Drawing from sources of both personal and official origin, the article delves into the condition of the Uniate community in the decades leading up to the Unification Synod of Polotsk in 1839. The position of the Uniates and the state of their religious life at that time exhibited several characteristics that significantly contributed to the success of the project for their collective reunification with the Orthodox Church. The Uniates’ low social status, dismal economic conditions, moral reliance on Latin Catholic landlords, and a notably inadequate level of religious education are highlighted. The conclusion drawn is that the condition of the Uniate community was exacerbated by the legacy of the confessional policy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which aimed at fostering religious ignorance among Uniate believers, alongside the socio-economic oppression inflicted upon the common people by the Catholic gentry. The prevailing situation within the Uniate church association failed to foster a conscious commitment among ordinary believers to the union by the end of the 18th century through the second quarter of the 19th century. Additionally, the union, where clericalism prevailed over the course of two centuries, was critically dependent on the most educated and energetic segment of its clergy—the ruling clergy and educators of spiritual youth. There was no assurance that among these individuals, who were subjects of the Russian state, the notion of converting to the dominant religion would not emerge. A significant threat to the Uniate church association stemmed from the discontent among the people regarding the confessional division that emerged following the reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church in 1794–1795. The division severed neighborly, kindred, and even economic ties, prompting a desire among the people to restore a shared affiliation within a single religious denomination.

The reign of Emperor Nicholas I began under the slogan of “continuing the reign” of Emperor Alexander I. Initially, he did not aim to alter the governmental system in the western provinces, which had been established under his predecessor. However, by the second half of the 1820s, there was a gradual departure from the previous course, particularly in the realms of educational and religious policy. The young emperor rejected any encroachments on the territorial integrity of the Russian Empire. He regarded Russia’s possession of the “Lithuanian heritage” of Empress Catherine the Great as historically justified. Nicholas I and his officials considered the Polish rebellion of 1830–1831 as a continuation of the revolutionary unrest in Europe that commenced with the July Revolution in Paris. After the suppression of the rebellion, the process of forming a new political governance model for the Western Region commenced. Nicholas I’s strategy for integrating the western provinces included key elements such as aligning the local government system with models common throughout the Russian Empire, fully incorporating the Polish nobility into the empire’s elite, strengthening all-Russian institutions, introducing the Russian language into local judicial proceedings and educational institutions, gradual Russian colonization of border territories, and more. Even before 1830-1831, Nicholas I demonstrated his intention not only to halt the polonization of the Uniate Church but also to foster closer ties between Greek Catholics and the Orthodox Church. After the suppression of the Polish rebellion, the liquidation of several Catholic and Uniate monasteries and the secularization of church property became significant developments in the realm of confessional politics. While the overall participation of the Uniate clergy in the rebellion was insignificant, reports of mutinous activities among the Basilian monks resonated greatly in Saint Petersburg. The article explores Emperor Nicholas I and his officials’ assessment of the religious factor in the Polish rebellion of 1830–1831 in the western provinces, as well as the significance they attributed to the loyalty of the highest hierarchs of the Uniate Church.

The article focuses on clarifying the role of Emperor Nicholas I in the reunification of the Belarusian Uniates. This framing of the issue represents one aspect of examining the influence of the state in this process. It is emphasized that evaluating the significance of the imperial factor must be done in conjunction with assessing the role of Bishop Joseph (Semashko), who was the leader in the initiated case. The article analyses data concerning the religious attitudes of the future emperor and the extent of his familiarity with the particulars of the Belarusian-Lithuanian provinces. It is elucidated that upon ascending the throne, Nicholas I was inclined to continue the policies of his predecessor regarding the Uniates. However, he also demonstrated a tendency to act more decisively, safeguarding them from being transferred to the Latin rite. Additionally, the new Tsar was distrustful of the Poles and their aspirations for a special state status of Poland within the Russian Empire. Beginning with the memorandum of 1827 received from Joseph Semashko, the representative of the Uniate department of the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Collegium, outlining measures to transform the Uniate church for its return to the Russian Orthodox Church, Emperor Nicholas I recognized the significance of the plan and approved its implementation. However, the latter was executed with hesitations and delays, partly due to the involvement of other individuals such as state dignitaries and the Orthodox episcopate. Not all of them comprehended and placed trust in Semashko’s plans. For this reason, the Right Reverend Joseph had to persevere on multiple occasions and seek the support of the Emperor. As a result of the preparation for reunification, a request and a conciliar petition addressed to the Tsar were prepared. The Russian monarch accepted both proposals but deferred them to the Holy Synod, which held all the canonical powers necessary to admit Uniates into Eucharistic communion. Accordingly, Emperor Nicholas I fulfilled the role of patron and mediator in resolving the Uniate issue.

