tymoshchuk) and Manuil (Tarnavskyi), Mstyslav (Skrypnyk), Sylvestr (Haevskyi), Mykhailo (Khoroshyi) and Hryhorii (Ohiychuk) were ordained and Bishops Nikanor and Ihor were elevated to the rank of archbishops .

In the summer of 1942, 4 more bishops joined the UAOC hierarchy: Sicheslavskyi (Dnipropetrovskyi) - Hennadiy (Shyprykevych), Cherkaskyi - Volodymyr (Malets), Zaslavskyi - Platon (Artemiuk), Dubenskyi - Viacheslav (Lisnytskyi) . The Council officially proclaimed the revolt of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, and Dionisius was proclaimed the interim locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolitan throne. With this step, the UAOC put itself to the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, under whose jurisdiction Dionisius was . However, this did not ensure the recognition of the UAOC by other local churches. The Romanian Orthodox Church did not recognize the clergy who were ordained by autocephalists. The clergy of this denomination were received by the Romanian Church after the new ordination rite. When Bishop Mykhailo (Khoroshyi) later arrived in Odesa, the Romanian Mission refused to recognize him even as a priest.

Thus, as early as 1941, two Orthodox confessions were formed in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine - the Autonomous and Autocephalous Confessions. According to the German scholar F. Heyer, 16 autocephalous and 15 autocephalous bishops simultaneously administered the affairs of their dioceses in one territory . There is a considerable discrepancy in the number of parishes of the Autonomous Orthodox Church (AOC) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) in the works of researchers and in the absence of other reliable sources we have only an opportunity to state the approximate ratio that was in favour of the autonomous parishes. There were tensions and conflicts between the representatives of these confessions, in particular between Polikarp (Sikorskyi) and Oleksiy (Hromadskyi), which involved the religious community and the authorities. Because of the confrontation over autocephaly with the autonomist Bishop Panteleimon (Rudik), who ruled in the Kyiv diocese, the German administration dissolved the All-Ukrainian Orthodox Church Council, which held a distinct Ukrainian position .

In May, A. Rosenberg sent an order to the Reich Commissioners banning political motives in the activities of religious institutions and limiting the competence of each diocese to the administrative boundaries of the general districts . In an instruction issued by Deputy Reich Commissar `Ukraine' Dargel dated October 1, 1942, it was ordered to “maintain the balance of positions of both churches” and “to oppose any association properly .”

However, having realised the harm of the discord, Archbishop Polikarp and Metropolitan Oleksiy went ahead with the reconciliation. On October 8, 1942, Oleksiy (Hromadskyi) together with the Autocephalous Hierarchs Mstyslav and Nikanor signed the `Act of Reconciliation', which contained the following provisions: 1. The existence of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was recognized as a fait accompli. 2. It sanctioned the canonical communion of UAOC with other Orthodox Churches, mediated by Metropolitan Dionisius, who until the convening of the All-Ukrainian Local Council was recognized as the locum tenens of the Kyiv Metropolitan throne . On learning the agreement between the two hierarchies, Dargel disavowed it as illegitimate and forbade Mstyslav to leave Pryluky and engage in political and social activities . On December 15, under pressure from a group of bishops, Metropolitan Oleksiy withdrew his signature from the `Act of Reconciliation'. It is indicative that the negative attitude of the autonomist bishops - Polikarp, Veniamin and Dmytriy was not due to their desire to observe the canonical relationship with the MP ROC, but to unite into a single church under the aegis of Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade).

THE REGULATION OF RELIGIOUS LIFE AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THE ROMANIAN- ADMINISTERED UKRAINIAN LANDS (TRANSNISTRIA)

Having occupied the Ukrainian lands between the Dniester and South Bug rivers (in the Romanian version, Transnistria Governorate), the German allies prioritised the revival of the Christian faith and the restoration of Orthodox worship and religious practices in the religious sphere; first, through the establishment of the temporary missionary groups from Transilvaniia, Bukovyna and Bessarabiia, the creation and entrenchment of centres for the guest missionaries, and the legal regulation of Church and religious life in the occupied province. A certain role was assigned to the conversion of Orthodox clergymen from the local clergy, whose representatives under the Soviet regime were excommunicated from the service of the Church, subjected to persecution, repression, deprivation of rights and so on to the service of the occupying authorities.

