THE RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION OF PROTOPRESBYTER GAVRYIL KOSTELNYK

Abstract

The first half of the twentieth century was a tumultuous era for Ukraine, characterized by wars, revolutions, and significant socio-political changes. Havryil Kostelnyk, a notable philosopher, theologian, and writer, played a significant role in these events, particularly as the organizer of the Unifying Council in Lviv in 1946, which dissolved the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). His legacy is complex, often interpreted through varying ideological lenses. This article aims to clarify Kostelnyk’s intellectual stance, exploring whether he was a neo- Thomist, a modernist, or something else entirely. Several scholars, including Myroslav Oleksyuk, Yulian Tamash, Iryna Mirchuk, and Pavlo Sodomora, have categorized Kostelnyk as a neo-Thomist. They argue that his work demonstrates a reconciliation of faith and knowledge, a hallmark of Thomistic philosophy. Despite this classification, a deeper analysis suggests that Kostelnyk’s views do not align well with neo- Thomism. Critics like Ihor Zahrebelnyi argue that the label of neo-Thomism has been applied too simplistically, based on a narrow understanding of Thomistic philosophy. Kostelnyk himself was skeptical of scholasticism. His divergence from Thomistic theological aspects and his critical stance towards Catholic doctrines further question his classification as a neo-Thomist. Scholars like O. Hirnyk and I. Zahrebelnyi propose classifying Kostelnyk as a Catholic modernist instead. Kostelnyk’s later works, particularly his energetic cosmology and unusual views on the soul, support this position and show his further distance from Catholic teachings. His concepts often verge on Orthodox theological principles, particularly evident in his later manuscript «Logic». This progression shows a shift to ideas more aligned with Eastern Orthodoxy. Havryil Kostelnyk's intellectual journey defies simple classification. While some scholars classified him as a neo-Thomist, this view does not withstand deeper scrutiny. His theological explorations and criticisms align more with Catholic modernism, yet his evolving ideas eventually resonate strongly with Orthodox Christianity. Kostelnyk’s legacy is thus one of a thinker who transcended traditional Catholic frameworks, ultimately advocating for a theological synthesis closer to Orthodoxy. This nuanced understanding challenges previous simplistic categorizations and highlights the complexity of his intellectual contributions.