The article focuses on the activities of the secret committees during the reign of Nicholas I, which were specifically established to address issues related to the reunification of Uniates in the western provinces of the Russian Empire during the first half of the 19th century. In the majority of studies on the history of reunification, the activities of the secret committees are typically discussed only in broad terms. Frequently, the question of their role in the reunification process remains unresolved. This ambiguity enables historians and publicists to interpret the activities of the committees according to their religious, national, or ideological perspectives. Hence, Catholic historians tend to highlight the mere existence of such committees as evidence of the forced annexation of the Uniates. They often portray the committees as sinister and mysterious agency of the Russian government. This perspective can be attributed to the bitterness of defeat for Catholicism in the events of 1839, but it lacks fairness from a historical standpoint. The article explores the emergence of secret committees during the reign of Nicholas I, focusing specifically on the secret committees dedicated to Uniate affairs.   In the historiography of reunification, there is a prevailing opinion that there existed a singular secret committee on Uniate affairs, whose activities persisted intermittently from 1834 to 1839. In reality, there were several secret committees, each distinct in name, composition, and the nature of the issues they addressed. A review of their activities and an analysis of preserved archival sources and historiographical material indicate a lack of nearly any continuity and consistency in their operations. The secret committees, the sole official bodies established by the Government of the Russian Empire to oversee the reunification of Uniates with Orthodoxy, were formed as needed to deliberate and devise solutions to the challenges arising at particular historical junctures in the reunification process. Upon examining the outcomes of the secret committees’ endeavors, it becomes evident that these committees did not serve as architects or implementers of a comprehensive, long-term policy regarding the Uniate Church in the Russian Empire. Instead, they sporadically engaged in the reunification process. Therefore, the assertion that the reunification of the Uniates constituted violence against their religious conscience, orchestrated and executed solely by the forces of the government of the Russian Empire, is unfounded.

The Greek Catholic Church in Galicia underwent reform at the beginning of the twentieth century under the leadership of Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky and emerged as one of the primary supporters of nascent Ukrainian nationalism. Indeed, the first half of the twentieth century witnessed significant involvement of the Uniate Church in advancing the Ukrainian nationalist cause. The inevitable consequence of this political alignment of the Galician Greek Catholic Church was its overt collaboration with the German Nazis who occupied Ukraine during the Great Patriotic War. The article explores the most prominent instances of such activities by Uniate hierarchs and clergy. An example of the most cynical collaboration between the Galician Uniates and the German occupiers was the assistance provided by Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky to the Nazis in organizing the export of Ukrainian youth for forced labor in Germany. The Uniate Church continued to assist the German Nazis even when there were clear signs of their imminent defeat. In 1943, the leadership of the Galician Uniates actively assisted the Nazis in creating the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) commonly referred to as the Galicia Division, comprising mainly Western Ukrainian Uniates. Such a position loyal to the German occupiers was intended to secure not only favorable conditions for the Uniate Church’s survival under the Nazi regime but also the opportunity to proselytize in the occupied eastern territories. However, the occupation authorities pursued a complex religious policy in Ukraine and were not inclined to strengthen any particular denomination. For this reason, the Galician Uniates were not permitted by the German occupiers to conduct missionary activities outside Western Ukraine.

