The Difference Between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy plays a key role in shaping the cultural and spiritual identity of both Ukraine and Russia. While their historical roots trace back to the shared event of the Baptism of Rus in 988, the development of Orthodoxy in the two countries followed different paths. The Ukrainian Church, situated at the crossroads of East Slavic, Byzantine, and Western European cultures, absorbed unique features that distinguish it from the Moscow Church.

This article explores the key differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy, focusing on historical, liturgical, and educational aspects. It also examines the influence of political factors and cultural distinctiveness, which have shaped the identities of these two branches of the Orthodox tradition.

1. Historical Foundations

The history of Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy begins with the Baptism of Kyivan Rus in 988, when Prince Volodymyr the Great adopted Christianity in the Byzantine tradition and made it the state religion. Kyiv became the spiritual center of Kyivan Rus, and the metropolitanate established there remained a major hub of Orthodoxy for the Eastern Slavs for a long time.

However, over time, historical circumstances divided the paths of the Ukrainian and Moscow churches. After the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, Kyiv lost its significance as a political and religious center, while the Moscow principality gained strength. In 1325, the metropolitan’s seat was moved to Moscow, marking the gradual consolidation of ecclesiastical power in the Moscow principality.

The situation changed dramatically in the 15th century, when the Patriarchate of Constantinople lost its independence after the fall of Byzantium. The Moscow Church declared itself the successor of Byzantine Orthodoxy, and Moscow became known as the "Third Rome." This step solidified its autonomy but further distanced it from the Kyivan metropolitanate, which came under the jurisdiction of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

During this period, the Ukrainian Church was significantly influenced by Western European cultural traditions and reforms. This was especially evident in the 16th and 17th centuries, when debates with the Roman Catholic Church intensified, and the influence of the Uniate Church grew. These factors contributed to the formation of a unique identity for Ukrainian Orthodoxy, which integrated elements of both Eastern and Western Christian traditions.

In contrast, the Moscow Church focused on strengthening centralized authority, a focus reflected in its religious practices. The development of the two churches in different political and cultural contexts laid the groundwork for the formation of their distinctive characteristics, which remain evident to this day.

The Role of Local Traditions and Scholastic Education

A significant stage in the history of the Ukrainian Church was its revival and development under the influence of local traditions and scholastic education, particularly in the 16th century, when the Kyivan metropolitanate became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. During this period, the influence of Catholicism grew, and debates between various Christian confessions became more pronounced. The creation of the Union of Brest in 1596, which led to the formation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, marked a turning point. Some Ukrainian clergy and laity joined the union with Rome, creating additional tension between the Orthodox Church and the Western Christian tradition.

The educational reforms and activities of Petro Mohyla in the 17th century played a pivotal role in reviving and strengthening Orthodoxy in Ukraine. The Kyivan metropolitanate, under both Eastern and Western influences, maintained its distinctiveness. The Kyiv-Mohyla Academy became an intellectual center of the Orthodox world, training theologians capable of engaging in debates with Catholics and Protestants. This strengthened the theological and cultural autonomy of the Ukrainian Church and highlighted its differences from the Moscow Church.

Moscow's Centralization and the Subordination of Kyiv

At the same time, the Moscow Church used centralized political power to consolidate its position. The establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589 marked its separation from Constantinople and made Moscow the spiritual center of East Slavic Orthodoxy. The subordination of the Kyivan metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 was another step in Moscow’s consolidation of power over Ukrainian Orthodoxy. However, this act was contested by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which later played a key role in granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).

The historical paths of the Ukrainian and Russian Churches are deeply intertwined yet distinct in their cultural and political contexts. While the Moscow Church focused on centralizing power and consolidating Byzantine traditions, the Kyivan metropolitanate developed within a multicultural environment, laying the foundation for its unique identity. These differences have become the cornerstone for the division and formation of two independent Orthodox traditions.

2. Education and the Role of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

A significant factor defining the differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy was the development of education, with the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy emerging as a central institution in Ukraine. Founded in 1632 by Metropolitan Petro Mohyla, it combined Byzantine theological traditions with the Latin educational system, becoming a key intellectual center for the Orthodox world.

Latin Influence on Education

The Kyiv-Mohyla Academy actively adopted teaching methods from Western European universities. Its curriculum included the study of philosophy, rhetoric, theology, and classical languages (Greek and Latin). These reforms contributed to the creation of a new type of theologian—educated and prepared to engage in debates with representatives of other denominations, particularly Catholicism and Protestantism.

