This article explores the background leading to the Polotsk Unification Council (also known as the Synod of Polotsk) convened in 1839. It delves into the proceedings of the council and evaluates its importance within the context of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Belarusian Exarchate. The conclusion drawn is that the abolition of the Uniate church association within the Russian Empire during the second quarter of the 19th century stemmed from a distinctive convergence of historical factors. These included shifts in Russian governmental policy, apprehensions regarding the Uniates within the Catholic Church leadership, and internal conflicts among the Greek Catholic clergy. The significance of the Polotsk Unification Council of 1839 encompasses several dimensions. Firstly, this event expanded the sphere of influence of Orthodoxy in the western provinces of the Russian Empire in the 19th century, fostering the state, religious, and cultural integration of the western and eastern segments of the Russian people up to the present day. Secondly, the Polotsk Council marked the conclusion of an era in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church known as the era of division. It commenced in the mid-15th century with the canonical division of the Kiev Metropolia, which remained under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from the autocephalous Moscow Metropolia. This resulted in the decline of church activity in the Belarusian-Ukrainian territories and culminated in the establishment of the Brest Church Union at the end of the 16th century. The Brest Church Union aimed to supplant Orthodoxy and permanently eliminate it from the lives of the Western Russian populace. In reality, it further fragmented the population along religious lines, while also serving as a tool for the denationalization of the ancestors of modern Belarusians and Ukrainians. Formally, the canonical division of the Russian Church was resolved by the end of the 17th century when, in 1686, the Orthodox Christians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth joined the Moscow Patriarchate. But the outcome of the canonical division, the division of the Belarusian-Ukrainian population into Orthodox and Uniates, was only finally reconciled at the Polotsk Council of the Uniate clergy in 1839. Thirdly, the significance of the Polotsk Council lies in its profound impact on the modern Belarusian sector of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as its role in shaping the spiritual, cultural, and national identity of the Belarusian people. At the beginning of the 21st century, in the Republic of Belarus, approximately 85% of believers identify themselves as Orthodox Christians, a trend largely attributed to the events surrounding the preparation and execution of the Polotsk Council, and subsequently, the integration of former Uniates into the Russian Orthodox Church. The strength of the Orthodox Church's position in Belarus has endured the test of time and significant trials in the mid-19th and 20th centuries, affirming the religious and popular validity of the abolition of the union in Russia in 1839.

The article provides an analysis of the ecclesiological principles outlined in the conciliar petition of the Church Council of Polotsk in 1839. The necessity of considering them is justified to understand the essence of the conciliar decision adopted and the use of appropriate terminology. This methodological approach is coupled with an examination of the historical context surrounding the abolition of the union. Attention is focused on the union in terms of subordination to the Pope, which involved the acknowledgment of all the aspects of the Catholic faith and had a negative impact on the preservation of traditional rituals and Eastern spirituality within the union. Conversely, the restoration of Orthodox worship resulted in the revitalization of church self-awareness, aiding the Uniates in rediscovering their identity and emerging from a subordinate and oppressed state. The leadership qualities exhibited by Bishop Joseph (Semashko) and the younger generation of Uniate priests, in particular, were instrumental in facilitating this process. The article also elucidates why the conciliar petition of the Church Council of Polotsk acknowledged the status of the Orthodox church without directly addressing the renunciation of the Roman pope and Catholic dogma. Instead, it focused on external dependence and adverse circumstances that had a detrimental impact on church life within the union. The corresponding acknowledgment of Orthodoxy in the Lithuanian and Belarusian territories was conveyed in the response letter from the Holy Synod. This letter acknowledged Uniate bishops in their rightful positions, obviating the need for any formal act of joining the Church. As a result, the author concluded that the theology of the Church Council of Polotsk in 1839 woud most accurately be defined as the ecclesiology of the reunification of the disparate parts of the Russian Church. Only in this regard can the decision taken at it be recognized as canonically justified and legitimate.