As early as the second half of September 1941, a group of Transylvanian missionaries led by Metropolitan Mykola (Zahorskyi), the priests from the Khushyst Diocese led by Bishop Hryhorii, and the clergymen of the Chisinau Archdiocese under the leadership of the missionary F. Rudiiev were sent to Transnistria. In October, another group of 16 missionaries was sent by the Khushyst Diocese, and on December 20, fifty-five missionaries from the Archdiocese of Chisinau (in Romanian) arrived in Transnistria. They were commissioned to “spread the joy in the souls of the faithful of the feast of the Nativity of Christ” for a month. The missionaries held religious services among the people, preached sermons, conducted mass christening ceremonies, distributed spiritual literature and crosses. The culmination of the activities of these groups was the consecration of churches that were revived and opened with the assistance of the Romanians. At the end of 1941, thirty-two old churches were consecrated within the Governorate, and destroyed churches were rebuilt . However, the missionaries carried out cultural and religious work mainly among the Moldovan population, who were perceived by the Romanians themselves as ethnically related to the Romanian ethnos, and had little concern for the problems of the Ukrainian parishioners.

The result of the activities of the Romanian Orthodox Mission in Transnistria, which began its work on August 15, 1941, under the chairmanship of Archimandrite Yulii (Skriban), was the involvement of the most experienced clergymen from the 'Jara' (from the Romanian state): 63 priests, 1 deacon and 2 cantors (Romanian) in the revival of Orthodox life in the region. Mostly from Bessarabiia, who spoke Russian and knew local customs . Within the counties, 14 archpriests were engaged in the organization of Church affairs (one in Odesa and one in each county). The vast majority of the Orthodox clergy, except for 16 priests (14 of whom were county archpriests), were supported solely by profits from Epitrachial activity and received no state salary. The lack of financial support for the missionaries from the Antonescu government was considered by the Mission leadership as the main reason for the slow spread of Romanian influence in the province and the formalisation of the process by the religious figures themselves.

At the same time, we believe that the retrospective of the religious life in Transnistria must necessarily be seen through the essence of Order No. 89 dated September 28, 1942 , by Governor Prof. G. Aleksianu. According to Order No. 1 dated August 19, 1941, issued by Marshal I. Antonescu in Tighina (now Bender), the civil governor outlined the main points defining the regulation of religious cults and religious life in the occupied territory.

The Order was published in Romanian, German and Russian by the editorial board of the `Odessa Gazette' on November 1, 1942. Article 1 of the Order stated “the maintenance of freedom and protection of recognized religions, as their existence does not affect public order, morality, security and safety.” Article 2 recognized those religions that had historically been established in the lands that were part of the occupied territories. The list of the allowed religions included: Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Catholic, Evangelical-Lutheran, Armenian-Gregorian and Mohammedan ones. Religious sects of all kinds were strictly prohibited. Recognition of other religions, as envisaged in Article 4, could only be provided by the personal order of the Governor. The administration, through the Department of Cults, was to exercise the right of supervision and control over the religious organisations. All denominations were obliged to submit all sorts of official reports and information to the occupation authorities on a mandatory basis. The Heads of denominations could not be appointed without the permission of the Governor's Office.

Taking into account the occupiers' anti-Semitism, Article 10 of this Order prohibited “the conversion of Jews from Judaism to any recognised denomination.” Article 11 regulated the process of Religious Education in schools, while article 12 stipulated that “religious blessing for civil acts is compulsory.” Throughout Transnistria, as required by Article 13, the religious celebrations of the Orthodox Christian Church had to “adhere only to the new style of the Romanian Orthodox Church.” The members of the parish or the faithful of the Orthodox Church who would conduct church services or propaganda in favour of the old style were to be considered dangerous sectarians for public security. Several articles of Order No. 89 dealt with the existence, activities and spread of influence on the population by the small churches, which the Romanian Church, like the ROC, considered as sectarians. Article 16 defined that the dissemination of religious ideas or agitation should be punished by correctional arrest for 1 to 5 years. In addition, the houses of worship, as well as movable and immovable property and objects of worship of these sects or banned religious societies were subject to confiscation in favour of the Governorship. Articles 17-21 were generally of a repressive nature, providing for punishment by imprisonment for 1 to 3 years for violation of the church- administrative requirements by clergymen and parishioners, including the transfer of Jews to other confessions, holding ceremonies without a civil registry, etc. The violation of the order was established by the gendarmerie and police authorities, as well as by the authorities of the Directorate of Culture and the Orthodox Mission.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RELIGIOUS POLICY IN THE ROMANIAN WAY

