RU 
UK 
The history of Christianity in Eastern Europe is inextricably linked to Kyiv—the cradle of the Orthodox tradition in these lands. It was from here that Christianity began to spread among the Eastern Slavs, and Kyiv remained the center of spiritual and theological life for a long time. However, over time, the influence of the Kyiv Metropolis on the northern territories weakened, and after Moscow seized church leadership in the 14th century and subordinated the Kyiv Metropolis in the 17th century, a gradual russification of Orthodox heritage began.
Today, a widespread myth claims that Orthodoxy in Russia developed independently and that Kyiv played only a secondary role. However, historical facts prove otherwise. Many outstanding hierarchs, theologians, monks, and reformers who shaped the Russian Church were of Ukrainian origin. Their influence is undeniable—from the early Kyiv metropolitans to reformers such as Petro Mohyla and Feofan Prokopovych, who defined the structure of the Russian ecclesiastical tradition.
In this article, we will explore how Ukrainian church figures laid the foundation of Russian ecclesiasticism, which Ukrainian traditions were adopted by the northern territories, and why ignoring this role leads to a distortion of historical truth.
1. The Baptism of Rus: Kyiv as the Center of Christianization
The Baptism of Rus in 988 was a pivotal event for all of Eastern Europe, but its impact was not limited to Kyiv alone. At the time, Kyivan Rus was the largest political entity in the region, and its capital, Kyiv, served as a crucial political and cultural hub. It was here that the decision to adopt Christianity was made, shaping the future of the Eastern Slavic civilization.
Prince Volodymyr the Great not only made Christianity the state religion but also laid the foundations for an ecclesiastical structure closely aligned with Constantinople. The first metropolitans of Rus were appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, emphasizing Kyiv’s connection to the wider Orthodox world. It is important to note that the Kyiv Metropolis had no ties to the future Russian ecclesiastical tradition—on the contrary, for a long time, it remained a direct continuation of Byzantine Orthodox culture.
Following the baptism, an extensive program of church construction began, with the most notable project being the Church of the Tithes (Desyatynna Church), the first stone church in Rus. Kyiv became the center of theological education, and the monasteries founded in its surroundings played a key role in developing the principles of Eastern Slavic monasticism.
The Spread of Christianity Through Kyiv
Kyivan Rus served as the gateway for the spread of Christianity among the Eastern Slavs. Bishops and priests were sent from Kyiv to other regions, bringing with them the religious, cultural, and theological traditions of the capital. The influence of Kyiv’s ecclesiastical culture gradually reached cities such as Novgorod, Polotsk, and Chernihiv. However, political instability over the following centuries led to a weakening of Kyiv’s centralized religious authority. After the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, some northern territories, including Moscow, began to claim spiritual leadership.
Despite these changes, Kyiv remained the symbolic heart of the true Rus’ Church, continuing to be a center of pilgrimage and religious life. Moscow’s princes sought to inherit Kyiv’s legacy, but they could not conceal the fact that their Orthodox traditions originated from Kyiv.
Thus, the Rus’ Church, founded in Kyiv, became not only a spiritual but also a cultural center for the entire region. The Russian Church, which emerged much later, was largely built upon this legacy. However, historical truth does not support the notion that it developed independently of its Ukrainian origins.
2. Kyivan Saints and Theologians – Founders of Russian Spirituality
From the earliest centuries after the Baptism of Rus, Kyiv became the theological and spiritual center of Eastern Europe. It was here that traditions of monasticism, preaching, and religious writing first developed, shaping the evolution of Orthodoxy for generations to come. The Rus’ Church was established in Kyiv, and its saints and theologians became guiding figures for the entire Orthodox world. However, over time, Russian ecclesiastical historiography deliberately obscured or appropriated the achievements of these figures, erasing their Ukrainian origins from historical memory.
Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves – Founders of Monastic Life
One of Kyiv’s greatest contributions to Orthodoxy was the foundation of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, the first major monastery in Rus, which became the center of ascetic life and spiritual mentorship.
Anthony of the Caves, having spent time on Mount Athos, introduced Byzantine monastic traditions to Rus’. Upon his return, he settled in a cave on the hills of Kyiv, attracting disciples who sought to follow his path of ascetic devotion. His efforts laid the foundation for what would become the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery, an institution that played a crucial role in shaping religious life in Rus.
