Founding the Estonian Orthodox Church

Stuck in 1917-18 between German occupation forces, White armies loyal to the Russian imperial order, the troops of the Bolsheviks, various independence movements, and the interventions of foreign powers, the Orthodox Church in the Baltic found it extraordinarily difficult to keep up even a pretense of normal life. In what would soon become the Republic of Estonia, the crisis reached its apogee when Platon (Kulbusch), the first Estonian bishop, was shot by Bolsheviks in early 1919. However, unlike in neighbouring Latvia, the Estonian Orthodox quickly moved to establish new administrative organs and resolve key questions in church life.

What played out over the next few years were varying attempts to define the relationship between the newly introduced ecclesiastical institutions of Estonian Orthodoxy and the Mother Church in Russia. Initially, the Russian Church attempted to restore the old imperial diocese of Riga, but without success. Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow then offered the Estonian Church wide-ranging autonomy while remaining part of the Moscow patriarchate. Finally, the Estonian Church, headed by its new bishop Aleksander (Paulus), resolved to break its canonical relationship with Moscow and join the patriarchate of Constantinople: this created the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, the institution that embodied Estonian Orthodoxy until the Second World War.

These decisions exacerbated ethnic tensions between the Russian and Estonian Orthodox. They continue to play a role in the religious landscape of Estonia today, with Russian parishes mainly belonging to the Moscow patriarchate and Estonian ones being part of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church.

The documents translated below follow the development of Estonian Orthodoxy from 1919 to 1923, focusing in particular on the debates surrounding the relationship between the Estonian and Russian churches.

No. 1. Announcement of the Temporary Estonian Diocesan Council to the Orthodox Parishes of Estonia, 9 February 1919

The diocesan council announces the following to the Orthodox parishes of Estonia. On 14 (1) January, Platon, the first Estonian bishop, was slain at the hands of the communist Bolsheviks after a 12-day imprisonment [1]. Before his death, the bishop made the following recommendation to the diocesan council (no. 957) on 1 December 1918: “In case unexpected obstacles arise in the fulfilment of my service, for example illness or a long absence, I recommend that the diocesan council bear full authority in the matter of managing the diocese. These instructions should be put into protocols and sent for signing.”

On the basis of this instruction, from the day of the bishop’s death, 14 (1) January, the council has taken full authority in the management of the diocese. In view of the current circumstances, the council has made the following decisions:

1) Since the delegates from Latvia left the council in 1918 and there is no possibility of re-establishing communication with Latvia now, the council has resolved to suggest to the Latvian Orthodox parishes that they create their own temporary diocesan council, which can be the centre for managing Orthodox parishes and leading their affairs until the forthcoming organisation of matters in Latvia.

2) Since only delegates from Estonia are in the present diocesan council and under their leadership are only Estonian Orthodox parishes, [it is resolved] to call it not the Riga [council], but the Estonian Diocesan Council. From 25 February, its business will be transferred from Tartu to Tallinn, where the council will be located on the second floor of 64 Pikk Street [3]. The working hours of the council will be from 4 to 6 daily. Instead of Russian, which the council was until now compelled to use for communications with Latvia, the language of business will be Estonian.

3) Of the members of the council, Archpriest M. Bleive has died [2] and Archpriest N. Dobryshevskii finds it difficult to fulfil his duties due to the location of the council in Tallinn. [As such], for its sessions and participation in working on a future assembly that will end its authority, the council resolves to invite the following Tallinn Orthodox figures [to join it]: 1) Archpriest K. Tiisik, 2) Archpriest A. Bezhanitskii, 3) Priest N. Päts, 4) Director N. S. Kann, 5) the artist and archaeologist P. Sepp, and 6) the school teacher A. Miangel’ [4].

There are four current members in the council: Archpriest N. Dobryshevskii and the priests I. Paavel, A. Laar, and V. Pakliar. Besides this, each dean has the right to hold a council on the business in his deanery and the parishes located in the deanery.

4) From February 1918, it was intended to convene a Local Church Council of the Orthodox Parishes of Estonia. On 8-10 February, the duration of this assembly was decided upon and the invitations dispatched, but it was not possible to realise this Church Council. During the occupation, the late bishop asked the German authorities 5 times for permission to hold the Church Council, but without success. If the Bolshevik invasion had not occurred, the Church Council would have met at the end of January.