The practical implementation of the above-mentioned order can be clearly seen in the most illustrative (at least from our review) six key segments of the Romanian occupation administration policy in the religious sphere in Transnistria Governorate during the period from autumn 1941 to spring 1944. The processes of `Romanian-style' Christianisation have been dealt in more detail in our books (2006, 2008, 2019) and in

the scientific articles published in recent years . Let us dwell on these points in a very refined way. Firstly, the dramatic changes in the religious sphere in the Romanian- occupied lands began with the activities of the Romanian Orthodox Mission in Transnistria (Misiunea Ortodoxa Romana in Transnistria), which started its work on August 15, 1941. Gradually, through the establishment of the offices, organization of archpriesties and sub-archpriesties in the counties and rural areas, the Mission expanded its powers. By the end of 1941, there were 13 county archpriesties, one in Odesa municipality and 63 district sub-archpriesties. In October 1942, the Mission leaders moved to Odesa.

The activities of the Romanian Orthodox Mission were marked by evident and rather peculiar features, namely: disagreements in the views of its leaders about the methods of Christianising the local population, a mono churchism approach and an implacable struggle against manifestations of `Ukrainian tendencies' in church life, as well as corruption (A. Dallin) , financial, organisational and ideological errors. The Mission was mainly focused on promoting the Romanian Orthodox lifestyle (with a monarchical connotation) and unifying the existence of the controlled local parishes with the principles that were the basis of the state-church relations in (Jara) Romania. From August 1941, the Mission was led by Archimandrite Yulii (Skriban), and since November 1942 to the end of 1943, by Metropolitan Vissarion (Puiu), and by Antin (Nika) in the last phase of the war and occupation, until March 1944.

Secondly, in spite of the difficulties of wartime, the activities of the Romanian Orthodox Mission clerics, as well as the sacrifice of the members of the local Christian parishes in restoring the functioning of the Orthodox churches on the territory of Transnistria, were very effective and significant. Without solving this problem, the Romanian occupation officials and Orthodox missionaries saw no prospect in the spiritual life of the occupied lands and thus no support for the Romanian administration from the local devout people. From November 1942, under the new head of the Mission, Metropolitan Vissarion, counting and inventorying churches intensified. An inspection of the parishes in Transnistria and information gathered from the field revealed a generalised picture. Within the Governorate, 363 churches were closed, 269 were partially destroyed, and 258 places of worship were completely destroyed . Compared with pre-revolutionary times every second Orthodox Church was completely destroyed by the communist regime. It was often the consequences of the Stalinists' God-fighting policy that the Romanian occupiers used in counterpropaganda and in the education of the young people.

At the same time, the missionary policy of Romanian Christians in `Transnistria' coincided with the desire of a significant part of the local population to revive the Orthodox faith. On the initiative of the parishioners, public funds were created for the reconstruction of churches. At the end of 1943, 22 restored churches functioned only in the capital of the Odesa governorate, in Mohyliv District - 116, another 13 were in the process of reconstruction, in Zhuhastriv (Yampil) District - 69 churches and 20 prayer houses.

In total, within the Transnistria governorate, their number was 474, another 118 churches were under repair, 41 churches were under construction, and 258 churches remained destroyed. There were also 119 prayer houses .

The third characteristic point lies in the plane of the ethno-confessional situation in the areas between the Southern Bug and the Dniester, namely in the controversial attitude of the Romanian Orthodox Mission to the church-national question in the region. The contacts of the Romanian and Ukrainian archpastors (primarily the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church) did exist, but they were characterized by hopes on the part of Ukrainian church leaders for the support of the Patriarchate of Romania in their aspirations for the institutional process in Ukrainian Orthodoxy in the Ukrainian lands controlled by the Germans . The head of the council of bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Autonomous), Archbishop Antony (Martsenko) of Kherson and Mykolaiv, as the oldest by ordination among all Orthodox bishops in Ukraine, met with Metropolitan Vissarion in the summer of 1943 in Odesa to help him influence the allies through the Romanian Patriarchate and the government - Germans regarding the “convening of the Council of Bishops for the organization of our church work .” However, apart from Christian sympathy, promises and the exchange of nuns who were sent from Kyiv to the Orthodox monasteries of Transnistria, the case did not intensify.