The resolution of the Uniate schism marked a pivotal moment in Emperor Nicholas I's reign. Initially, there were no indications or plans for substantial changes in policies regarding the Empire's western territories. Petersburg adhered to the tradition of dialogue with the first estate, while Nicholas upheld his predecessor's stance towards the Kingdom of Poland. Viewing the Constitution of 1815 as part of his heritage, Nicholas assumed the title of King of Congress Poland and displayed considerable generosity towards his Polish subjects. Russo-BritishFrench collaboration on the Eastern question, particularly in addressing the pressing Greek issue, created favorable external political circumstances for Petersburg before the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829. This period seemingly marked the end of the monarchical solidarity of the Holy Alliance and preserved the status quo of the Vienna System. However, the revolutionary events of 1830 precipitated significant changes. The demise of the Bourbons severed the possibility of allied or partnership relations with Paris for the foreseeable future. Following the deposition of the Romanovs, sanctioned by the Sejm of rebels in January 1831, the Russo-Polish conflict erupted, resulting in the further dissolution of Polish statehood. Consequently, Emperor’s trust in the Polish nobility waned. The first Egyptian crisis of 1833 reignited tensions among European powers, and by 1836,  relations between Petersburg and London teetered on the brink of war for the first time in years. The second Turkish-Egyptian crisis of 1839–1840 once again altered the diplomatical landscape. France, the most ardent supporter of the Poles after 1831, found itself isolated. Austria, as the second Catholic State, aligned itself with Russia. As for Great Britain, the religious policy of London, while supporting the Papal State in Italy, was quite distant from supporting Catholicism in their own territories, especially in Ireland. All these factors created favorable conditions for the reform of 1839.

The article focuses on the perception of Orthodoxy and Uniatism within Russian intellectual circles on the eve of the reunification of Belarusian Uniates with the Orthodox Church in 1839. The article also examines the religious perspectives of both governmental figures (S. S. Uvarov, M. M. Speransky) and public figures (N. M. Karamzin, A. S. Sturdza, A. S. Pushkin, N. G. Ustryalov, D. N. Bantysh-Kamensky, I. I. Sreznevsky, P. Ya. Chaadaev). In the 1810s and 1830s, secular circles began to formulate ideas about Orthodoxy as a religion of love, firmly rooted in the original Christian tradition. Orthodoxy was regarded as a religion characterized by dogmatic certainty, devoid of relativism and false mysticism. The primary distinction from Catholicism lay in the absence of a pursuit for secular power, and consequently, a rejection of the practice of violence. Additionally, the Orthodox Church was viewed as the historical church of the Russian people. The author of the article concludes that by this time, a significant segment of society, particularly those concerned with religious matters, had already developed relatively stable ideas about the union. The union was perceived as the result of religious manipulation and coercion by papal Rome, as well as the enticement of certain Western Russian church hierarchs. The article underscores the Orthodox population’s rejection of the union within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, particularly among the common people. Hence, the effort to overcome the union was deemed justified. Furthermore, the Uniates could not be regarded as fully integrated members of the Russian people until they were reunited with both the Church and the Russian national spirit. Within the framework of the intellectual circles’ ideas that emerged during that period, religious and secular reasoning were closely interwoven and found historical validation.