Only now, when the land of Estonia is again free of enemies, has it become possible to convene a Church Council of the Orthodox Parishes of Estonia: the requirement to convene [the Council] is greater than at any time previously, since we are now left without our bishop and are going through an extremely important period. As such, the diocesan council has resolved to convene the Local Council of the Orthodox Parishes of Estonia on 18 March in Tallinn and has issued the following instructions:

a) Each parish must without delay elect delegates at its assembly to go to Tallinn and to the diocesan assembly.

b) Elect an appropriate number of representatives from among the clerical servitors and [lay] members of the parish.

c) Each parish must send a minimum of 2 delegates: 1 from the clergy and 1 from the laity.

d) The larger parishes can also send a large number of [delegates] according to the number of church servitors they have, although they should not make up more than half [of the delegates].

e) In extreme cases, small parishes can also send joint delegates in agreement with neighbouring parishes […].

f) In places where church servitors are absent, the parish can send up to 2 lay representatives.

g) Common assemblies of parishes are to be called in the usual way, with an announcement three Sundays beforehand. It follows to make these announcements on 23 February and 2 and 9 March. Electoral assemblies will take place everywhere on 9 March after the liturgy.

h) The act of election will contain two documents, in which it is necessary to note: 1) the number of a) men and b) women present; 2) who chaired the assembly; and 3) the number of votes by which the delegates were elected. The act should be certified with the church seal and the signatures of the clergy and the members of the parish council.  

i) For clerical delegates, the parish council should attach brief biographical notes [containing]: a) age; b) how long they have been in the parish; and c) whether they have shown remarkable activity in the life of the parish and whether they facilitate successful activities.

Note: upon election of the delegates, especial attention should be paid to point 35, the law on dioceses, and points 45 and 46, the law on parishes, in church legislation.

j) The acts of election and biographical notes should be sent without delay to 64 Pikk Street in Tallinn and addressed to the diocesan council.

k) The local church administration will give its elected delegate certification, which will be confirmed with the church seal.

l) In Tallinn, delegates who do not have relatives and acquaintances [there] can rent apartments: this will be dealt with by a commission on apartments. The chancellery and enquiry office of the Church Council can also, when possible, resolve questions about apartments: these [offices] are located on 64 Pikk Street on the second floor, approximately 5 minutes’ walk from the Baltic train station.

m) According to the schedule, all delegates will register before the assembly in the chancellery of the Church Council, which will be open from 17 March at 8 in the morning. Each delegate will receive a ticket for participation in the assembly and, at the same time, obtain information about the assemblies and printed materials about the schedule and preparation of the Council.

n) The first general assembly will begin on 18 March at 12 with [common] prayers.

Note: for the holding of the assemblies of the Church Council, which could last around a week, the Estonian Temporary Administration has requested buildings and permission, including for the election of delegates on 9 March and their dispatch to Tallinn.

In terms of the daily agenda of the Council’s assemblies, the diocesan council has accepted the following points:

1) The relationship of Estonian Apostolic Orthodox parishes with Russian parishes

2) The selection of candidates for the position of bishop.

3) A review of the Regulation of Estonian Parishes.

Note: Fundamental is the new church law prepared by the Russian Church Council, published last year in Estonian. In the daily agenda, there will be some articles about this law and changes to it in case of need.

4) The election of a new diocesan council.

5) Separation from the Latvian Church and the return of Estonian property from Latvia.

6) Deciding the position of the Estonian Church on national and political questions: a) the independence of Estonia; b) the relationship between the state and the church and questions related to this: 1) the Church’s legal position, 2) church land, 3) church schools, 4) religious teaching in schools; c) the election of the executive committee of Estonia.

7) The internal condition of church life: a) renewal of the liturgical and external aspects of the Church; b) the training of clergy; c) establishing courses for teaching the faith, singing and music, inviting school teachers, courses on ordering parish life.

8) The Church’s economic questions: a) maintaining the church administration, churches, and church servitors; b) the diocese’s printing press, c) the diocese’s candle factory, d) [holding] management courses on: 1) the cultivation of medical plants and 2) gardening, beekeeping, etc.; f) other outstanding questions: 1) how things currently stand, 2) the relationship with Latvia, 3) the question on state pensions.

Besides this, each parish can suggest other questions for the daily agenda. All questions and written suggestions need to be sent no later than 11 March to the diocesan council in Tallinn, which will lead the preparatory work for the Church Council. Suggestions arriving later than this will not be considered.

Finally, the diocesan council asks church servitors and parish councils to send answers to the following questions along with their election acts:

1) What did the parish council do in the course of 1918 to maintain the clergy? What was the total amount of supplementary income over the year in a) money, b) harvests, and c) work? How was this supplementary income gathered? What opinions are there in the parish about the behaviour of church servitors: [are the latter] responsive or indifferent? How will matters go if supplementary incomes are absent, are there opportunities for side jobs, what plans do you have for the future?      