The Latin influence was particularly evident in the systematization of theological knowledge. Petro Mohyla introduced rigorous academic disciplines, and his Orthodox Catechism became a model for Orthodox doctrinal texts. This document, imbued with Western systematic approaches, helped the Orthodox Church strengthen its position in religious disputes with Catholics and Uniates.

Educational Influence on the Moscow Church

Graduates of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy played a crucial role in reforming the Moscow Church. Many professors and clergymen moved to Moscow, where their knowledge was used to reform liturgical practices and spiritual education. Among them was Symeon Polotsky—a poet, theologian, and educator who significantly influenced Russian religious thought in the 17th century.

Particularly noteworthy were Theophan Prokopovych and Stefan Yavorsky. Theophan Prokopovych, a graduate of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, became one of Peter I's leading reformers. His contribution to drafting the Spiritual Regulation and establishing the Holy Synod was a key step in subordinating the Russian Church to the state. Theophan promoted ideas rooted in Western theological traditions, contributing to the modernization of church governance in Russia.

Stefan Yavorsky, also a graduate of the academy, was the first president of the Holy Synod and actively worked to integrate Western educational traditions into Russian theology. His works, aimed at combating schism and defending Orthodoxy, influenced the development of Russian theology and strengthened the Church's position.

These prominent figures, along with Symeon Polotsky, brought the intellectual legacy of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy to the Moscow Church, introducing elements of systematic theology, philosophy, and rhetoric into Russian ecclesiastical traditions. However, their reformist efforts often faced conservative resistance, highlighting the cultural and theological differences between Kyiv and Moscow.

Tensions Arising from Western Influence

The Western influence introduced by Kyiv theologians sparked a mixed reaction in the Moscow Church. Conservative circles perceived such innovations as a threat to traditional Orthodox identity. These disputes intensified tensions between the Kyiv and Moscow Churches and further solidified differences in their theological and educational approaches.

The Academy as a Symbol of Cultural Autonomy

The Kyiv-Mohyla Academy became not only an educational institution but also a cultural symbol of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. It demonstrated a commitment to independence and integration with the European educational space, distinguishing the Ukrainian Church from the Moscow Church, which was more isolated and focused on internal consolidation.

The educational system established by Petro Mohyla and his successors laid the foundation for the distinctiveness of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The Latin influence and adherence to high educational standards remain key factors that differentiate the Ukrainian Church from the Russian Church to this day.

4. Autocephaly and Canonical Status

One of the key differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy lies in the question of autocephaly—the independence of the Church in governance. Historically, the Ukrainian Church sought autonomy, but its path to achieving autocephaly was long and arduous. In contrast, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has long opposed the separation of the Ukrainian Church, leading to numerous conflicts.

Historical Context

After the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, the Ukrainian Church gradually lost its autonomy. In the 18th and 19th centuries, church governance in Ukraine became entirely subordinated to Moscow, causing dissatisfaction among Ukrainian clergy and believers.

Efforts to restore independence began in the early 20th century, particularly after the fall of the Russian Empire. In 1921, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) was established, but its recognition was limited, and its existence was further complicated by Soviet repression.

Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU)

A decisive milestone on the path to autocephaly was the granting of the Tomos by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 2019. This event officially established the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) as an independent entity. Key aspects of this process include:

• Initiative of Ukrainian society and state: The declaration of autocephaly became a significant step in consolidating Ukrainian independence following the events of 2014 (the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in Donbas).
• Recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate: Constantinople affirmed that the Ukrainian Church had historically not belonged to Moscow, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the Tomos.
• Resistance from the ROC: The Russian Orthodox Church categorically refused to recognize the autocephaly of the OCU, leading to a schism within global Orthodoxy.

The Moscow Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC-MP)

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) remains a significant religious structure in Ukraine. However, its status in society has changed:

• A portion of the clergy and believers transitioned to the OCU.
• Accusations of UOC-MP’s dependence on Moscow and its ties to Russian authorities led to growing distrust among Ukrainian society.
• The OCU gained recognition from several Orthodox Churches, strengthening its position on the international stage.