The article examines the content   of   Belarusian school textbooks, particularly focusing on how they depict the establishment, functioning, and abolition of the Brest Church Union. The timeframe for textbook publication (2017–2021) is specified to reflect the current educational materials used by Belarusian schoolchildren at the time of writing the article. The teaching of history in Belarusian schools is divided into two main directions. The first direction (grades 5–9) presents history at a simpler level, focusing more on facts, dates, and event descriptions. The second direction approaches history at a more theoretical level, emphasizing cause-and-effect relationships and trends. To comprehend the portrayal of the Brest Church Union in school textbooks, it’s essential to analyze texts from both educational directions, comparing their presentation of the material and summarizing the findings. Textbooks for the 7-th (1st direction) and 11-th (2nd direction) grades consider the introduction of the Brest Church Union and its spread until the end of the 18th century. Both textbooks provide similar assessments of the union. They acknowledge that the union was forcibly imposed on the local Orthodox population and cite historical documents as evidence. However, both textbooks attempt to justify the negative reaction of the population towards the union by citing the excessive use of violence by the Uniates and the Polish government. Both textbooks suggest that if the union had been introduced through more humane methods, there would have been less mass resistance to its adoption. This contradicts historical sources, which provide examples showing that resistance to the union began immediately, even before the Polish government had fully implemented coercive measures. The claim that the union served as a barrier to Polonization and Catholicization lacks support from historical documents. Both textbooks exhibit contradictions when attempting to substantiate these assertions. The claim in textbooks that the union preserved the linguistic and cultural traditions of the people is also unsubstantiated. The textbooks for the 8-th (1st direction) and 11-th (2nd direction) grades depict the evolution of the union from the late 18th to the first half of the 19th century, culminating in the Polotsk Church Council of 1839. The textbook for the 8-th grade follows the ideological narrative established in the 7-th-grade textbook. To support the argument that the majority of Uniates were unwilling to convert back to Orthodoxy in the late 1830s-, the authors rely on documents from an earlier period and reference historical sources detailing specific instances, attempting to generalize these cases as indicative of broader trends. There are no documents confirming widespread resistance to the decisions of the Polotsk Church Council. Therefore, the textbook may utilize documents from other eras or specific cases to illustrate this point. The textbook for the 11-th grade provides a more accurate depiction of the Polotsk Church Council. It was published following the Belarusian authorities’ decision to revise the school history curriculum in response to the mass protests of 2020.

The article explores the history of the Orthodox Church in the Belarusian territories from 1839 to 1917. The article investigates the gradual resurgence of Orthodoxy following the Church Council of Polotsk, exploring its stages and the obstacles and challenges encountered during this period. This is attributed to the lasting impact left on the believers’ consciousness by over two centuries of Orthodox Christians staying within the Uniate Greek Catholic Church. Many former Uniates after 1839, who were formally considered Orthodox, for various reasons still attended Roman Catholic churches, confessed to Roman Catholic priests, i.e., in fact, they remained Catholics in practice. According to G.Ya. Kiprianovich, it can be said that “the work of reunification was accomplished, but it was far from over in 1839”. For example, deviations from the Orthodox church charter existed in Orthodox worship, or there were also deviations in the performance of the sacraments. Such phenomena, as well as the persistence of Catholicism in former Uniates, were firstly attributed to the fanaticism of local Latin priests. Secondly, the apparatus of local government in the Belarusian lands was filled with officials with a Polish identity who harbored anti-Russian sentiments. Therefore, during 1839–1917, a complex process of gradual revival and strengthening of Orthodoxy occurred in the Belarusian lands. This difficult path can be divided into several stages, with the first stage spanning from 1839 to 1863– 1864. It was marked by the open proselytizing missionary activity of the Catholic clergy among Orthodox believers. It was overcome by the 1860s. The second period, from the 1860s to 1905, marked the establishment of Orthodoxy and the beginning of outwardly calm relations between the Catholic and Orthodox clergy. During this period, former Uniates affirmed their faith in the traditions of their fathers and grandfathers. After the decree “On Strengthening the Principles of Religious Tolerance” was issued on April 17, 1905, a new stage of acute confrontation between Orthodoxy and Catholicism ensued. However, through extensive missionary activity by the Orthodox clergy, active engagement with the faithful through parochial brotherhoods and parochial schools, this period was overcome by 1914–1917.