2) Did Orthodox landowners take payments from the Lutheran Church during the German occupation: [if so], from whom, when, and how much?

3) How are things with schools: a) parish schools, b) auxiliary schools? How are they frequented? How many children are in these and other schools? On what basis does the school function? How frequently? Where does the school get its financial support? Do private schools receive money from the parishes: which [schools] and how much? Which church collections are received from school money, from holy days? Is the condition of private schools satisfactory? What do you think about their future? Were expropriations of schools recognised by the German authorities? Have appointed German teachers been removed? Does the school receive any kind of assistance from the district or regional governments: how much and on what conditions? Have any schools been transferred back to us: which and on what conditions? Have the conditions suggested in the article ‘Our Schools’ in Uus Elu been observed?

4) Does the parish have any beekeepers: church servitors, members of the parish? How much and at what price can they give wax for the diocesan candle factory a) now and b) next year?

This information is very important for the preparatory work of the Church Council, and therefore the council asks for a full answer to each question where possible. The council asks that each of the numbered questions be answered on a separate sheet of paper.

May God grant the first Church Council of the Estonian Church success and His blessing!

No. 2. Edict of Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin) of Moscow and all Russia to the Diocesan Council of the Estonian Republic, 9 December 1919

At a joint session on 6-19 November 1919, the Most Holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod, and the High Church Council heard a telegram from Archpriest Tisiik. [Here,] it was declared that the Diocesan Council of the Estonian Republic asks permission to consecrate the priest Aleksander Paulus as the independent bishop of Reval, in view of the unanimous decision of the Estonian Orthodox Church with regards to the fact that only an autonomous bishop, independent of Riga or any other episcopal cathedra, can lead the Church in the Estonian Republic.

Note. According to the ruling of the High Church Council on 7/20 October 1919 (no. 1050), the bishop of Pskov was instructed to verify the canonicity of consecrating the priest Aleksander Paulus with the rank of bishop and, together with the bishop of Finland, to consecrate him as the bishop of Reval, a suffragan of Riga diocese, and to offer him management of church matters in the Estonian Republic [5]. If any obstacles were met with investing the priest Paulus with episcopal rank, then the management of church affairs in the aforementioned republic should be handed to the bishop of Pskov.

Upon discussion of the present petition, it was ruled: to establish in the Estonian Republic an independent Estonian diocese on the same basis as other dioceses in the Russian Orthodox Church and to appoint the priest Aleksander Paulus to the cathedra of the newly created diocese as bishop of Reval, a suffragan of Riga diocese, with the suggested title of bishop of Estonia and Reval. The Diocesan Council of the Estonian Republic will be informed about this via edict, and a note will be transferred to the chancellery of the High Church Council.

No. 3. Letter from the Council of Clergy and Laymen of Estonia to Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, 16 February 1920

We have the duty to inform Your Beatitude that the Council of All Orthodox Clergy and Laity of Estonia has already stated and admitted on 18 March 1919 that the Orthodox Church in Estonia in its present dependent condition does not satisfy the cultural identity of the Estonian people. Therefore, in the interests of religion and the Church, it unanimously ruled that: “Maintaining the apostolic succession, the Orthodox Church in Estonia henceforth must be autocephalous and independent from any other church authority: it names itself the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Estonia, remaining in dogmatic and canonical unity with the [other] Eastern Orthodox Churches.”

The same Church Council elected candidates for the hierarchs of the Estonian Church: Professor A. Kaelas (a former member of the Moscow Council, now located in Siberia) as archbishop and Aleksander Paulus as bishop [6]. A higher church administrative organ was also elected – the diocesan council of Estonia, recognised by edict of the government of the Estonian Republic and all the Orthodox population of Estonia.  

We consider it our duty to inform Your Beatitude with the attachment of a secondary request to hasten the consecration of bishops of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Estonia, in the first place the consecration of Aleksander Paulus as bishop, and to remove difficulties [relating to this].

No. 4. Letter from the Episcopal Council of the Estonian Orthodox Church to Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, 14 May 1920

As Your Beatitude knows, since the day of the death of Bishop Platon the Orthodox Church of Estonia has been orphaned. The priest Aleksander Paulus, chosen by the Council of all the Orthodox Clergy and Laity of Estonia, still has not been consecrated. The flock is without its pastor. Many churches do not have priests. There is no-one to bless them. Due to the lack of a pastor, the spiritual flock is in dismay.