His disciple, Theodosius of the Caves, further developed monastic traditions by introducing a strict communal monastic rule based on Eastern Christian practices. Thanks to his leadership, the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery evolved into a major religious and educational center, producing saints, theologians, and church leaders who influenced Orthodox life far beyond Kyiv’s borders.
The traditions established in Kyiv’s monasteries would later spread across all Rus. However, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Russian historiography sought to rewrite this history, presenting Kyivan saints as part of an exclusively "Great Russian" tradition, while ignoring their deep Ukrainian roots.
Kyivan Metropolitans – The Architects of Theological Thought
Until the 14th century, the Metropolitans of Rus governed the church from Kyiv, ensuring that it remained the center of religious authority. Among them, Metropolitan Hilarion stood out as a key figure—he was the first Slavic-born metropolitan of Kyiv and the author of the famous sermon Sermon on Law and Grace, which asserted the spiritual independence of Rus from Byzantium. His theological ideas established a foundation for the Kyiv-based Orthodox tradition, which was deeply intellectual and distinct from the later Moscow-centered tradition.
Another notable figure was Metropolitan Clement Smoliatych, a thinker who combined Christian theology with philosophical reasoning. He continued the work of Hilarion, advocating for an intellectual approach to faith and a rational interpretation of Christian teachings.
However, after the relocation of the metropolitanate to Moscow in 1325, the legacy of these great Kyivan theologians began to fade from official church narratives. Moscow’s later church historians systematically downplayed their contributions, seeking to construct a historical narrative in which the Russian Church developed independently.
The Kyiv Pechersk Paterikon – The First Collection of Rus’ Saints’ Lives
One of the most significant religious texts produced in Kyiv was the Kyiv Pechersk Paterikon, compiled in the 12th century. This collection of hagiographies (lives of saints) provided the first comprehensive record of Rus’ monastic and saintly traditions. The Paterikon was a crucial influence on later Eastern Orthodox literature, setting a model for the veneration of saints in the region.
Later, Russian ecclesiastical tradition attempted to appropriate these figures as part of Moscow’s religious history. However, the origins of these saints remain undeniably Kyivan, and their legacy was foundational to the development of Orthodox spirituality across Eastern Europe.
Kyiv was the birthplace of Eastern Slavic Orthodox spirituality. Its monks, metropolitans, and theologians created a deeply rooted theological and religious culture that defined the Orthodox Church in the region. However, while Kyiv established the Rus’ Church, the Russian Church emerged later and heavily relied on the intellectual and spiritual heritage of Kyivan Orthodoxy. Ignoring these historical realities distorts the truth, as Moscow’s church tradition cannot be seen as an independent phenomenon—it was built upon the foundations laid by Kyivan saints and theologians.
3. Ukrainian Reformers of the Russian Church
By the 17th and 18th centuries, the Russian Church was in dire need of reform. Theological education in Moscow lagged behind, its clergy lacked systematic training, and its liturgical practices remained archaic. Facing these challenges, the Russian state turned to Kyiv, where theological and intellectual traditions had been thriving for centuries. Ukrainian church leaders, educated in Kyiv’s theological schools, played a decisive role in modernizing the Russian Church. However, their contributions were later erased from Russian historical narratives, with their reforms attributed to Moscow’s own ecclesiastical figures.
Petro Mohyla and His Influence on the Russian Church
One of the most important figures in the development of Eastern Slavic Orthodoxy was Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kyiv. His reforms profoundly impacted both the theological and liturgical traditions of Orthodoxy, leaving a lasting legacy in church education and practice.
Mohyla founded the Kyiv-Mohyla Collegium, later known as the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, which became the leading Orthodox educational institution in Eastern Europe. It produced generations of theologians and clergymen who later played key roles in the Russian Church. Many of its graduates were appointed to high positions in Moscow, where they introduced Western-style systematic theology and rhetorical preaching, both of which had been absent in Russian ecclesiastical culture.
Mohyla’s Orthodox Confession of Faith, approved by the Ecumenical Patriarch, became a foundational theological text for the entire Orthodox world. In Moscow, it was used to systematize religious teaching, as prior to this, theology in Russia had remained largely disorganized and undeveloped.
Although Mohyla himself did not directly reform the Russian Church, his students and followers brought his ideas to Moscow, shaping its religious landscape.
Ukrainian Theologians as Mentors of the Russian Clergy
By the 17th century, Moscow faced a severe shortage of educated clergy. The tsarist government recognized that Ukrainian theologians, who had received European-style education in Kyiv, were far more advanced in their knowledge than their Russian counterparts. After the 1686 subjugation of the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow, an increasing number of Ukrainian clerics were sent to Russia to reform its church.
