Media review: "The Ninetieth Anniversary of the Estonian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)"
0 Comments Published by georgy on Thursday, April 3 at 9:05 PM.
At the end of 2007 the ninetieth anniversary of the establishment of a vicariate in Revel was solemnly celebrated. It was at this time that the Orthodox heritage in Estonia acquired for the first time an initial canonical diocesan structure as a local Church.
Orthodox Christianity in Estonia grew in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church over a thousand years. As early as 1030 the Russian prince Yaroslav the Wise founded the town of Yuriev (Tartu), where the first Orthodox Churches were built. Orthodoxy was established at the same time as Catholicism, which was preached by Franciscan monks, until the thirteenth century when the Orthodox tradition was forcibly ended by the expansion of the Crusaders. And yet, the Orthodox survived in Tartu until 1472 when the priest Isidor and seventy two parishioners were tortured, and the priest Ioann Shestnik (tonsured with the name Jonah), who fled from Tartu to Pskov, and founded the Pskov Monastery of the Caves, the abbot of which Cornelius preached Orthodoxy not only to the Estonians who lived in the vicinity of the monastery but went as far as Narva and founded parishes in Neihausen and other places.
The revival of Orthodoxy came not in the eighteenth century as one might have expected from an Orthodox power as a result of the Neistadt peace treaty and not with its presenting by the Sovereign and the Holy Synod, but in the middle of the nineteenth century, and then it first came in spite of them as a result of a spontaneous movement towards Orthodoxy among the Estonians, Latvians and Swedes. It was then that our Local Church began to form canonically: the see of Riga was founded first as a vicariate in 1836 and then as an independent Diocese in 1850, and then given special status within the Riga diocese in 1917 was the Revel vicariate, the head of which (and temporarily the head of the whole diocese) was the first Estonian bishop, the holy martyr Platon (Kulbush) . He was consecrated bishop on 31 December 1917 in the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn by holy martyr Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd and Archbishop Arseny of Luga. Thanks to the self-sacrificing love and care of the holy martyr Platon, Orthodox church life in Estonia blossomed in the most unfavourable circumstances. However, the episcopal ministry of the first Estonian bishop was short-lived. At the beginning of 1919 the Red commissars, when retreating from Tartu, shot him. He was canonized in 2000 by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In 1920 His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of All Russia granted autonomy to the newly-formed Estonian Orthodox Church, from among which Fr. Alexander Paulus was elected and consecrated bishop at the end of the same year by Archbishop Yevsevy of Pskov and Bishop Seraphim of Finland and appointed to the see of the archbishop of Revel, having taken the corresponding oath of loyalty to the Patriarch of Moscow and all the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The newly-formed Estonian state wanted to see in the independent republic the same independent (i.e. exclusively dependent upon it) religious structures and in this regard exerted political pressure on the Estonian Orthodox Church. The atheistic persecution and confusion in church life in the USSR was the reason for Bishop Alexander to appeal in 1923 for autocephalous status from Patriarch Meletius (Metaxakis), who, however, did not grant the requested autocephaly but merely gave to the 'Estonian Orthodox Metropolia' the corresponding Tome of autonomy in his jurisdiction, justifying in the text of this document his uncanonical step (the reception without a letter of dismissal from the Mother Church) by the exceptional circumstances which temporarily disrupted communications between the daughter Church and the Patriarch of Moscow.
The only role played by Patriarch Meletius' Tome in the further establishment of Estonian Orthodoxy is the separation of the Estonian flock from the Mother Church. It has never been implemented in all other aspects in Estonia. The 'Estonian Orthodox Metropolia,' as the 'Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church' (henceforth the EAOC) was officially called, was divided not into three (as the Tome prescribed) but two dioceses - Tallinn and Narva.
At the same time this division was made not on territorial lines in accord with the canons of the Church, but according to the criteria of nationality: the diocese of Tallinn consisted mainly of Estonian and mixed parishes (it included the Convent of Puhtica under the direct jurisdiction of the metropolitan), while the diocese of Narva was made up mainly of Russian communities.