The revival of Christian life was not carried out for the benefit of Ukrainian churches and Orthodox Ukrainians, as indeed it was for the benefit of various religious forms and `sectarianism'. As we can see from the above-mentioned order No. 89, this problem was of particular concern to the Romanian authorities and the Patriarchate. The outline of the counties of `Transnistria' is characterized by a too pale religious map. The most numerous were the supporters of the `Living Church' and the `Tikhonivtsi' who, having gone through repentance and penance, received confirmation of priestly rank from the Mission.

The attitude of the ROM to priests of the Ukrainian orientation - representatives of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was ambiguous. After the governor H. Aleksyan sent a secret order to the prefects in March 1942 on the liquidation of any activity, even cultural, that would lead to the revival of independent Ukraine , clerics from the hierarchy of Metropolitan V. Lypkivskyi came under severe pressure both on the part of the priests of other denominations and on the part of the church administration and the Romanian special services. The increase in the number of autocephalist parishes and their influence on the population outraged supporters of Romanianization, caused denunciations, complaints, etc. Such a confessional palette in `Transnistria' was a consequence of the complex political course of the Antonescu regime, which aspired to absolute unification in all spheres of social life and, in particular, in the religious sphere. `Ukrainophobia' is clearly manifested in the real steps taken by the government, especially when it comes to providing Ukrainian religious communities with priestly personnel. There were only 8 clergymen in the entire Holta county of Mykolaiv Oblast. There were only 7 priests in the Ovidiopil county in Odesa region, 6 in Ochakiv, and only 4 - in Berezovska county. In two parishes of the Holta county - Liubashivka and Kryvoozerska - the religious practices of 55,000 Orthodox parishioners were satisfied by only 15 priests and 8 cantors .

The most common `small' religious associations in `Transnistria', against which the Romanian church administration, based on the articles of Order No. 89, waged an uncompromising struggle, were Evangelists, 7th-day Adventists, Baptists, Stundists, Bogomolets, Draconians, Bezpopovites, Innocentians. They were concentrated mainly in Ananiv, Balta, Holta, Mohyliv and Tulchyn counties, although they did not make up even 2% of the Orthodox population of the region.

The fourth segment of the religious policy of the occupiers is the organization of the theological education, spiritual education in churches, schools, and religious propaganda, etc. The Romanian authorities contributed to the establishment of full- fledged spiritual education and the training of clerics loyal to it. In February 1942, the ROM organized schools for the teachers of `Catechism' in Tyraspol, Holta and Ovidiopil. During 1942-1943, theological seminaries were opened in Dubossary and Odesa. Teaching on the Law of God was introduced in schools and gymnasiums, spiritual books, religious children's magazines, etc. were printed and distributed. At the same time, Romanian propaganda beneficial to the Romanian local church was carried out, for which significant funds were not spared. For example, only in October 1943, the Mission allocated three and a half thousand marks from the budget for this under the heading `Propaganda religioasa' . However, the effectiveness of missionary activity was not always high, although the believers' reflections on Christianization measures sometimes had a positive colour, especially when it came to holding religious holidays, rites and sacraments.

The fifth component of the activity of the Romanian civil and religious bodies in the occupied lands presents the socio-economic aspects of the everyday life of the Orthodox clergy. Here, a peculiar strategy of survival in the conditions of war of such a social group as churchmen can be traced. Therefore, the socio-economic factor played an important role in the lives of priests and parishioners and formed the model and style of their social behaviour. In the process of reviving the Christian faith in `Transnistria', hundreds of clerics tried to survive by renewing their spiritual status, which gave hope for improving their way of life. In the report of Archimandrite A. Nika for January-March 1942, it was noted that most of the 285 clergymen registered in `Transnistria' “...were found and carefully selected here...”, that is, in the South of Ukraine. From the very beginning, the clergy was faced with everyday difficulties, many social problems; local priests were not paid by the state and lived on Epitrachil profits. The salary of the clergy was differentiated, and its size depended on the spiritual rank and clerical functions. If the salary of a priest or archpriest ranged from 180 RKKS (marks) in the province to 200 marks in the cathedral, then the salary of the metropolitan who headed the Mission in `Transnistria' was several times higher. The salaries of representatives of the lower levels of the spiritual `table of ranks' were significantly lower. However, compared to other social strata, the Orthodox churchmen received a salary of 30-40% higher than the teachers, in particular, which, in fact, set them apart in a special spiritual and social category.

