У новому концептуальному ключі, на основі історичних і догматично-канонічних джерел, досліджено передумови події, яка відома в історіографії як "відродження православної церкви", або "православної ієрархії" в Русі 1620 р. в межах трьох складових - зацікавленості Московського царства у відновленні/створенні альтернативної законній Руській унійній церкві нез"єднаної православної церкви, ставлення офіційної світської влади Речі Посполитої до унійного процесу в Русі та особливостей протидії прихильників нез"єднаної православної церкви в самій Русі об"єднавчому церковному рухові.
The new conceptual key, based on historical and dogmatic-canonical sources, examines the preconditions of the event, which is known in historiography as the "revival of the Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox hierarchy" in Ruthenia in 1620 within three components - the interest of the Moscow state in restoring / creating an alternative to the legitimate Ruthenian Union Church ununited Orthodox Church, the attitude of Polish authorities to the union process in Ruthenia and the peculiarities of the opposition of the ununited Orthodox Church supporters in Ruthenia itself to the unifying church movement. The Union (Unija) of the Ruthenian Church with the Catholic Church, laid down uni&que conditions for the іnternal strengthening of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) and significantly complicated the possibility of Moscow"s expansion into Europe. This was all the more significant because Moscow"s military defeats &lasted from the 1580s (Livonian War) to the 1630s. The situation of military-political isolation and humiliation of international status threatened Moscow to be supplemented by ideological and confessional isolation. Under these circumstances, the Mo&scow state relied on the possibility of internal weakening of the Commonwealth by maintaining and developing relations with the Ruthenian clergy and church fraternities that opposed the union with Rome and sought to restore the legitimacy of the unun&ited Orthodox Church in Ruthenia. Also in the first decades of the XVII century the ununited Orthodox clergy, representing the ancient Eastern patriarchates in the Ottoman Empire, became more active. With the loss of the schism of the church hierarch&y, foreign clergy, especially the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem, were able to influence the situation and interfere in the church life of Ruthenia. In particular, the efforts of the Metropolitan of Sofia Neophyte in 1612 in the Holy D&ormition Kiev-Pechersk Monastery created an alternative center of church life and administration, which was at the local level in opposition to the legitimate Metropolitan of Kiev Ruthenian Union Church (Hypatius Potius, 1541-1613). As the foreign no&n-aligned Orthodox clergy of the Eastern Patriarchates were closely linked to Moscow in receiving financial assistance and mutual political cooperation, Muscovy gained an additional tool to influence Ruthenia and, indirectly, the Commonwealth. It was& the foreign Orthodox hierarchs - Patriarch Theophanes III of Jerusalem, Metropolitan Neophyte of Sofia, Bishop Avrahamii of Stragon in 1620 who ordained new hierarchs for the ununited Orthodox Church in Ruthenia. Led by the secretly ordained Kyiv Me&tropolitan Yov Boretsky, the new hierarchy was already entirely focused on cooperation with Moscow, financially dependent on Moscow and dependent on ideological and political cooperation with schismatic Moscow.ocused on cooperation with Moscow, financially dependen t on Moscow and dependent on ideological and political cooperation with schismatic Moscow.