Finally, the Statutes adopted by the EAOC in 1935 were more akin to those of an autocephalous, i.e. completely independent, rather than an autonomous Church. It mentions nothing about any dependence on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, even with regard to the election of a new primate.
In accepting Estonian Orthodoxy under its omophorion, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did exactly nothing for its strengthening. Not a single of its bishops visited Estonia in the eighteen years (1923 to 1941) of our Church existing under its canonical jurisdiction.
When in 1940 Estonia was annexed to the Soviet Union, Metropolitan Alexander canvassed the opinion of the clergy and undertook attempts at reunification with the Russian Orthodox Church. At first he thought that the events of 1923 would be perceived as having no canonical significance, as though no infraction of ecclesiastical norms had occurred. He asserted that unity with the Mother Church had been maintained. Yet the then head of the Russian Church Metropolitan Sergy (Stragorodsky) declared with no ambiguity that before the judgment of Holy Tradition the aforementioned events ought to be viewed as a schism, and therefore repentance should be forthcoming. Metropolitan Alexander was also warned that it would be impossible to preserve the autonomous status which was granted by Patriarch Tikhon in conditions when Estonia was an independent state. These conditions were again discussed, and after Metropolitan Alexander appealed for a second time to Metropolitan Sergy to 'forgive in love the involuntary sin of apostasy,' our Church was reunited in 1941 with the Moscow Patriarchate.
With the beginning of the war Metropolitan Alexander again betrayed his oath and broke with the Moscow Patriarchate, for which, after long admonitions, he was suspended from his ministry by all four hierarchs of the Baltic Exarchate and dismissed from administering the diocese. This did not prevent him (thanks to the policy of the German authorities aimed at dividing Orthodox believers) from preserving his authority over the Estonian-speaking and mixed parishes of the diocese of Tallinn.
In 1944 Metropolitan Alexander abandoned Estonia together with twenty-two priests. Until his death in Stockholm in 1953 not once did he address Orthodox believers in Estonia with a single epistle, which would affirm the fact that he recognized himself to be the archpastor of only those who abandoned the territory of the Church which he had at one time nourished.
A canonical end to this story was put by Patriarch Dimitrios of Constantinople, who in his letter to Metropolitan Paulus of Scandinavia on 3 May 1978 recognized the Tome of Patriarch Meletius as having lost its authority 'as normal canonical contacts with the Holy Russian Orthodox Church, of which the Orthodox Church of Estonia was once a part, have become possible.' Vladyka Paulus was entrusted only with the foreign Estonian parishes in Scandinavia. The function of the coordinating centre of the Estonia Orthodox diaspora was carried out by the 'Synod of the EAOC' formed in Stockholm in 1948.
At the same time in Estonia we had the 'building of communism,' which included a hostile battle with religion. Our Church, in changing its status, name, and external structure (depending on the need for the functioning of the Church's mission), adapted itself to external circumstances and, in continuing its ministry unceasingly, preserved its essence unharmed in conditions of atheist persecution. One of those who in the Soviet period preserved our Church from destruction is the present-day Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, who administered the diocese of Tallinn for twenty-nine years from 1961 to 1990, i.e. longer than all the archpastors of Estonia, and managed in the most difficult of conditions to defend and save from closure the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn, the Puhtica Convent and many churches.
In 1991 Estonian independence was re-established. However, the trials of our Church did not end with the rule of the Bolsheviks.
In 1991 the Orthodox Church in Estonia was officially registered and in June 1992 by decision of the Tallinn city court it was recognized as a subject of property reform (so restitution in Estonia is called). In August of the same year the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church headed by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II granted the Orthodox Church of Estonia 'independence in ecclesiastical, administrative, economic, educational and civil affairs.' Thus the autonomy granted by Patriarch Tikhon in 1920 was in effect restored.