According to the peace treaty, all of Pechory region and its Orthodox Estonian and Russian populations have been joined to the Estonian Republic [7]. Church life in this region also requires the closest pastoral leadership. The Episcopal Council of Estonia discussed the needs of this region with a mixed population in its session of 3 May and recognised that it is necessary that there be a suffragan bishop in Pechory: selecting Hieromonk Ioann (Bulin), the dean of Pechory, as the candidate for this position, it was resolved to petition before Your Beatitude to allow us to consecrate Hieromonk Ioann as a suffragan bishop simultaneously with the priest Aleksander Paulus: [Ioann] has an academic education, is 27 years old, and is a man entirely worthy to accept this high rank.

Besides this, the Episcopal Council of Estonia, in its session on 10 May, heard a letter from the Finnish Orthodox Church from 3 May on the question of consecrating Father Kazanzii, the archpriest of the Vyborg cathedral, as the suffragan bishop of Finland.

Taking into consideration all of the above, the Episcopal Council of Estonia dares to ask Your Beatitude to gladden the Orthodox population of the Estonian Republic with your personal presence in Reval for the consecration of the priest Paulus and Hieromonk Ioann and by this deliver the Orthodox Church of Estonia from its current grievous and dangerous position. The Episcopal Council has the duty to add that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Estonian Republic, through its letter on 3 May, has informed the diocesan council that the named ministry is prepared to assist the arrival of Your Beatitude in Estonia. If Your Beatitude finds it possible to fulfill the aforementioned request, the Episcopal Council of Estonia asks that you inform it in good time about the time and conditions of Your Beatitude’s arrival in Reval. It would be desirable to meet Your Beatitude no later than 27 June.

no. 5. Letter of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow to the Diocesan Council of Estonia, 17 June 1920

In relation to the council’s letter from 14 May (no. 993), according to the ruling of the Holy Synod from 4(17) of June, I have the honour to inform the Diocesan Council of Estonia that Hieromonk Ioann, elected by the council for Pechory region, cannot be recognised as a canonically appropriate candidate for consecration as a bishop, since he has not achieved 30 years of age (Sixth Ecumenical Council, rule 14) [8]. Information about the time he has spent as a monk and a priest and about any outstanding service he has provided that could justify an unusual departure from generally accepted canonical rules is absent.

Relating to the request of the council that I come to Reval for the consecration of the priest Paulus as bishop, I am with joy prepared to fulfil this request if the government of the Russian Republic will give me permission for a trip to Reval, for which communications with the appropriate authorities have been undertaken.

Calling on God’s blessings for the diocesan council,

Patriarch Tikhon  

No. 6. Letter from Sergii (Stragorodskii), metropolitan of Vladimir and member of the Holy Synod, to PAUL Sepp, representative of the diocesan council in Tallinn, 28 June 1920

Dear sir, Pavel Ivanovich! [9]

By the blessing of His Beatitude the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the High Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in a joint session ruled, upon hearing your oral statement with an explanation of the desire of the Estonian Orthodox Church (that the Patriarch and the Higher Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church recognise the Estonian Church as autocephalous before resolving the question about its autocephaly at the All-Russian Church Council and that the Orthodox parishes of Estonia are permitted to celebrate church holy days according to the new style):

1) In view of the fact that the Estonian Church, which is located within the borders of an independent state, already in fact has independence in church economic, administrative, educational, and civil matters, the joint session of the Holy Synod and High Church Council from 27 April – 10 May 1920 (no. 183) has ruled to recognise the Estonian Orthodox Church, according to its desire, as autonomous before the resolution of the question of its autocephaly by the All-Russian Church Council.

2) According to the example of the Orthodox Church of Finland, permission was given to the church authorities of Estonia to allow the Orthodox parishes that so desire to use the new style during the celebration of church holidays [10].

I have the honour to communicate about the ruling of the higher administration of the Russian Orthodox Church, made as a consequence of your aforementioned statement, so that you can inform the [Estonian] diocesan council.