Autocephaly as a Symbol of Independence

For the Ukrainian Church, autocephaly is not merely a matter of ecclesiastical governance but also a symbol of spiritual and national independence. This step underscores the break with centuries of Moscow's influence and strengthens the identity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

At the same time, the Moscow Church views the OCU's autocephaly as a threat to its influence in the region and its status as the "Third Rome." This remains a source of tension between the two churches and within the global Orthodox community.

The autocephaly of the OCU is a significant step in affirming the independence of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, highlighting the differences between Ukrainian and Russian ecclesiastical traditions. This process carries profound spiritual, cultural, and political implications that continue to shape the development of both churches.

5. Liturgical and Cultural Differences

The differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy are evident not only in governance and status but also in liturgical practices, language, symbolism, and cultural traditions. These aspects reflect the unique paths of development for each church.

Linguistic Identity

One of the most notable differences lies in the language used during worship services:

• Ukrainian Orthodox Church (OCU): Services are conducted in both Church Slavonic and Ukrainian. The use of the native language enhances accessibility for the faithful and strengthens the church's connection to national identity.
• Russian Orthodox Church (ROC and UOC-MP): Services are predominantly held in Church Slavonic, preserving traditional practices but accommodating regional linguistic diversity less effectively.

In Ukraine, the linguistic practice symbolizes the divide between Moscow-oriented and national approaches to liturgy. The OCU’s shift to Ukrainian is seen as a move toward cultural autonomy and the assertion of a distinct identity.

Liturgical Traditions

While the core canons of Orthodox worship remain consistent, the Ukrainian Church has distinct characteristics:

• Ukrainian Traditions: OCU liturgies often incorporate unique hymns and elements tied to local culture. For example, Christmas carols and Epiphany rituals frequently feature regional customs.
• Moscow Traditions: The ROC adheres to a more standardized Synodal rite, avoiding significant influence from Ukrainian cultural elements.

Western Influences

The Kyiv Church, shaped by Latin and Greek Catholic traditions, adopted certain elements of Western culture:

• Architecture and Symbolism: Churches often feature designs reminiscent of Catholic cathedrals.
• Polyphony in Church Music: The use of multipart harmonies, characteristic of Western European traditions, is common.
• Choral Harmony: Broader use of choral arrangements in services distinguishes Ukrainian practices.

These elements make Ukrainian Orthodoxy more open to dialogue with Western Christian traditions.

Polyphony in Liturgical Music

Polyphony, or multipart singing, is a musical technique where multiple melodic lines are sung simultaneously to create a harmonious whole. Widely used in Western European traditions, polyphony entered Ukrainian church music through Latin and Catholic influences.

• Polyphony in Ukrainian Orthodoxy: It gained popularity in the 17th–18th centuries, particularly through the work of composers associated with the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, such as Mykola Dyletsky. He developed partesnoe penie—a distinctive form of multipart liturgical singing. This style was unique to Ukrainian Orthodoxy and contrasted with the monophonic Byzantine chant common in the ROC.
• Contrast with Russian Tradition: Russian church music of the same period remained conservative, adhering to monophonic chants like Znamenny or Strochny singing. Polyphony was considered an alien innovation, though it partially influenced the Russian tradition through Ukrainian composers and educators.

The use of polyphony highlights another key difference between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy, emphasizing the impact of Western culture on Ukrainian spiritual traditions.

Local Saints and Celebrations in Ukraine and the OCU

Ukrainian Orthodox tradition, including the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, places significant emphasis on venerating local saints and holidays, fostering a strong connection to the country's history and culture.

• Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker: While widely venerated in Orthodoxy, Saint Nicholas holds a special place in Ukrainian culture. His feast day (December 19) is associated with charity and gift-giving for children. Churches in the OCU celebrate with services emphasizing his role as the protector of the poor and advocate for the needy.
• Locally Revered Saints:
  • Saints Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves: Founders of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, pivotal in spreading monasticism and Orthodox faith in Kyivan Rus.
  • Metropolitan Macarius of Kyiv: Martyred during a Tatar raid in the 15th century.
  • Saint George the Victorious: Especially revered in western Ukraine, with his feast day celebrated through local traditions.
  • Saint Job of Pochaiv: A defender of Orthodoxy in western Ukraine and associated with the Pochaiv Lavra.

These saints are venerated not only through traditional worship but also via folk rituals, such as processions and prayer gatherings.