However, a small group of priests and laymen began to work in another direction. They declared that the diocese of Tallinn was a puppet structure of the Russian Orthodox Church, which had broken off the legitimate activity of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church on the territory of Estonia. Yet the activity of the latter continued abroad; the Foreign Synod of the EAOC in Stockholm was an analogy of a 'government in exile.' The restoration of autonomous status at the same time was linked to a mandatory exit from the Moscow Patriarchate. The supporters of this decision viewed ecclesiastical problems through the prism of worldly stereotypes, referring not to the commandments of the Gospel and Church tradition, but to concepts and tendencies characteristic of the times.
On 29 April 1993 Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia solemnly granted to our Church at its Local Council a Tome on the restoration of its autonomy. Thus the confirmation of self-governing status was finally completed. The Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs was promptly made known of this and informed that on the basis of the Statutes of the EAOC of 1935 its redaction, brought into conformity with the realities of the time, would soon be presented for registration. However, in August of the same year the Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs, guided by political motives, registered under the historic title the structure 'Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church', which from the beginning consisted of a mere handful of parishes represented by the Stockholm 'Synod.' State officials recognized the small schismatic part as the legal successor of the entire pre-war Orthodox Church in Estonia with all the judicial and property consequences of this decision, while our Church found itself outside the law for nine years. The Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was recognized by the Estonian state only in 2002 after long and difficult negotiations, during which it was necessary to turn attention on numerous occasions to the serious infractions of the rights of the second largest religious community in the country (after the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church).
Pressure was placed upon those parishes that did not join the 'Stockholm Synod'; there were official threats to drive people from their churches. In a slandering press campaign the martyr Church was declared to be an 'occupation' Church, while those who had fled and avoided repression were awarded a martyr's crown. The confessors who preserved the faith and, as far as possible in conditions of atheist persecution, church buildings, were smeared as collaborators. The tabloid press screamed, 'Take Archbishop Cornelius to Court!' and published mocking caricatures of him. At the same time it was forgotten that Vladyka Cornelius had in fact been in the very same court under Soviet rule and was sentenced to prison in a Soviet concentration camp for being a pastor.
The crowning moment of the rude intervention of the political establishment into church life were the personal appeals of the Estonian Prime Minister M. Laar and then Estonian President L. Meri to the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive the 'EAOC' into its jurisdiction. As a result, an international conflict flared up, the consequences of which were felt beyond Estonia and threatened to destroy the whole world Orthodox family.
On 20 February 1996 Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople officially received under his omophorion the clerics and laymen of our Church who had gone into schism by proclaiming the formation of his jurisdiction in Estonia. In response there followed the breaking off of prayerful communion between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople, which was restored later that year after negotiations between representatives of both sides in Zurich. In order to avert a schism within Universal Orthodoxy the Moscow Patriarchate made a serious concession in agreeing to grant equal rights in the sphere of civil and legal rights and property divided among the Orthodox of Estonia in accordance with the wishes of the parishes and the removal of the bans upon those clerics who betrayed their oath, as well as also serving in turn in disputed parishes. The Moscow Patriarchate promptly fulfilled all the conditions while the other side did not fulfill a single one. Nevertheless, the negotiations continued. Delegations of the two patriarchates signed a draft agreement in Berlin in February of 2001 providing for the normalization of relations between the two jurisdictions and the resolution of the problem of church buildings in the spirit of the Zurich accords. Several days later the draft was confirmed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. But what did Constantinople do? Before long a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Estonia declared that the Russian Orthodox Church had interpreted the Zurich accords incorrectly and there can be no question of equal rights: two autonomous churches on the same territory is uncanonical! No further comment is necessary, as they say.