Member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Sergii of Vladimir [11]

No. 7. Letter of the Synod of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Estonia to Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, 24 September 1920

The Synod of the autonomous Apostolic Orthodox Church of Estonia has the honour to present to Your Beatitude the election of the priest Aleksander Paulus to the cathedra of the ruling archbishop of Estonia and of the hieromonk Ioann (Bulin) as the suffragan for the Russian parishes: [it also presents] the rite of confession and archepiscopal vows and the changes made to them, since the consecration of the former [candidate] will have to be done without monastic tonsure. The Synod proposes the last days of October for the consecration of the candidates. In connection with this, the Synod most respectfully asks Your Beatitude to personally come for the consecration of the appointees, if possible together with Metropolitan Veniamin of Petrograd and two hypodeacons. Via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Synod of Estonia is taking all possible measures so that the Soviet authorities provide Your Beautitude with free passage to Estonia. If it is not comfortable for Your Beatitude to travel to Estonia or if the Soviet authorities create obstacles, the Synod asks Your Beatitude to instruct Archbishop Evsevii of Pskov, who lives in Estonia, and Bishop Seraphim of Finland about the consecration of the bishops of the Estonians. In order to hasten the receipt of Your Beatitude’s edicts, it is best of all to send these two hierarchs the edicts via the Estonian [diplomatic] mission in the name of the Synod.

Furthermore, the Synod has the honour to inform Your Beatitude that at the church congress of clergy and elected laity on 1-4 September, together with the representatives of Russian parishes, it was unanimously resolved to establish a small church council through elected deanery congresses as a legislative organ. Its decisions must agree with the canons and dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the civil laws of Estonia. In case the Russian parishes unite into an autonomous church entity, then the Russian representatives will take part in the small council on questions they have in common with the Estonians. According to the traditions of the Orthodox Church, all resolutions of the small council will go for blessing and confirmation by the ruling bishop.

The same congress has renamed the diocesan council as the Synod and its members have been increased from 5 to 7, of whom 4 are clergymen, 3 are laymen, 5 are Estonian, and 2 are Russian. The Synod is the highest church authority in Estonia in terms of the management and good ordering of the Church and is responsible before the small council. In the Synod are the priest Nikolai Päts(the chairman), the priest Nikolai Skromnov, the priest Anton Laar, the deacon Ioann Iukhtund, the director of a secondary school Nikolai Kann (vice-chair), the teacher Aleksandr Matveev, and Mr Dionisii Orgusar.

[…]

No. 8. Letter of Archbishop SeraPhim (LuKjanov) of Finland to Archbishop Jānis (Pommers) of Riga and all Latvia, 25 October 1921

Your Grace, merciful archpastor!

Recently, I have received a letter from the archbishop and Synod of the Estonian Church, in which they suggest to me and the Finnish church administration to declare ourselves relating to the organisation of a Church Council for the three Baltic churches of Estonia, Latvia, and Finland. You have probably received the same letter. I very much want to know your personal opinion and the opinion of your Synod on this question. From the letter of the Estonian Church, the true aim of the proposed councils is not entirely clear. In relation to the blessing of holy oil, I long ago received from the patriarch the blessing to perform this and have not done so only because I do not have a copy of the ritual. In terms of receiving the right from the Moscow patriarch to consecrate bishops in the Baltic churches, then [the need for this] has dropped away, since communications with Moscow are now possible from Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. The patriarch can scarcely agree to give this right without the permission of a Church Council, since this is equivalent to giving the three Baltic churches autocephaly: the patriarch and the higher church administration do not have the right [to give this]. If [the questions to be dealt with at the pan-Baltic church councils] are very large, we do not have the right to resolve them; if they are small, then they can be dealt with by each church. […]

It is impossible, of course, to fail to pay attention to the practical circumstance that the cost of such councils could be very considerable, but we, for example, have very, very few means. These are my personal opinions. What the members of our church administration think, I do not know. I am acquainted with the leaders of the Estonian Church, but only a little. I have never been to Latvia and know no-one from the local actors except Hieromonk Gavriil. I very much wanted to get in touch with you and so resolved to write you this letter. I very much want to know how you stand on questions about autocephaly, autonomy, the new style, and in general the position of your church and how they consider all these questions in Moscow. About my diocese, I can communicate that in 1919 at a Church Council in Vyborg, a ruling was made about the organisation of an autocephalous church made up of the Finnish and Estonian dioceses and the Karelian parts of Olonets and Arkhangel’sk dioceses. The Estonians joined this plan, but nothing was known relating to the Karelian parishes of Olonets and Arkhangel’sk dioceses. Autonomy was recognised by the patriarch at the end of 1920. This autonomy is very wide, almost autocephaly. I have no suffragans. With the permission of the patriarch and the Synod, the new style was introduced at the end of 1917 in all Finno-Karelian parishes (the Russian parishes and monasteries of the dioceses have kept the old style) [….]. Our church is not separate from the state: the treasury gives us the means to maintain the bishop, the episcopal palace, the episcopal administration, the ecclesiastical seminary, church primary schools, and some parishes.