And finally, the sixth segment. To prepare the mental essence of a `man of war', it is important to pay attention to manifestations of humanity, humanism, benevolence, etc. During the period of occupation, various examples of Christian charity found their place, aimed at improving the plight of the least protected sections of the society under occupation. As a result of the evacuation and destruction of food by the communist authorities, economic extortion by the Romanian army and administration, the life of the population of `Transnistria' was extremely difficult. The Christians organized various charity events. Funds, supervisory and guardian councils were created at the temples, which provided assistance to the needy people. These activities were especially popular in cities, where it was easier for the church to receive help in the form of funds and food from public organizations and from various financial sources. On the other hand, the situation was extremely critical in remote parishes due to economic exploitation and `pumping out' of raw materials and foodstuffs for the Romanian army. Only the parish priests who, making ends meet, single-handedly saved Christian souls, were the exception. A special role was played by helping the Orthodox who suffered from Stalinist repressions, as well as the believers who needed social support. A separate episode of Christian benevolence of the local clergy is the saving of representatives of the Jewish community from imminent death, although the punishment for such acts was very cruel.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the attempts to create a single Orthodox Church in the territory occupied by the Wehrmacht, this failed due to the principle position of the German leadership, as well as the significant differences in the views of the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC). Firstly, the period from September 1939 to June 1941 demonstrated the attempts of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes to completely subordinate the Orthodox Church in the territories where Ukrainians lived compactly to their political course. In tolerating the Ukrainization of Orthodoxy within the Governor-General's Office, Berlin aimed to neutralize Polish and Russian influence, and the Kremlin sought to unify the Orthodox space under the omophorion of the controlled MP ROC.

Secondly, all institutional changes in both the German and Soviet leaderships grossly violated the existing traditions and canonical rules and procedures, completely depriving the Orthodox Church of its autonomy over the state and its legal status. Concerned by the definite national position of the UAOC, the Nazis resorted to strict regulation and reservations.

Thirdly, the long period of multiconfessionalism and the lack of autocephalous status for Ukrainian Orthodoxy made the process of forming a single, autocephalous Orthodox Church of Ukraine difficult. The traditional influence of the Moscow Patriarchate as well as the active opposition of Berlin made this process impossible during World War II. Treating the UAOC as one of the elements of the Ukrainian national idea, which was based on the revival of the sovereign Ukrainian state, the Nazis restricted its activities and hindered the creation of a unified Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Fourthly, the Romanian administration in the occupied south-western lands of Ukraine (Transnistria), with the support of the Romanian Orthodox Mission, promoted the revival of Christian churches, drawing on the pre-revolutionary (Tikhon's Church) organisation, clerics and traditions of monarchism, etc.

Fifthly, the `Ukrainophobic' sentiments of most Romanian Orthodox bishops and occupation structures led to a struggle against the sprouts of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which pushed the spiritual foundations of the Ukrainian state movement off the confessional map.

Sixthly, the reconstruction of the religious buildings, the restoration of worship, the involvement of hundreds of clergy in pastoral work, Christian charity and mercy, educating young people in the spirit of Christian piety, etc. contributed both to the revival of ancient Christian traditions and the establishment of the occupation regime.

REFERENCES

Alexeev, W., & Stavrou, T.G. (1976). Great Revival. The Russian Church under German Occupation. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Company [in English].

Armstark, R. (1982). Die Ukrainische Autokephale Orthodoxe Kirche. Erinnerungen des Metropoliten Vasyl K. Lypkivskyj. Wurzburg: Augustinus [in German].

Beglov, A.L., Vasileva, O.Yu., Zhuravskii, A.V., Safonov, D.V., Petrushko, V.I. & Firsov, S.L. (2008).