It was not enough that the leadership of the Constantinople jurisdiction in Estonia did not enable the realization of the aforementioned accords on equal rights (as before, the majority of our parishes have to rent their church buildings) but continues to discredit the EOC of the Moscow Patriarchate. We are described as being avaricious for our insistence on having property rights. At the same time it is forgotten that we have renounced claims to the land and houses that once belonged to our parishes, having requested that we are given back our sacred objects as property without having to fear any 'surprises'. The present head of the EOC Metropolitan Stephanos, appointed to the Tallinn see by the Patriarch of Constantinople, in spite of the fact that it is legitimately occupied by Vladyka Cornelius, to this day does not speak Estonian (unlike Metropolitan Cornelius and His Holiness Alexy II), and never misses an opportunity to portray the EOC of the Moscow Patriarchate in the eyes of the state as a 'fifth column.' When the EAOC joined the World Council of Churches, Metropolitan Stephanos promised that he would not hinder our re-entry into the same organization (of which we could not be members as a result of not being registered by the state, even though we are one of its founders). The good bishop's memory failed him as soon as the question was put on the table And what of the article by Metropolitan Stephanos in the Greek Newspaper Vima in 2006 where Patriarch Alexy II is declared to be a 'supporter of the Zionist system' and persecutor of Estonian Orthodoxy?
In 2002 The Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs registered our Church with the title 'Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.' We were obliged to renounce the historical title of 'Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church' in order to register our statutes. Soon protocols of intent between the Republic of Estonia, the EAOC of Constantinople and the EOC of the Moscow Patriarchate were signed. In accordance with these protocols agreement was reached on those churches of ours which were recognized as being a part of restitution to the jurisdiction of Constantinople but where the corresponding parish communities did not wish to break their canonical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. These churches, after payment by the authorities of a significant sum 'for the restoration of cult objects' were handed over to the EAOC as property by the state, which in its turn rented them to the parishes that worship in them. Thus, with rare exceptions, we have to rent our own churches. At the same time the leadership of the EAOC put forward one condition: the state has no right to hand over these church buildings as property of our Church. What is behind this? Maybe the hope that in time the will of the parishioners will be broken and these communities will be transferred to an ecclesiastical organization that has nothing in common with the Russian Church? It is worth noting that the EAOC has received as its own property not only all its church buildings but also land and residential houses, including those that historically belonged to our parishes Much of this property has already been sold off.
Glory be to God for our registration in 2002, and heartfelt gratitude to those who made it possible and continue to have an interest in the complete liquidation of the conflict by being prepared for new judicial acts in this direction. We also hope for good will on the part of the EAOC, the head of which - Metropolitan Stephanos - has many times put forward the initiative of restoring complete prayerful communion (concelebration of clergy, receiving of the Eucharist in both our Churches, etc.). And every time it has been explained to him, even by His Holiness Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, that the resolution of this problem is completely dependent upon the observance of the aforementioned Zurich accords.
It is essential for all to understand the following: in placing prayerful communion with the EAOC dependent upon the observance by its leadership of the conditions of equal rights agreed on in Zurich we are not fighting for any material gain, as our opponents claim. If on their part the transfer to us of the property of our church buildings is proposed in exchange for the Moscow Patriarchate recognizing their autonomy, then we do not bargain canonical truth. The change of property status, the transfer from being tenants of the church buildings constructed by our ancestors to being property owners is a matter of principle, rather than of material gain. The schism can only then be healed when the bad consequences of a judicial and property nature can be corrected. The next stage can be for the two Patriarchates to view the question of regulating the canonical status of Estonian Orthodoxy, including the problem of mutual relations between our Church and the ecclesiastical structure within the Patriarchate of Constantinople and recognized by the latter to be an autonomous Church. The notion of serious discussion on this topic before the implementation of the Zurich accords, which the Moscow Patriarchate agreed to with very many concessions so that world Orthodoxy would not be irreparably split, is incompatible with our dignity and with the defense of the legitimate rights of our flock.
We do not want to create a mere appearance of well-being, yet we hope to attain full communion, when from the depths of our heart we can say to each other: 'Christ is in our midst! - He is and shall be!'