If possible, be so good as to send me the rite of blessing holy oil and new laws and instructions from the patriarch and the Synod about marriages. I have long had great need of these. Have you heard anything about my friends – Bishop Fedor, Bishop Gurii, Archimandrite Simeon, who resides with Bishop Fedor, and Archimandrite Neofit, who according to rumour resides with the patriarch? I ask for your holy prayers.

No. 9. Speech of Archbishop Aleksander (Paulus) to Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) IV of Constantinople, 3 July 1923

Your Beatitude, holy patriarch, supreme and dear father, my lord and father! In the name of the Estonian Orthodox Church as its representative and pastor, I have the honour to turn to you, my lord the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, with the most sincere greetings and to express to you my deepest esteem. The Estonian Orthodox Church is not great in numbers: it has 240,000 souls, but, with the grace of God, it will grow. Before 1917, the Estonian Church was administered by Russian bishops, and only on 31 December 1917 was the first truly Estonian bishop, Platon, consecrated. To our deepest sorrow, he was killed by the Bolsheviks a year later on 14 January 1919. After this, a general gathering of the Estonian Church elected me as the supreme pastor, but the times were not calm and my consecration was realised only on 20 December 1920. In the same year, the patriarch of all Rus recognised the autonomy of the Estonian Church, but he delayed on the question of autocephaly. From 1920, the Estonian Church has been de facto independent in the territory of the sovereign Estonian Republic, and to support a connection with the Russian Church was impossible as a consequence of the disorders in Russia and the Russian Church. The general assemblies of 1920 and 1922 ruled that for the growth and development of the Estonian Church, the recognition of its autocephaly was vitally necessary. On the basis of these rulings, I now turn to Your Beatitude with a request that you, as the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, the source of the light of the Orthodox faith that enlightened us via Russia, recognise and bless the autocephaly of the Estonian Orthodox Church and convince the other patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church to agree with you in this question. I also ask for your agreement to consecrate Archpriest German Aav. He served under me and was recently elected as bishop of Finland. He is undoubtedly worthy to occupy an episcopal cathedra. I have the honour to present to Your Beatitude this cross beribboned in the national colours of Estonia and this omophorion with real Estonian embroidery as gifts from the Estonian Orthodox Church.  

No. 10. Tomos of Patriarch Meletios IV of Constantinople, 7 July 1923

The Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne in Constantinople provides canonical care for the church order of those Orthodox communities which are left without pastoral guidance. Due to the ever-more complex political conditions in the newly created state of Estonia and also as a result of the church disorders in Russia, the Orthodox Church of Estonia has been torn from the holy Russian Orthodox Church, on which it has been canonically dependent until now. Thus, the Orthodox Church of Estonia, deprived of constant guardianship, has turned to the Ecumenical Throne with a written and oral request delivered by Aleksander, the Estonian archbishop, about taking the church under our spiritual care in the form of a canonical church order and guidance. Meeting this request favourably, with respect, and with love, we and those metropolitans standing with us reviewed the request in the Synod and ruled to satisfy the request of the Orthodox Church of Estonia and to confirm the status it requests, and also to introduce into [the Estonian Church] a church order that is in accordance with established canonical practice, considering that it is impossible for the holy Church of Russia to establish the appropriate church order in Estonia. Therefore, we, instructed by the Holy Spirit, bless the establishment of the following. Learning that Tikhon, the patriarch of Moscow and all Rus, granted autonomy to the holy Orthodox Church of Estonia and taking into account that the Orthodox Christians living in the venerable Estonian Republic compose together with their holies a distinct church district, [we] grant them the name ‘the Estonian Orthodox metropolitanate’ on condition of the unwavering observation of the following requirements.

1. Founded on the dogmas and canons of the holy apostles and church councils, and also on the church rules of the Single, Holy, Orthodox, Ecumenical, and Apostolic Church for supporting canonical connections with the Holy Apostolic Patriarchal Throne, it is appropriate to create three dioceses in this metropolitanate (Tallinn, Saaremaa, and Pechory), the number of which can be, with the permission of the metropolitanate’s church council, increased in order to improve the pastoral nourishment of the believers.

2. The hierarch currently ruling in Tallinn will be assigned the honoured title of metropolitan of Tallinn and all Estonia. Under his chairmanship, bishops will gather in sessions of the Synod, which will have all the rights and duties given by the holy canons to a synod of a Local Church. It bears responsibility before the ecumenical patriarch and his Synod for observation of the divine dogmas, a canonical legal order, and its own orders.