Ukrainian preachers introduced the tradition of systematic church sermons, which had been poorly developed in Russia. They reformed the system of theological education, implementing new academic standards. Russian religious schools, modeled after Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, began adopting Ukrainian teaching methods, transforming the intellectual culture of the Russian clergy.
By the 18th century, almost the entire episcopate of the Russian Church consisted of Ukrainians. They introduced rhetorical and scholastic methods to Russian theology, replacing the mystical and purely ritualistic approach that had previously dominated Muscovite religious life.
Feofan Prokopovych and the Creation of the Russian Synodal Church
One of the most influential Ukrainian church reformers in Russia was Feofan Prokopovych, a graduate of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and the chief architect of Peter I’s church reforms.
Prokopovych drafted the Spiritual Regulation, which abolished the Russian patriarchate and replaced it with the Holy Synod, making the church subordinate to the state. This transformation mirrored Western Protestant church governance, fundamentally changing the structure of Russian Orthodoxy.
He introduced rationalist ideas into Russian theology, breaking away from medieval theological models. His preaching and theological works, shaped by the intellectual traditions of Kyiv, became the foundation for the modern Russian Orthodox sermon.
Despite his enormous influence on Russian Orthodoxy, Prokopovych’s Ukrainian identity was later erased from official church history. In Russian ecclesiastical writings, he was portrayed as a “Russian reformer,” despite the fact that his ideas, education, and theological background were entirely rooted in Kyiv.
Ukrainian reformers played a decisive role in shaping the modern Russian Orthodox Church. They brought systematic theology, modern educational standards, and structured church governance to Moscow. Without their influence, the Russian Church would have remained in intellectual and theological stagnation.
However, over time, their contributions were erased from historical memory, and their achievements were absorbed into Russian ecclesiastical mythology. Today, as Ukrainian Orthodoxy reclaims its independence, it is crucial to recognize that Kyiv, not Moscow, was the true source of theological and ecclesiastical innovation in Eastern Europe. The return of historical truth restores Kyiv’s rightful place as the center of the Orthodox tradition that shaped the religious landscape of the region.
4. The Transfer of the Orthodox Center to Moscow and the Ukrainization of the Russian Church
Following the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, Kyiv lost much of its political power but remained the spiritual center of Rus’. During this period, Moscow, taking advantage of Kyiv’s decline, gradually positioned itself as the new center of Orthodoxy. The decisive moment came in 1325, when the Metropolitan of Rus’ moved from Kyiv to Moscow, marking the beginning of Moscow’s ecclesiastical ambitions.
Initially, Moscow did not have sufficient authority to fully control the Orthodox Church. Kyiv retained its prestige and maintained direct ties with Constantinople. However, by the mid-15th century, following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow’s rulers began promoting the concept of the “Third Rome,” presenting Moscow as the new spiritual capital of Orthodoxy. In 1589, Moscow achieved the creation of its own patriarchate, further diminishing Kyiv’s ecclesiastical influence.
Despite Moscow’s rise, its theological and intellectual traditions remained underdeveloped. Russian clergy lacked formal education, theological discourse was weak, and the church was mired in archaic rituals. Moscow looked to Kyiv, where theological education had been flourishing under the leadership of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Following the 1686 subjugation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate, a wave of Ukrainian clergy and scholars was brought to Russia to reform its church.
The Ukrainization of the Russian Church
The arrival of Ukrainian theologians and clergy in Russia initiated a profound transformation in Russian Orthodox practices. Kyiv’s theological schools were far superior to those in Moscow, as they incorporated Western scholasticism and a structured approach to religious education. Consequently, most of Russia’s bishops in the late 17th and 18th centuries were Ukrainians, who restructured theological education, modernized sermons, and introduced Kyiv-style liturgical practices.
Before these reforms, the Russian Church lacked a strong tradition of homiletics (preaching). Services were primarily ritualistic, with little emphasis on theological discourse. However, Ukrainian theologians, trained in rhetorical traditions, introduced systematic preaching, bringing a new intellectual element to Russian Orthodox services.
Liturgical reforms were another major shift. The Russian Church had long adhered to older Slavic-language texts and pre-Mongol liturgical practices. The reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1652–1666), heavily influenced by Kyiv’s theologians, standardized liturgical texts and practices to align more closely with contemporary Orthodox traditions. These changes sparked resistance from traditionalist factions in Russia, leading to the Old Believers’ Schism, as many Russians rejected what they saw as “foreign” influences on their faith.