Orthodox Christianity in Estonia grew in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church over a thousand years. As early as 1030 the Russian prince Yaroslav the Wise founded the town of Yuriev (Tartu), where the first Orthodox Churches were built. Orthodoxy was established at the same time as Catholicism, which was preached by Franciscan monks, until the thirteenth century when the Orthodox tradition was forcibly ended by the expansion of the Crusaders. And yet, the Orthodox survived in Tartu until 1472 when the priest Isidor and seventy two parishioners were tortured, and the priest Ioann Shestnik (tonsured with the name Jonah), who fled from Tartu to Pskov, and founded the Pskov Monastery of the Caves, the abbot of which Cornelius preached Orthodoxy not only to the Estonians who lived in the vicinity of the monastery but went as far as Narva and founded parishes in Neihausen and other places.
The revival of Orthodoxy came not in the eighteenth century as one might have expected from an Orthodox power as a result of the Neistadt peace treaty and not with its presenting by the Sovereign and the Holy Synod, but in the middle of the nineteenth century, and then it first came in spite of them as a result of a spontaneous movement towards Orthodoxy among the Estonians, Latvians and Swedes. It was then that our Local Church began to form canonically: the see of Riga was founded first as a vicariate in 1836 and then as an independent Diocese in 1850, and then given special status within the Riga diocese in 1917 was the Revel vicariate, the head of which (and temporarily the head of the whole diocese) was the first Estonian bishop, the holy martyr Platon (Kulbush) . He was consecrated bishop on 31 December 1917 in the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn by holy martyr Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd and Archbishop Arseny of Luga. Thanks to the self-sacrificing love and care of the holy martyr Platon, Orthodox church life in Estonia blossomed in the most unfavourable circumstances. However, the episcopal ministry of the first Estonian bishop was short-lived. At the beginning of 1919 the Red commissars, when retreating from Tartu, shot him. He was canonized in 2000 by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In 1920 His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of All Russia granted autonomy to the newly-formed Estonian Orthodox Church, from among which Fr. Alexander Paulus was elected and consecrated bishop at the end of the same year by Archbishop Yevsevy of Pskov and Bishop Seraphim of Finland and appointed to the see of the archbishop of Revel, having taken the corresponding oath of loyalty to the Patriarch of Moscow and all the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The newly-formed Estonian state wanted to see in the independent republic the same independent (i.e. exclusively dependent upon it) religious structures and in this regard exerted political pressure on the Estonian Orthodox Church. The atheistic persecution and confusion in church life in the USSR was the reason for Bishop Alexander to appeal in 1923 for autocephalous status from Patriarch Meletius (Metaxakis), who, however, did not grant the requested autocephaly but merely gave to the 'Estonian Orthodox Metropolia' the corresponding Tome of autonomy in his jurisdiction, justifying in the text of this document his uncanonical step (the reception without a letter of dismissal from the Mother Church) by the exceptional circumstances which temporarily disrupted communications between the daughter Church and the Patriarch of Moscow.
The only role played by Patriarch Meletius' Tome in the further establishment of Estonian Orthodoxy is the separation of the Estonian flock from the Mother Church. It has never been implemented in all other aspects in Estonia. The 'Estonian Orthodox Metropolia,' as the 'Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church' (henceforth the EAOC) was officially called, was divided not into three (as the Tome prescribed) but two dioceses - Tallinn and Narva.
At the same time this division was made not on territorial lines in accord with the canons of the Church, but according to the criteria of nationality: the diocese of Tallinn consisted mainly of Estonian and mixed parishes (it included the Convent of Puhtica under the direct jurisdiction of the metropolitan), while the diocese of Narva was made up mainly of Russian communities.
Finally, the Statutes adopted by the EAOC in 1935 were more akin to those of an autocephalous, i.e. completely independent, rather than an autonomous Church. It mentions nothing about any dependence on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, even with regard to the election of a new primate.