Russkaia Pravoslavnaia Tserkov: XX v. [Russian Orthodox Church: XX century]. Moskva [in Russian]. Borshchevych, V. (1998). Avtonomna Pravoslavna Tserkva na Volyni [Autonomous Orthodox Church in

Volyn]. Lutsk: RVV Volynskyi derzhavnyi universytet imeni Lesi Ukrainky [in Ukrainian].

Borshchevych, V. (2000). Ukrainske tserkovne vidrodzhennia na Volyni (20-40-vi rr. XXst.) [Ukrainian church revival in Volyn (20-40s of XX century)]. Lutsk: RVV «Vezha» Volynskoho derzhavnoho universytetu imeni Lesi Ukrainky [in Ukrainian].

Burko, D. (1988). Ukrainska Avtokefalna Tserkva - vichne dzherelo zhyttia [The Ukrainian Autocephalous Church is an eternal source of life]. Saunt-Bavnd-Bruk, Niu Dzhersi [in Ukrainian].

Chaplin, V & etc. (Eds.) (1997). Pravoslavnaia Tserkov na Ukraine i v Polshe v XX stoletii. 1917-1950gg. Sbornik [Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Poland in the XX century. 1917-1950: Collection]. Moskva [in Russian].

Ghrysostomus, J. (1968). Kirchengeschichte Ruslands dwr neusten Zeit. IIIBand. Die Russische Kirche in und nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Munchen-Salzburg: Anton Pustet [in German].

Curtiss, J.S. (1957). Die Kirche in der Sovietunion (1917-1956). Munchen: Isar [in German].

Dallin, A. (1998). Odessa, 1941-1944: A case staid of soviet territory under foreign rule. Center for Romanian Studies [in English].

Dublianskyi, A. (1962). Ternystym shliakhom zhyttia mytropolyta Nikanora Abramovycha: do 20-littia arkhypastyrskoho sluzhinnia. 1942-1962 [The thorny path of Metropolitan Nikanor Abramovich's life: to the 20th Anniversary of archpastoral service. 1942-1962]. London: Vydannia Heneralnoho Tserkovnoho Upravlinnia UAPTs v Velykii Brytanii [in Ukrainian].

Dudra, S. (2010). Metropolita Dionizy (Waledynski). 1876-1960. Warszawa: Warszawska Metropolia Prawoslawna [in Polish].

Dziubyna, S. (1995). I stverdy dilo ruk nashykh (Spohady) [And confirm the work of our hands (Memories)]. Varshava: Ukrainskyi arkhiv [in Ukrainian].

Feodosii (Protsiuk) (2004). Obosoblencheskie dvizheniia v Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi na Ukraine (1917-1943) [Separation movements in the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (1917-1943)]. Moskva [in Russian].

Firecide, H. (1971). Icon and swastika: The Russian Orthodox Church under Nazi and Soviet Control. Cambrige [in English].

Fletcher, W. (1971). The Russian Orthodox Church Underground, 1917-1970. Oxford [in English].

Heyer, F. (1953). Die Orthodoxe Kirche in der Ukraine von 1917 bis 1945. Koln-Braunsfeld: Verlagsgesellschaft Rudolf Miller [in German].

Heyer, F. (2003). Kirchengeschichte der Ukraine in 20. Jahrhundert: von der Epochenwende des Estern Weltkrieges bis zu den Anfangen in einem unabhangigen ukrainischen Staat. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [in German].

Hordiienko, V. (1999). Pravoslavni konfesii v Ukraini periodu Druhoi svitovoi viiny (veresen 1939 - veresen 1945 rr.) [Orthodox denominations in Ukraine during the Second World War (September 1939 - September 1945)]. (Candidate's thesis). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Hordiienko, V.V. (1998). Nimetsko-fashystskyi okupatsiinyi rezhym i pravoslavni konfesii v Ukraini [German-fascist occupation regime and Orthodox denominations in Ukraine]. Ukrainskyi istorychnyi zhurnal, 3, 107-119 [in Ukrainian].

Hridina, I.M. (2010). Dukhovne zhyttia naselennia Ukrainy v roky Druhoi svitovoi viiny (1939-1945 rr.) [Spiritual life of the population of Ukraine during the Second World War (1939-1945)]. Donetsk: DonNU [in Ukrainian].