Moscow’s Effort to Erase Ukrainian Influence
Despite Kyiv’s enormous contribution to Russian Orthodox reform, Moscow was reluctant to acknowledge its dependence on Ukrainian scholars and clergy. By the 18th century, the Russian Empire began deliberately removing Ukrainians from high church positions and replacing them with ethnic Russians. The contributions of Ukrainian theologians were either downplayed or attributed to Russian church leaders, reinforcing the myth that Russian Orthodoxy had developed independently.
By the 19th century, Moscow’s narrative was firmly established: Kyiv was depicted as a secondary religious center, while Moscow was presented as the rightful and eternal capital of Orthodoxy. Russian ecclesiastical history books barely mentioned the role of Ukrainians in shaping Russian theology, even though most of Russia’s religious elites in the 17th and 18th centuries had been trained in Kyiv.
Although Moscow seized control of the Orthodox Church’s administration, the intellectual and theological foundation of Russian Orthodoxy was built by Ukrainian theologians, educators, and clergy. For two centuries, Ukrainian influence dominated Russian church life, modernizing its theological education, reforming liturgical practices, and introducing intellectual preaching. However, over time, Moscow erased this legacy from historical memory, presenting its church as a self-sufficient tradition while concealing its Kyiv-centered origins.
Today, as Ukraine reclaims its religious independence, it is crucial to recognize that Kyiv, not Moscow, was the original heart of Eastern Slavic Orthodoxy. Acknowledging the Ukrainian roots of Russian church reforms is not only a matter of historical justice but also a necessary step toward restoring Kyiv’s rightful place in the religious history of Eastern Europe.
5. The Falsification of History and Forgotten Ukrainian Names
Following the subjugation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, the Russian Empire launched a systematic campaign to rewrite church history. Moscow deliberately erased Ukrainian contributions to the development of Orthodoxy, constructing an imperial myth that Russian Orthodoxy had developed independently. The greatest Ukrainian church figures—saints, theologians, and reformers—were either forgotten, rebranded as Russian, or had their achievements falsely attributed to Muscovite clergy.
This historical distortion intensified in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the Russian Empire sought to justify its doctrine of a "unified Russian nation" (triune Russian people: Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians). Kyiv, once the undisputed spiritual center of Rus’, was now portrayed as a peripheral church province. The immense intellectual and theological influence of Ukrainian scholars was deliberately downplayed, and Moscow’s church history was rewritten to place Russia at the center of Eastern Slavic Christianity.
Erasing Petro Mohyla’s Legacy
One of the most striking examples of historical falsification was the erasure of Petro Mohyla’s influence. His Orthodox Confession of Faith, a groundbreaking theological work, was widely accepted across the Orthodox world and played a key role in modernizing Orthodox doctrine. However, in the Russian Empire, Mohyla’s contributions were absorbed into the larger “Russian tradition”, without acknowledgment of his Ukrainian origins. The theological system he developed became foundational for Russian theological seminaries, yet his name was largely omitted from official Russian ecclesiastical writings.
The Case of Feofan Prokopovych
A similar fate befell Feofan Prokopovych, the chief architect of Peter I’s church reforms. Prokopovych was a graduate of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and an intellectual leader who shaped the Spiritual Regulation, which abolished the Moscow Patriarchate and placed the Russian Church under state control through the Holy Synod. His reforms fundamentally reshaped Russian Orthodoxy, bringing it into alignment with Western-style governance.
Despite his undeniably Ukrainian education, intellectual background, and theological principles, Russian church history later portrayed him as a "Russian reformer." His Kyiv origins and connections to Ukrainian intellectual thought were deliberately suppressed.
Appropriation of Kyivan Saints
Another key aspect of historical falsification was the appropriation of Kyivan saints. Saints who were integral to the spiritual formation of the Rus’ Church—such as Anthony and Theodosius of the Caves—were gradually incorporated into the Russian hagiographical tradition, with no acknowledgment of their Ukrainian identity.
The Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, the most important monastic center in Eastern Europe, was de-emphasized in Russian church history, while newer monasteries in Moscow and St. Petersburg were elevated in status. Ukrainian saints, theologians, and church leaders were systematically absorbed into the Russian narrative, with their contributions relabeled as “all-Russian” achievements.