In accepting Estonian Orthodoxy under its omophorion, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did exactly nothing for its strengthening. Not a single of its bishops visited Estonia in the eighteen years (1923 to 1941) of our Church existing under its canonical jurisdiction.
When in 1940 Estonia was annexed to the Soviet Union, Metropolitan Alexander canvassed the opinion of the clergy and undertook attempts at reunification with the Russian Orthodox Church. At first he thought that the events of 1923 would be perceived as having no canonical significance, as though no infraction of ecclesiastical norms had occurred. He asserted that unity with the Mother Church had been maintained. Yet the then head of the Russian Church Metropolitan Sergy (Stragorodsky) declared with no ambiguity that before the judgment of Holy Tradition the aforementioned events ought to be viewed as a schism, and therefore repentance should be forthcoming. Metropolitan Alexander was also warned that it would be impossible to preserve the autonomous status which was granted by Patriarch Tikhon in conditions when Estonia was an independent state. These conditions were again discussed, and after Metropolitan Alexander appealed for a second time to Metropolitan Sergy to 'forgive in love the involuntary sin of apostasy,' our Church was reunited in 1941 with the Moscow Patriarchate.
With the beginning of the war Metropolitan Alexander again betrayed his oath and broke with the Moscow Patriarchate, for which, after long admonitions, he was suspended from his ministry by all four hierarchs of the Baltic Exarchate and dismissed from administering the diocese. This did not prevent him (thanks to the policy of the German authorities aimed at dividing Orthodox believers) from preserving his authority over the Estonian-speaking and mixed parishes of the diocese of Tallinn.
In 1944 Metropolitan Alexander abandoned Estonia together with twenty-two priests. Until his death in Stockholm in 1953 not once did he address Orthodox believers in Estonia with a single epistle, which would affirm the fact that he recognized himself to be the archpastor of only those who abandoned the territory of the Church which he had at one time nourished.
A canonical end to this story was put by Patriarch Dimitrios of Constantinople, who in his letter to Metropolitan Paulus of Scandinavia on 3 May 1978 recognized the Tome of Patriarch Meletius as having lost its authority 'as normal canonical contacts with the Holy Russian Orthodox Church, of which the Orthodox Church of Estonia was once a part, have become possible.' Vladyka Paulus was entrusted only with the foreign Estonian parishes in Scandinavia. The function of the coordinating centre of the Estonia Orthodox diaspora was carried out by the 'Synod of the EAOC' formed in Stockholm in 1948.
At the same time in Estonia we had the 'building of communism,' which included a hostile battle with religion. Our Church, in changing its status, name, and external structure (depending on the need for the functioning of the Church's mission), adapted itself to external circumstances and, in continuing its ministry unceasingly, preserved its essence unharmed in conditions of atheist persecution. One of those who in the Soviet period preserved our Church from destruction is the present-day Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, who administered the diocese of Tallinn for twenty-nine years from 1961 to 1990, i.e. longer than all the archpastors of Estonia, and managed in the most difficult of conditions to defend and save from closure the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn, the Puhtica Convent and many churches.
In 1991 Estonian independence was re-established. However, the trials of our Church did not end with the rule of the Bolsheviks.
In 1991 the Orthodox Church in Estonia was officially registered and in June 1992 by decision of the Tallinn city court it was recognized as a subject of property reform (so restitution in Estonia is called). In August of the same year the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church headed by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II granted the Orthodox Church of Estonia 'independence in ecclesiastical, administrative, economic, educational and civil affairs.' Thus the autonomy granted by Patriarch Tikhon in 1920 was in effect restored.