Translation of Saint Nicholas’ Relics

A significant event in Ukrainian tradition is the commemoration of the translation of Saint Nicholas’ relics from Myra in Lycia to Bari, Italy. Celebrated on May 22, this feast symbolizes the connection to the early Christian world. Churches hold liturgies and prayer services on this day, often accompanied by charitable initiatives.

Modern Celebrations with National Elements

The Ukrainian Church actively integrates historical events and cultural traditions into religious celebrations:

• Baptism of Rus Day (July 28): Celebrated not only as a church holiday but also as a national day of remembrance of Prince Volodymyr and the Christianization of Kyivan Rus.
• Heavenly Hundred Memorial Day: An unofficial day of prayer services commemorating those who died during the Maidan protests.
• Defenders of Ukraine Day (October 14): Coinciding with the Feast of the Protection of the Mother of God, it underscores the historical connection between the church and Ukrainian Cossack traditions.

Influence of Local Traditions

A distinctive feature of the OCU is its ability to adapt liturgical and ritual practices to regional customs. For example, certain areas of Ukraine hold special processions honoring local saints or miraculous icons. Prayers for Ukraine are a recurring element in services, reinforcing the national dimension of spiritual life.

Moscow's Conservatism

The Russian Church strictly adheres to canonical rules from the Synodal period and maintains a Russo-Byzantine liturgical style, avoiding innovations. This reflects its commitment to preserving tradition but limits its flexibility to adapt to local contexts.

Liturgical and cultural differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy highlight their unique historical and cultural contexts. The Ukrainian Church seeks greater openness and integration of national traditions, while the Moscow Church focuses on preserving Russo-Byzantine foundations. These differences reinforce the distinctiveness of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and its role in shaping national identity.

6. Political Influence on Churches

Politics has always played a significant role in the development of Orthodoxy, particularly in the relationship between Ukrainian and Russian churches. Political influence has shaped their status, their interaction with the state, and their role in national life. This influence continues to define the distinct characteristics and differences between the two ecclesiastical traditions.

Historical Interaction Between Church and State

In Russia: Since the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has been closely aligned with state power. Beginning in the 16th century, with Moscow’s declaration as the "Third Rome," the ROC actively supported the ideology of centralized authority. During the era of the Russian Empire, the church served as an instrument for affirming Russian identity, especially in regions populated by other ethnic groups.

In Ukraine: Conversely, the Kyiv Church often acted as an opposition force to central authority, particularly during periods of control by Poland, Russia, or the Soviet Union. The church played a critical role in preserving Ukrainian culture, language, and traditions, frequently serving as a beacon of national identity and resistance to assimilation.

Modern Realities

The OCU and National Independence: Following Ukraine's independence in 1991, the need for religious autonomy became acute. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), granted autocephaly in 2019, emerged as a symbol of national independence. The Ukrainian state actively supported the process of autocephaly, viewing it as a crucial step toward breaking free from Russian influence.

The UOC-MP and its Ties to Moscow: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) retains canonical dependence on the ROC, which has drawn criticism within Ukrainian society. In the context of the ongoing war with Russia, its position has become particularly vulnerable, as many perceive it as an extension of Russian political interests.

The Church as an Instrument of Influence

ROC in Russian Politics: The Russian Orthodox Church maintains close ties with the Russian government, supporting many domestic and foreign political initiatives. This includes promoting the concept of the "Russian World" (Russkiy Mir), aimed at uniting Russian-speaking peoples under Russian influence. The church plays a pivotal role in shaping ideological narratives that reinforce state policies.

OCU as a Factor of Ukrainian Independence: The Orthodox Church of Ukraine, by contrast, has become a vital symbol of Ukraine’s spiritual and cultural independence. Its autocephaly represents the country’s broader aspiration to sever ties with its colonial past and assert its sovereignty on the global stage.

The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Since 2014, following Russia's annexation of Crimea and the onset of the Russo-Ukrainian war, religion has become part of the geopolitical confrontation:

• In Ukraine, distrust toward the UOC-MP has intensified, leading to the mass transfer of parishes to the OCU.
• The autocephaly of the OCU has deepened divisions in global Orthodoxy, as the ROC severed Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in protest.

The Role of the Church in Society

In Ukraine: The church actively supports the military, aids internally displaced persons, and promotes national identity. The OCU is perceived as an ally of the state in its struggle for sovereignty, with its liturgies and community efforts reinforcing a sense of unity and resistance.