3. If, before the formation of the Synod, there is a desire or need to consecrate a new bishop or if the bishops of the Synod need to take decisions with a dogmatic or canonical character, then the metropolitan (or, in his absence, the bishop fulfilling his duties) has the right, upon informing the Ecumenical Patriarch, to invite from Finland or any other metropolitanate of the Ecumenical Throne local bishops in order to make a quorum at the Synod. Such a synod answers to the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Synod.

4. The election, consecration, and enthroning of metropolitans and bishops will take place in accordance with the holy canons and the metropolitan’s rulings. The rulings relating to bishops are introduced by the metropolitan, and those relating to metropolitans by the ecumenical patriarch.

5. Metropolitans and bishops canonically appointed to their cathedra will remain in place until the end of their lives, with the exception of those cases when they themselves give petitions about their retirement or in those cases where their resignations are made for canonical reasons. Bishops who are condemned by an episcopal Synod have the right to complain about this decision to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who together with the metropolitans of his Synod can come to a final resolution on this matter.

6. Each bishop herding his flock has the rights and duties placed on bishops by the holy canons and many years of church practice.

7. Upon performing the holy sacraments and the liturgy, the following litany is to be observed: priests and deacons remember the local bishop, bishops – the metropolitan, and the metropolitan – the Ecumencial Patriarch, from who he receives holy anointing oil and through whom he is communication with all those Orthodox bishops who have the right to rule on Christ’s truth.

Unwavering observing these requirements in all of his activities, the metropolitan, bishops, and all church clergy with their believers are obliged to improve the life of the Orthodox Church of Estonia in accordance with its requirements and according to the laws of their country, [but] on the indispensable condition that not one of the introduced rulings inherently contradicts the teachings and canons of the holy Orthodox Church, as they are understood in the practice of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

We offer fatherly admonishment to the clergy and people as our beloved children in Christ that they must honour their pastors and teachers as their preceptors and spiritual fathers, that “they obey and take their word”, as is said in the letter of the Apostle Paul, and that they realise their pastoral mentorship with joy, not sighs.

[…]

No. 11. Extract from the letter of Metropolitan Aleksander (Paulus) of Tallinn and all Estonia to the flock of the Estonian Orthodox Church, 23 September 1923

[…] Our unity with our previous mother church has been broken due to the war in Russia and political circumstances: its continuation had become impossible while all the problems connected with the neighbouring Russian Church are still not resolved. Patriarch Tikhon, the head of the Russian Church, recognises this: it is to his fatherly kindness that we ultimately owe our Estonian bishop, because our Church became an independent autonomous church unit at his dispensation. But since disorder reigns in the external affairs of the Russian Church at this time, Patriarch Tikhon has been in prison for a long time, and there is no hope of any fraternal participation in the ordering of the Estonian Church from the clergy of the Russian Church who live abroad, the head of the Estonian Church, according to the canons, asked for the parishes of Estonia to be joined to the Mother of all Orthodoxy, the Church of Constantinople.  On acquainting themselves with this state of affairs, the Church of Constantinople most cordially met with the Estonian Church: on 7 July, the Estonian Church finally became canonically independent. Henceforth, the Estonian Church is a legal part of the Ecumenical Church and bears the name of the Estonian metropolitanate.

No. 12. Letter from countess Sofiia Stenbok to Archbishop Jānis (Pommers) of Riga, 19 November 1923

Your Grace!

Accept my deepest apologies for my decision to disturb you on a matter that worries not only me but also the majority of Russian Orthodox. As you, Your Grace, are probably aware, our bishop Aleksander went to Patriarch Meletios IV in Constantinople and returned from there as a metropolitan, bearing a letter from the patriarch of Constantinople about the introduction of autocephaly into the Estonian Orthodox Church. Soon after his return to Reval, the Synod of the Estonian Orthodox Church published an edict (8 August) about the establishment of a new order for remembering the names of the hierarchs during the litany and on all other occasions during the liturgy. Then, on 23 September, a celebratory declaration of autocephaly was held.

In a joint session of their parish councils, the representatives of all the Russian parishes of Reval made a resolution, the first part of which says that to recognise autocephaly, the Russian parishes need the resolution and blessing of Patriarch Tikhon. The second part says that the Russian parishes of Reval refuse any participation in any kind of celebration. Besides this resolution, the same point of view on this question has been repeatedly expressed officials by Russian representatives to Bishop Aleksander himself, as well as in the Synod when all its members are present.