However, a small group of priests and laymen began to work in another direction. They declared that the diocese of Tallinn was a puppet structure of the Russian Orthodox Church, which had broken off the legitimate activity of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church on the territory of Estonia. Yet the activity of the latter continued abroad; the Foreign Synod of the EAOC in Stockholm was an analogy of a 'government in exile.' The restoration of autonomous status at the same time was linked to a mandatory exit from the Moscow Patriarchate. The supporters of this decision viewed ecclesiastical problems through the prism of worldly stereotypes, referring not to the commandments of the Gospel and Church tradition, but to concepts and tendencies characteristic of the times.
On 29 April 1993 Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia solemnly granted to our Church at its Local Council a Tome on the restoration of its autonomy. Thus the confirmation of self-governing status was finally completed. The Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs was promptly made known of this and informed that on the basis of the Statutes of the EAOC of 1935 its redaction, brought into conformity with the realities of the time, would soon be presented for registration. However, in August of the same year the Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs, guided by political motives, registered under the historic title the structure 'Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church', which from the beginning consisted of a mere handful of parishes represented by the Stockholm 'Synod.' State officials recognized the small schismatic part as the legal successor of the entire pre-war Orthodox Church in Estonia with all the judicial and property consequences of this decision, while our Church found itself outside the law for nine years. The Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was recognized by the Estonian state only in 2002 after long and difficult negotiations, during which it was necessary to turn attention on numerous occasions to the serious infractions of the rights of the second largest religious community in the country (after the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church).
Pressure was placed upon those parishes that did not join the 'Stockholm Synod'; there were official threats to drive people from their churches. In a slandering press campaign the martyr Church was declared to be an 'occupation' Church, while those who had fled and avoided repression were awarded a martyr's crown. The confessors who preserved the faith and, as far as possible in conditions of atheist persecution, church buildings, were smeared as collaborators. The tabloid press screamed, 'Take Archbishop Cornelius to Court!' and published mocking caricatures of him. At the same time it was forgotten that Vladyka Cornelius had in fact been in the very same court under Soviet rule and was sentenced to prison in a Soviet concentration camp for being a pastor.
The crowning moment of the rude intervention of the political establishment into church life were the personal appeals of the Estonian Prime Minister M. Laar and then Estonian President L. Meri to the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive the 'EAOC' into its jurisdiction. As a result, an international conflict flared up, the consequences of which were felt beyond Estonia and threatened to destroy the whole world Orthodox family.
On 20 February 1996 Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople officially received under his omophorion the clerics and laymen of our Church who had gone into schism by proclaiming the formation of his jurisdiction in Estonia. In response there followed the breaking off of prayerful communion between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople, which was restored later that year after negotiations between representatives of both sides in Zurich. In order to avert a schism within Universal Orthodoxy the Moscow Patriarchate made a serious concession in agreeing to grant equal rights in the sphere of civil and legal rights and property divided among the Orthodox of Estonia in accordance with the wishes of the parishes and the removal of the bans upon those clerics who betrayed their oath, as well as also serving in turn in disputed parishes. The Moscow Patriarchate promptly fulfilled all the conditions while the other side did not fulfill a single one. Nevertheless, the negotiations continued. Delegations of the two patriarchates signed a draft agreement in Berlin in February of 2001 providing for the normalization of relations between the two jurisdictions and the resolution of the problem of church buildings in the spirit of the Zurich accords. Several days later the draft was confirmed by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. But what did Constantinople do? Before long a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Estonia declared that the Russian Orthodox Church had interpreted the Zurich accords incorrectly and there can be no question of equal rights: two autonomous churches on the same territory is uncanonical! No further comment is necessary, as they say.
