Kyiv version of Church Slavonic: pros and cons
Today, the topic of using the Kyiv version of the Church Slavonic language in worship has cropped up. What are the reasons and what could be the consequences?
It is probably clear to all church people that the Church Slavonic language used in the liturgy today differs from the language that was in use several hundred years ago, when Ukraine was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Kyiv Metropolis was under the Constantinople Patriarchate.
However, while these linguistic features were of interest only to linguists in the past, today they attract the attention of a considerable number of people. And not only are they interested; some are calling for the return of the ancient Kyiv version of the Church Slavonic language to the modern liturgical practice of the UOC. For example, on March 14, 2025, on the resource Dialog.tut, priest Yuriy Petrolyuk published a rather detailed article titled “Kyiv Version: Innovation or Museum Exhibit?” in which he calls for the broader use of this language in worship.
What is the Kyiv Version
The main features of the Kyiv version are as follows:
- “Ukrainian” phonetics of vowels. For example, pronouncing “ы” instead of “и,” “э” instead of “е,” and so on.
- “Ukrainian” pronunciation of Church Slavonic determines the stress on words according to Ukrainian rules of accentuation. In words with long and short vowels, the stress most often falls on the penultimate syllable.
- “Ukrainian” pronunciation takes into account Ukrainian rhythmic features and intonation.
The most common opinion about what the Kyiv version of the Church Slavonic language is and how it relates to the modern Church Slavonic language is as follows: it is the Church Slavonic language that was used on the territory of modern Ukraine before its incorporation into the Russian Empire and before the Kyiv Metropolis joined the ROC. After these events, Russian emperors banned the use of the Kyiv version, and instead, the Moscow version was forcibly imposed, which is the basis of the modern Church Slavonic language.
This opinion is only partially correct. In reality, things were somewhat different.
Indeed, before the annexation of Ukraine to the Russian Empire and the Kyiv Metropolis to the ROC, the so-called Kyiv version of the Church Slavonic language was in use on the lands of our country. Very simplistically, this can be represented as follows: starting from the 13th-14th centuries, when two political centers emerged, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Moscow, different versions of the Church Slavonic language formed in these centers, conditionally speaking, the Kyiv and Moscow versions (there were others, but let’s not complicate things). This occurred under the influence of both local linguistic features and the level of education of church scribes, as at that time this factor played a significant role in the correctness of the language used to write religious and liturgical books. In the Lithuanian duchy, and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, this level was significantly higher, as the contacts of our scribes with Greek and European written sources were at a higher level.
By the 17th century, a considerable number of errors had accumulated in liturgical and doctrinal books in Moscow Rus. The need to correct these books, as well as liturgical rites, was recognized by almost all literate people of that time. The question was which sources to use to verify these books and make corrections. On the one hand, Greek and Ukrainian sources were more reliable and accurate, but on the other hand, there were many people in Moscow who did not trust these sources.
They argued that Greek books could be corrupted by the influence of the Muslim Turks, who had controlled Constantinople and Asia Minor since the 15th century, while Ukrainian ones could be influenced by the Catholics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As a result, the Moscow Patriarch Nikon decided the issue by force and rigorously carried out a reform mainly based on Ukrainian and partly Greek sources. His opponents hardened in their adherence to the old books, old rites, and the old Moscow version of the Church Slavonic language, separated from the Patriarchal Church, and formed the schism of the Old Believers, which still exists today.
And in the Patriarchal Church, under whose jurisdiction the Kyiv Metropolis fell in 1686, as a result of Nikon's reforms and their further continuation, a new Church Slavonic language was formed, the so-called Synodal version, the basis of which was the Kyiv version, which was primarily used to correct Moscow liturgical books. At the same time, the influence of the Moscow version was also significant.