Initially, it was suggested that, with the permission of Bishop Aleksander, a congress of the representatives of the Russian parishes of Estonia gather to [make] a mutual filial appeal to Patriarch Tikhon, with a request that he declare his pastoral decision and blessing on the recently introduced form for the future of our Estonian Orthodox Church: the precise and clear expression of the will of His Beatitude would be reverently accepted and fulfilled unswervingly. In this, we say this is the only exit from and legal resolution to all the mistakes that are so painful in the life of the Church.

Acquainted with such a cornerstone of the views of Russian representatives, Bishop Aleksander and the members of the Synod expressed the desirability of receiving a blessing from Tikhon on this matter and resolved to communicate with His Beatitude via the official Estonian representative in Moscow. According to information received from the Synod, the corresponding steps were taken by them quickly, but no response has been received. Desiring to maintain their obedience to their father and patriarch to the end, the Russian parishes of Reval, as well as some others joined to them at this time, await his decision with deep concern and relentless worry, refraining at this time with all possible strength from taking steps to joining that part of the Orthodox Church (exclusively Estonian) which recognises autocephaly.

The pain of this state of affairs has increased yet further since Bishop Aleksander and the Synod continue to manage church life in the aforementioned Russian parishes, regardless of the delaying tactic of not seeing anything definite in the future and putting everything on the decision of Patriarch Tikhon. There is a close connection between these tactics of the Russian parishes and the return to Reval of several well-known church actors who were sent in spring to the provinces [to organise] an open protest against the Synod’s illegal actions.

Knowing from conversations with several knowledgeable people about your private communications with Patriarch Tikhon, I resolved to disturb you with an outline of the current state of church life and with a deep request to take on yourself the labour of informing His Beatitude about the pain of waiting for his resolution. [I also ask you] to explain His Beatitude’s point of view on the autocephaly of the Estonian Orthodox Church. Whatever form it takes, such a light on matters would well reflect on the actions of the protesting Russian parishes, which have resolved to firmly stand for the inviolability of the holy church canons.

To our great bewilderment, according to a note in the newspapers, Bishop Aleksander has received an invitation to take part in the elections of the new patriarch of Constantinople. But, according to the canons, [the person participating in these elections] is only the head of an autonomous church and not an autocephalous one? I once more give you, Your Grace, my deepest apologies for disturbing you, but I believe that you will not refuse to offer the archpastoral assistance that lies within your power to a group of Orthodox people located in so difficult a position.

Notes

[1] For the life and death of Bishop Platon, see our article at https://www.balticorthodoxy.com/platon-kulbusch

[2] Father Mihhail Bleive was one of two Orthodox priests murdered in Tartu along with Bishop Platon (Kulbusch).

[3] A central location within Tallinn’s old town.

[4] For a biography of Father Karp Tisiik, please see https://www.balticorthodoxy.com/karp-tiisik

[5] One of the obstacles to consecrating Paulus as a bishop was that he was not a monk, as is normally required under Orthodox canon law.

[6] Professor Aleksandr Kaelas was a professor at Moscow University and a member of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-18. He died in Irkutsk in April 1920.

[7] The peace treaty referred to here is the Treaty of Tartu (14 October 1920), which established the new border between Estonia and the Soviet Union. The treaty handed the Pechory region, previously part of Pskov province, to Estonia. This was reversed following the Soviet annexation of Estonia in the Second World War.

[8] Indeed, this objection prevented Ioann from becoming a bishop until 1926. After a falling out with Metropolitan Aleksander and the Estonian government, he emigrated first to Greece and then Serbia in 1934.

[9] Paul Sepp (1885-1943) is most famous as a theatre director in Tallinn.

[10] Here, the new style refers to the Julian calendar, the introduction of which caused disputes across the Orthodox world.

[11] Sergii (Stragorodskii) (1864-1944) became the patriarchial locum tenens following Patiarch Tikhon’s death in 1925. He was elected patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943.

sources

All documents translated from Pravoslavie v Estonii. Issledovanie i dokumenty v dvukh tomakh. Vol. II (Moscow: Tserkovno-nauchnyi tsentr “Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia”, 2010).

I.Paert, ‘A Family Affair? Post-Imperial Estonian Orthodoxy and Its Relationship with the Russian Mother Church, 1917–23’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, vol. 60, no. 3-4 (2020), pp. 315-340.

S. Rimestad, The Challenges of Modernity to the Orthodox Church in Estonia and Latvia (1917-1940) (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012).

Translator

James M. White