In Russia: The ROC continues to function as an ideological pillar of the state, endorsing government policies and maintaining a close relationship with the Kremlin. This alignment ensures the church’s influence but also cements its role as a tool of political authority.

The political influence on Ukrainian and Russian churches underscores profound differences in their missions and roles. For Ukraine, the church is a bastion of independence and identity, whereas in Russia, the ROC serves as a critical instrument of state influence. These distinctions deepen the confrontation between the two traditions and highlight the unique paths of development for each church.

7. Religious Geography and Public Perception

Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy exhibit unique features in their geographical distribution and public perception. These aspects reflect not only regional differences but also the depth of each church's connection to national culture, historical events, and contemporary political dynamics.

Geography and Distribution of Orthodox Communities

In Ukraine, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) coexist, but their influence varies significantly by region. The OCU dominates in western and central areas, where nationalist sentiments and a commitment to Ukrainian identity are particularly strong. In contrast, the UOC-MP retains significant influence in the east and south, especially in regions historically characterized by a predominantly Russian-speaking population. These regional differences have deepened since 2014, as parishes began transitioning from the UOC-MP to the OCU, driven by the political conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

In Russia, the geographical distribution of Orthodox communities is far more uniform. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) holds a near-monopoly, with its influence extending to all regions of the country. Support for the church is often tied to state ideology, making it a key instrument of cultural consolidation.

Public Perception and Trust

In Ukraine, public attitudes toward the church are closely linked to its association with national identity. The OCU is seen as a symbol of independence and Ukrainian statehood, especially following its autocephaly, formalized by the Tomos. By contrast, the UOC-MP is often criticized for its ties to Moscow, leading to distrust and suspicion, particularly in the context of the armed conflict with Russia.

In Russia, the ROC is associated with traditional values and national ideology, making it one of the most trusted institutions in society. However, its influence also faces criticism from the liberal segment of the population, particularly due to its close relationship with the state and its conservative stance on many issues.

The Role of the Diaspora

Ukrainian Orthodoxy wields considerable influence within the diaspora, particularly in Canada, the United States, and Western Europe, where communities actively support the OCU. This bolsters the promotion of Ukrainian identity abroad. The ROC also maintains a vast network of parishes worldwide, playing a critical role in reinforcing the concept of the "Russian World" (Russkiy Mir). However, the schism within global Orthodoxy following the OCU’s autocephaly has complicated interactions between Ukrainian and Russian churches in the diaspora.

Religious geography and public perception underscore the distinct developmental trajectories of Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy. In Ukraine, the church functions as both a spiritual and political instrument for strengthening independence and identity. In Russia, the ROC continues to serve as a unifying force closely tied to state ideology. These differences not only highlight the internal characteristics of each church but also their roles in the international context.

Conclusion

The differences between Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy span historical, liturgical, educational, and political dimensions. These two branches of the Orthodox tradition, despite their common origin in the Baptism of Rus, have taken divergent paths over time, reflecting the unique conditions of their existence.

Ukrainian Orthodoxy, shaped by Latin educational traditions, the influence of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and the reforms of Petro Mohyla, demonstrates openness to cultural and national characteristics. The achievement of autocephaly and the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) have become symbols of the pursuit of spiritual independence and the strengthening of national identity.

The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), on the other hand, developed in close association with state power, making it a powerful instrument for consolidating society and preserving traditions. Its influence remains central both within Russia and abroad, despite challenges arising from changes in global Orthodoxy.

These differences underscore not only the diversity of the Orthodox world but also its ability to adapt to cultural, political, and social challenges. The development of the Ukrainian and Russian churches continues to illustrate how religion remains a vital factor in shaping identity, providing spiritual support, and fostering societal unity. However, maintaining dialogue between these two branches of Orthodoxy remains a key challenge, one that could shape the future of the Eastern Christian tradition.

Additional Materials

Key Events Timeline

• 988: Baptism of Rus and the establishment of the Kyiv Metropolia under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
• 1325: Transfer of the metropolitan’s seat from Kyiv to Moscow.
• 1686: Transfer of the Kyiv Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate.
• 1632: Founding of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy by Petro Mohyla.
• 1921: Establishment of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC).
• 1991: Ukraine's independence and renewed efforts toward autocephaly.
• 2019: Granting of the Tomos and the formation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).

Comparative Table: Ukrainian and Russian Orthodoxy

Translated and presented by Brother Ergatis Ikonikos, Ecumenical Patriarchate