Petro Mohylos scholastikos recepcija kaip aleksandrietiško-kapadokietiško Antikos filosofijos recepcijos sąjūdžio iteracija
Petro Mohyla’s Scholasticism as an Iteration of the Alexandrian-Cappadocian Movement for the Reception of Ancient Philosophy

Summary/Abstract: The article examines the reception of Catholic and Protestant philosophy and theology in the Orthodox intellectual movement in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th-18th century, which arose after Peter Mohyla founded a college in Kyiv. The article contests point of view put forward by Georges Florovsky, who regarded this period of the history of Orthodox thought as the “Latin captivity” – an uncritical adoption of Western religious and humanitarian thought. It presents historical context of the emergence of the Mohyla movement, and examines the main challenges solved by Petro Mohyla with the establishment of the College in Kyiv. These challenges were the existing competition in social, political, and religious life between the Orthodox Christians on one side, and Greek rite Catholics (Unites) and Protestants on the other side, also the lack of education among the clergy and laity. The primary sources are analyzed: the texts of the participants of the Mohylian movement themselves, and their approach to the problem of the reception of Western philosophy is presented. The views of the thinkers from the 17th century are compared with those of their predecessors in Alexandria and Cappadocia during the 2nd–4th centuries. Based on this comparison, it is argued that the approach of the Mohylian movement towards the methods and achievements in spheres of philosophy and theology can be explained by the notion arising from the first centuries of Christianity that the non-Christian philosophy can be adapted to express orthodox teaching through extraction of “useful elements”. The article presents a view that the representatives of the Mohylian movement themselves followed such an attitude. Georges Florovsky’s approach to this period as the “Latin captivity” is explained through his political preferences.

• Details
• Contents