The term "Kyivan theological tradition" is not commonly used. With the light hand of Georgy Florovsky, the works of Kyivan authors have been suspected for several decades of distortion (pseudo-metamorphosis) of true Byzantine Orthodoxy. This thesis, eagerly taken up by Russian historiography, is reinforced by the illustration of Western borrowings in the works of Kyivan Orthodox authors and is also to be found among contemporary theologians and historians, who seem to be forced to apologise for the "Latinism" of Kyivan authors. Not better is the situation with the appraisals of the Uniate theology. Scholars underlined that the Uniat Church broken the connection between lex credendi and lex orandi accepting the Catholic theology and thus lost the integrity between its theological and liturgical life that is of a great importance in the Eastern Church. Most of the scholars, however, did not consider the fact that the Eastern Christian theology at the beginning of the 17th century was still dogmatised that left a certain space for independent theologising and interconfessional debates. Kyivan controversial theology aimed to draw a clear line between the Kyivan and other traditions. The late 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries was a golden age of Kyivan theology that moved in many directions: anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish ones. Without breaking with their declared loyalty to the Byzantine tradition, Kyivan intellectuals came under the influence of Western post-Triduum theology in virtually all its areas: Mariology, Christology, soteriology, angelology, asceticism, etc. Despite the criticism from Moscow, Kyiv, as Natalia Yakovenko aptly puts it, lived "in its own theological and intellectual rhythm."