It was not enough that the leadership of the Constantinople jurisdiction in Estonia did not enable the realization of the aforementioned accords on equal rights (as before, the majority of our parishes have to rent their church buildings) but continues to discredit the EOC of the Moscow Patriarchate. We are described as being avaricious for our insistence on having property rights. At the same time it is forgotten that we have renounced claims to the land and houses that once belonged to our parishes, having requested that we are given back our sacred objects as property without having to fear any 'surprises'. The present head of the EOC Metropolitan Stephanos, appointed to the Tallinn see by the Patriarch of Constantinople, in spite of the fact that it is legitimately occupied by Vladyka Cornelius, to this day does not speak Estonian (unlike Metropolitan Cornelius and His Holiness Alexy II), and never misses an opportunity to portray the EOC of the Moscow Patriarchate in the eyes of the state as a 'fifth column.' When the EAOC joined the World Council of Churches, Metropolitan Stephanos promised that he would not hinder our re-entry into the same organization (of which we could not be members as a result of not being registered by the state, even though we are one of its founders). The good bishop's memory failed him as soon as the question was put on the table And what of the article by Metropolitan Stephanos in the Greek Newspaper Vima in 2006 where Patriarch Alexy II is declared to be a 'supporter of the Zionist system' and persecutor of Estonian Orthodoxy?
In 2002 The Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs registered our Church with the title 'Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.' We were obliged to renounce the historical title of 'Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church' in order to register our statutes. Soon protocols of intent between the Republic of Estonia, the EAOC of Constantinople and the EOC of the Moscow Patriarchate were signed. In accordance with these protocols agreement was reached on those churches of ours which were recognized as being a part of restitution to the jurisdiction of Constantinople but where the corresponding parish communities did not wish to break their canonical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. These churches, after payment by the authorities of a significant sum 'for the restoration of cult objects' were handed over to the EAOC as property by the state, which in its turn rented them to the parishes that worship in them. Thus, with rare exceptions, we have to rent our own churches. At the same time the leadership of the EAOC put forward one condition: the state has no right to hand over these church buildings as property of our Church. What is behind this? Maybe the hope that in time the will of the parishioners will be broken and these communities will be transferred to an ecclesiastical organization that has nothing in common with the Russian Church? It is worth noting that the EAOC has received as its own property not only all its church buildings but also land and residential houses, including those that historically belonged to our parishes Much of this property has already been sold off.
Glory be to God for our registration in 2002, and heartfelt gratitude to those who made it possible and continue to have an interest in the complete liquidation of the conflict by being prepared for new judicial acts in this direction. We also hope for good will on the part of the EAOC, the head of which - Metropolitan Stephanos - has many times put forward the initiative of restoring complete prayerful communion (concelebration of clergy, receiving of the Eucharist in both our Churches, etc.). And every time it has been explained to him, even by His Holiness Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, that the resolution of this problem is completely dependent upon the observance of the aforementioned Zurich accords.
It is essential for all to understand the following: in placing prayerful communion with the EAOC dependent upon the observance by its leadership of the conditions of equal rights agreed on in Zurich we are not fighting for any material gain, as our opponents claim. If on their part the transfer to us of the property of our church buildings is proposed in exchange for the Moscow Patriarchate recognizing their autonomy, then we do not bargain canonical truth. The change of property status, the transfer from being tenants of the church buildings constructed by our ancestors to being property owners is a matter of principle, rather than of material gain. The schism can only then be healed when the bad consequences of a judicial and property nature can be corrected. The next stage can be for the two Patriarchates to view the question of regulating the canonical status of Estonian Orthodoxy, including the problem of mutual relations between our Church and the ecclesiastical structure within the Patriarchate of Constantinople and recognized by the latter to be an autonomous Church. The notion of serious discussion on this topic before the implementation of the Zurich accords, which the Moscow Patriarchate agreed to with very many concessions so that world Orthodoxy would not be irreparably split, is incompatible with our dignity and with the defense of the legitimate rights of our flock.
We do not want to create a mere appearance of well-being, yet we hope to attain full communion, when from the depths of our heart we can say to each other: 'Christ is in our midst! - He is and shall be!'
Archpriest Igor PREKUP,
rector of the Tallinn parish of St Nicholas in Kopli
Bogoslov.ru
April 3, 2008
Source:
0 Responses to “Media review: "The Ninetieth Anniversary of the Estonian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)"”
Post a Comment