In the 19th to early 20th century, the ethno-cultural landscape of Eastern Galicia was significantly shaped by the ideological legacy of prominent figures in the local GalicianRussian movement. They advocated   for   the   recognition   of the triune Russian people, comprising Great Russians, Little Russians, and Belarusians. One of the foremost representatives and ideologues of the Galician-Russian movement was Ivan Grigorievich Naumovich (1826–1891), who stood as one of the most eminent public and church figures of Ruthenia. Being a Greek Catholic priest who later converted to Orthodoxy and emigrated from Austria-Hungary to Russia for political reasons, John Naumovich served as a staunch advocate for the GalicianRussian peasantry, holding positions as a deputy in the Galician Sejm and the Austrian Reichsrat. He also spearheaded the 'ritual' movement within the Greek Catholic Church, aimed at safeguarding the Eastern rite from Romanization. Additionally, he played a pivotal role as an educator of the Galician-Russian populace. At the initiative of John Naumovich in 1874, the Mykhailo Kachkovsky Cultural and Educational Society was established in Galicia. This society played a significant role in the advancement of education and the elevation of the economic and cultural status of the Galician Rusyns. In his works, John Naumovich analysed the socio-cultural causes and political prerequisites of the Union, as well as the mechanism of its implementation and its subsequent devastating consequences for the indigenous Orthodox population of Western Russia. John Naumovich regarded the Church Council of Polotsk as a triumph of historical justice—an act of rectifying the tragic consequences of the Church Council of Brest by reuniting the Belarusian Uniates with the “ancestral Eastern Orthodox Church”. Naumovich emphasized the primordial Orthodoxy of “our ancestors” from the time of the christianisation of Rus' until 1596, when the connection of the church in Western Russia “with the Eastern Orthodox Church was broken by uninvited newcomers from the West who imposed the Union on our fathers”. However, as argued by John Naumovich, what was imposed by flattery and violence “by strangers not for the sake of the truth of Christ and the salvation of souls, but for the sake of the love of power of the popes and the political expectations of the Polish Republic, began to crumble after the unification of the Lithuanian-Russian regions of Poland with Russia”. According to John Naumovich, the Uniate church was led by fathers “filled with the apostolic spirit, who opened the eyes of the people and called them to reunification”. In John Naumovich's view, Metropolitan Joseph (Semashko) and his associates were precisely such apostolic fathers, whose efforts led to the reunification of all Western Russian regions with the ancient Orthodox Church.

The Brest Church Union, concluded in 1596 by the Metropolis of Kyiv with Rome, caused a split, or even a schism, in Western Russian society. A significant part of the clergy and Orthodox laypeople from various social strata united against it, including many of those who had initiated the union. The weakness of the union stemmed from the significant differences between its conditions and those formulated by the Orthodox side during its preparation, as well as the absence of the desired outcome — primarily the equalization of the rights of the Eastern Christian population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with Catholics. In these conditions, the Uniates faced the task of justifying their decision with historical evidence, which should have   proved the inevitability of their choice. They needed to demonstrate that the union with Rome had been established in Rus' since its Christianization, and the decisions of the Church Council of Brest were merely a return to the faith of their ancestors. In practice, they were tasked with providing a new interpretation of Russian history. This new concept was most comprehensively presented in the writing “A Defense of Church Unity” by Archimandrite of the Uniate monastery in Vilnius, Lev Krevza, in 1617, which was also authored by Archbishop of Polotsk, Josaphat Kuntsevych. They portrayed the entirety of history as evidence of Rus' allegiance to Rome, which was only interrupted a few times. As a result of this narrative, the Orthodox Church appears as a relatively recent phenomenon that disrupts the traditional course of Russian history. The analysis of Krevza's and Kuntsevych's depiction of the Russian past reveals that they were proponents of a largely secularized historical perspective heavily influenced by Western Baroque culture. This is clearly evident when comparing their texts with Orthodox responses, particularly in their general approach to historical processes and the historical figures involved, as well as the use of identity concepts. All of this suggests that the post-Brest Uniatism emerged as a new phenomenon, shaped by largely Western early modernist forms of culture that were still foreign to the local Russian tradition at that time.

The article explores the established practice of Uniate clergy delivering sermons in Polish within the Uniate Church in Belarusian lands at the onset of the 19th century. It also delves into the responses of Russian authorities and Orthodox clergy regarding this matter. A significant challenge encountered by Orthodox hierarchs in Belarusian dioceses during the post-Polotsk era was the custom of delivering sermons in Polish, also known as the “Belarusian-Polish dialect”, within Uniate churches. This tradition had been established since the late 18th to early 19th centuries. The article sheds light on the efforts made by Western Russian Orthodox hierarchs to address the language issue. The conclusion drawn is that the Russian Orthodox Church’s activity in Belarus played a foundational role in the emergence of the modern Belarusian people as an integral part of Eastern Christian civilization.