Thus, in the modern Church Slavonic language, the influence of the Kyiv version predominates, while the old pre-Nikon Moscow version is preserved only among the Old Believers. This influence is due to nothing other than the intellectual and theological superiority (erudition) of Ukrainian church figures over the Moscow ones. It is logical in this context to mention the fact that after the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolis to the ROC, there was a mass replacement of episcopal sees and higher church positions by people from Ukraine, who were more educated and learned. For a time, almost all dioceses in the Russian Empire were headed by Ukrainian bishops.
However, of course, one cannot deny the fact that in 1720 Peter the Great banned the printing of books and conducting services in the Church Slavonic language of the Kyiv version.
Criteria for evaluation
When evaluating the idea of returning the Kyiv version to modern worship practices, one should first remember the following.
First, worship is primarily prayer. And prayer, according to the unanimous opinion of all the holy fathers, is the elevation of the mind and heart to God. It is not about receiving aesthetic pleasure from the beauty of worship, not about the satisfaction of realizing that we are using our ancient language, not a declaration of our national identity, but the elevation of the mind and heart to God.
Second, for the mind and heart to be lifted to God, the language of worship must be understandable to the praying people. To modern praying people. And this is something more than just modernizing the liturgical language. It is the expression of the most elevated concepts about God, man, the universe, and salvation in words accessible to our understanding. Very often, these concepts cannot simply be expressed in modern languages, and such attempts lead to a impoverishment of meanings, and often to their distortion.
To make the language accessible for understanding, one cannot simply take and translate the liturgy from Church Slavonic into Ukrainian or other languages. More productive in this regard is not the modernization of worship, but one’s own spiritual and intellectual efforts directed at understanding Church Slavonic worship. Although, of course, making certain changes to Church Slavonic texts is sometimes necessary.
And third, the liturgical language should serve to unite believers, not to differentiate them.
Pros of introducing the Kyiv version
The arguments put forward by supporters of using the Kyiv version generally boil down to the following points.
Firstly, the ROC’s stance in the Russian war against Ukraine, which, to put it mildly, is very far from the Gospel, creates a desire to distance oneself not only from this position but from everything associated with Moscow. And in the heat of this desire, the Church Slavonic language currently used in liturgical practice might very well be caught in the crossfire.
Secondly, there is the desire to justify oneself before the enemies of the UOC and somehow respond to their accusations that we pray "in the wrong language", venerate "the wrong saints", and continue to promote imperial narratives, which they claim also includes Church Slavonic.
Thirdly, many people sincerely wish to return to their roots, their ancient heritage and glorious past. This idealisation of the past is entirely natural both for society as a whole and for the individual. The sentiment of "things were better in the past" is widespread. In the above-mentioned article "Kyiv Version: Innovation or Museum Exhibit?", the author offers a rather detailed historical overview, explaining how this version was used, which notable figures spoke it, etc.
"For it is precisely this language that was used to address God by the righteous princes and princesses of ancient Rus'-Ukraine, in which most of the Kyiv Caves saints prayed for our homeland at different times, and in which the glorious knights of the Orthodox Ukrainian land – the Zaporizhian Cossacks – asked God for protection," writes Fr Yuriy Petroliuk. But that’s the thing: this is history. Our history, glorious and fascinating, but still – history. Not to mention that the language used by the Kyiv caves ascetics in the 11th-12th centuries differs greatly from the language the Cossacks addressed God in during the 16th-17th centuries.
Cons of introducing the Kyiv version
Imagine that the idea is accepted by the UOC leadership, and liturgical books of the Kyiv version are printed and sent to eparchies with instructions to only serve according to them from now on. Will this contribute to a better understanding of the liturgy among modern believers?
After all, aside from phonetic changes, as the populariser of the Kyiv version, Fr Oleksandr Klymenko, points out, the stress on many words needs to be altered. For example: радовАніє, божествЕнний, дарУй, сподобИ, любЯщий, гОрі, вЕрху, цАрю, утішИтелю, сУдище, бОлізнь, нЕдуг, нАпасть (Church Slavonic).
