The author poses a hypothesis that Peter Damian did not make a mistake placing the last missionary expedition of Bruno Boniface of Querfurt in Rus and that the missionary activity of a Latin bishop in Vladimir’s country in the beginnings of the 11th century was certainly possible. The author starts with quoting one of the basic sources pertaining to the life and work of Bruno Boniface of Querfurt, mainly The Life of St. Romuald by Peter Damian, written around 1040. In the main part of the article, the author deals with one of the main objections to Damian’s work, that is pointing to Rus as the place of evangelisation mission conducted by Bruno Boniface. In the author’s opinion the allegation that Peter Damian was wrong when he wrote about Rus and the Russian Church being proud of “a very eminent nobleman Boniface” was too hasty. The author claims it was caused by transferring to the 11th century the experiences and the way of thinking of people from later centuries and making use of schemata which sometimes have little in common with the reality of the 11th century. The author refers to historical research on the borders and structure of medieval states. She tries to show that it was a mistake to transfer the Catholic and Russian Orthodox mutual animosity or even enmity into the 11th century. (The following examples discussed by the author testify to a feeling of ecclesial unity of the Russian Church with the Latin Church: bishop’s chirotony on Vladimir’s land mentioned by Bruno of Querfurt in his letter to king Henry, the activity of Latin bishop Reinbern in Rus and the cult of some saints – Clement, the pope as the first patron of Russian state, the adoption by western Christians of the cult of Leontij, the bishop of Rostov)