The 19th Century: The Peak of Historical Distortion
By the 19th century, the Russian Empire had fully consolidated its control over historical narratives. Kyiv was depicted as merely a “regional” religious center, while Moscow was presented as the eternal capital of Orthodoxy. This narrative was reinforced in theological education, church publications, and official history books, ensuring that future generations of Russians and Ukrainians were taught a falsified version of church history.
The impact of this historical distortion was profound. Ukrainians were deprived of their rightful place in the history of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Kyiv’s role as the spiritual and intellectual heart of Rus’ Orthodoxy was obscured, and Moscow’s claims to ecclesiastical dominance were strengthened through carefully curated myths.
The Soviet Period: Further Suppression of Ukrainian Religious History
During the 20th century, the Soviet Union reinforced Moscow’s ecclesiastical dominance through brutal suppression of Ukrainian religious institutions. The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, which sought to reclaim Kyiv’s spiritual independence, was crushed by Soviet authorities. The Moscow Patriarchate, fully controlled by the Soviet state, continued the imperial tradition of erasing Ukrainian contributions to Orthodoxy.
Under Soviet rule, Kyiv’s theological and ecclesiastical heritage was systematically destroyed. The legacy of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, once the premier Orthodox educational institution, was erased from official histories, and Ukrainian religious leaders who had shaped Orthodox theology were either ignored or labeled as “reactionaries.”
The Persistence of Russian Historical Myths Today
Even today, Russian church historiography continues to suppress Kyiv’s role in the development of Eastern Slavic Christianity. The Moscow Patriarchate insists on its historical primacy, ignoring the reality that its theological foundations were imported from Kyiv and built by Ukrainian theologians. The modern Russian state and church continue to promote narratives that deny Ukraine’s distinct spiritual heritage, reinforcing centuries-old imperial myths.
The falsification of history and the erasure of Ukrainian contributions to Orthodoxy have been key strategies in Moscow’s religious and political dominance. By systematically rewriting church history, Russia has sought to present itself as the natural successor to the Rus’ Church, even though its own theological and intellectual traditions were shaped by Kyiv’s scholars and clergy.
As Ukraine reasserts its religious independence, the restoration of historical truth is essential. Recognizing that the Kyiv Church was the true heart of Rus’ Orthodoxy challenges centuries of imperial distortions. Correcting these historical falsehoods is not just an academic necessity but also a crucial step toward restoring Kyiv’s rightful place as the spiritual and theological center of Eastern Slavic Christianity.
6. Conclusion
The history of Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe is inseparable from Kyiv. It was in Kyiv that the Rus’ Church was established, laying the foundations for the spiritual, theological, and educational traditions that shaped Eastern Slavic Christianity. However, over time, Moscow used political and ecclesiastical manipulations to appropriate this heritage, attempting to erase Kyiv’s crucial role in the development of Orthodoxy.
Ukrainian saints, theologians, and church reformers were responsible for shaping the Russian Church, yet their contributions were later suppressed or distorted. Graduates of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy modernized theological education in Moscow, introduced structured preaching, and reformed liturgical practices. They even influenced the governance model of the Russian Church, transforming it into a state-controlled institution under Peter I. Nevertheless, Russian historiography erased their Ukrainian origins, presenting the development of Russian Orthodoxy as an independent process.
The falsification of history and the Russification of ecclesiastical memory were deliberate strategies aimed at subordinating Kyiv’s religious legacy and transforming it into a mere extension of Moscow’s Orthodox tradition. By the 19th and 20th centuries, this process had reached its peak, with Kyiv’s role in church history almost completely obscured.
However, modern historical research confirms that the Rus’ Church originated in Kyiv, not Moscow. Without the theological, intellectual, and spiritual foundation laid by Ukrainian scholars and clergy, the Russian Church would have remained stagnant, lacking the educational, doctrinal, and organizational reforms that defined its modern structure.
Today, as Ukraine reclaims its religious independence, it is essential to restore Kyiv’s rightful status as the true spiritual center of Eastern Slavic Orthodoxy. Recognizing that Kyiv, not Moscow, is the historical and theological heart of Eastern Orthodox Christianity is not just a matter of historical justice—it is a necessary step in dismantling imperial myths that have persisted for centuries.
The Ukrainian Orthodox tradition has deep and independent roots, which cannot be erased by Moscow’s historical manipulations. Reclaiming this legacy allows for a fuller and more truthful understanding of the origins of Eastern Slavic Christianity, placing Kyiv back at the center of Orthodox history where it rightfully belongs.