If the perception of the modern Church Slavonic language causes difficulties for many, how will the version used 300 years ago be perceived?
Among the supporters of the revival of the Kyiv version, one might find the opinion that it is an ideal option to reconcile those in favour of a complete transition to the Ukrainian language in the liturgy with the adherents of the Church Slavonic language. In essence, the Kyiv version is distancing form modern Ukrainian rather than approaching it. While the stress in some words might be phonetically closer to Ukrainian, in terms of meaning and concepts, it is the opposite – further away.
Will the liturgy in the Kyiv version help elevate the mind and heart of the faithful towards God? This question is even more rhetorical. The consciousness of believers, who are accustomed to the sound of modern Church Slavonic, will constantly be distracted by unfamiliar words, grammatical constructions, and unusual stress patterns.
And the third question: will all of this contribute to the unity and consolidation of Ukrainian believers? Clearly, the answer is no. Most people are likely to react negatively to this innovation. In some places, the Kyiv version will be accepted; and in others, it will not. And instead of uniting people, we will introduce yet another dividing factor. This time, based on the liturgical language. And what next? Will we follow the example of the current Ukrainian authorities and declare those who have switched to the Kyiv version patriots and everyone else collaborators?
Of course, describing the scenario of a complete transition to the Kyiv version is merely an exaggeration, intended to more vividly demonstrate the potential consequences. It is clear that in the foreseeable future, no one will be doing this. A much more likely scenario is the popularisation of the Kyiv version by enthusiasts and lovers of antiquity among as many parishes, monasteries, and eparchies as possible.
But even in this case, things are not so straightforward. In certain regions of Ukraine, particularly in the west, the sound of the Kyiv version, with its specific stresses and speech patterns, is more familiar to the ear of the people. For them, the use of this language in the liturgy might help focus the mind on the words of prayer. But for the majority of believers from other regions, this will have the opposite effect.
The motivation of those who advocate for a return to the Kyiv version is utterly flawed. It can be summarised as: "as long as it's not like the Muscovites." For example, Fr Oleksandr Klymenko, in his defence of the Kyiv version, wrote: "And in the modern Ukrainian language, there are also many words, the correct stress traditions of which have been unjustly forgotten, while in folk speech completely different, imposed, calqued forms from our northern unfortunate neighbour have taken root."
In other words, Ukrainians are being offered to abandon the language spoken by their ancestors for generations, simply because it doesn’t sound like the "Muscovites". However, this motivation is inherently destructive. From a philosophical point of view, confirmed by the whole of human history, only positive projects are viable. Negative projects, "anti" projects, lack their creative force and are therefore doomed to failure. We must create something of our own for our benefit and development, not just to ensure it is not like our unfortunate neighbour, without regard for them. Only then will we achieve something truly worthwhile.
Conclusions
The use of the Kyiv version, or any other version, should aim to focus the mind on the words of prayer, directing human consciousness towards God, fostering an understanding of the liturgy, and enabling the experience of the same prayerful states that the authors of the liturgical texts experienced. In other words, it should resonate with the living religious motivations of the modern person, not a longing for a glorious past or, even more so, an antagonism with anyone in the present.
In any case, no one should be forced to use any new language or version in the liturgy. Neither by decrees from the ecclesiastical hierarchy, nor by the authority of media church figures, nor through public censure or approval should anyone be compelled to change their habitual language of prayer. This should only happen naturally.
Before transitioning from the familiar modern Church Slavonic language to the Kyiv version, one must honestly ask themselves: will the use of this version make us more humble and more prayerful, or will it, on the contrary, fuel our pride because we are not like others – aggressors, imperialists, "Muscovites", etc.? Will the Kyiv version bring us closer to God or our glorious past, or will it simply distance us from Moscow? If the answer is positive, then, without a doubt, the transition to the Kyiv version will be justified and beneficial.
