Orthodoxy in Estonia, 1917 

The Restoration of the Tallinn Suffragancy

During the revolution of 1917, the Russian Orthodox Church underwent an unusual revival of church life at all levels and unprecedented attempts to reorganise, including the restoration of the patriarchate in 1917 and spontaneous meetings involving both clergy and laity. At these meetings, bishops were elected and church reforms planned. Congresses were held everywhere to oppose the ecclesiastical authorities, and the insistence on electing bishops from among the married clergy was typical of many dioceses. Diocesan councils took over many of the functions of bishops and consistories, often replacing unfit superiors.

The creation of the suffragan (vicar) diocese of Tallinn and the election of Father Pavel Kulbusch as suffragan bishop was the culmination of the church revival movement in the Estonian part of Riga diocese. Already in 1905, the Riga council (sobor) came up with a comprehensive programme for reforming the diocese. Among other things, it was proposed that priests would be elected by the congregation and ordinations carried out by a suffragan bishop who spoke the local languages. The First World War was also a major catalyst for reform. With the evacuation of ecclesiastical institutions from Riga in 1915, Tartu temporarily became the centre of the diocese and religious life in the Estonian part became more active. The move of the residence of Archbishop Ioann (Smirnov) to Tartu also led to closer communication between the bishop and Orthodox Estonians.

On 6-7 April 1917, shortly after Estonia’s autonomous status was confirmed by the Provisional Government, the so-called first general meeting of Estonian Orthodox believers was held in Tallinn, attended by 60 people (clergy and laymen), including two women. The participants proposed a programme of church renewal based on national specificity. Declaring their attachment to the ‘great Russian nation’ and the Russian state, the Orthodox Estonians reaffirmed their aspiration to preserve their national identity while still seeing themselves as ‘an inseparable part of the pan-Russian Orthodox Church’. The April council also declared, among other things, the need for a bishop who would be elected from among the local population, who would speak the local languages, and who would not be a monk.

The Extraordinary Congress of the Diocese of Riga met in Tartu on 25-26 May, with its work being carried out in national sections. There was discord between the Russian, Estonian, and Latvian delegates. The Russian section opposed the organisation of Riga diocese on national principles, as proposed by the Estonian section. At the same congress, the right to elect a bishop was declared and a proposal was made to establish separate bishoprics for the Russian, Latvian, and Estonian congregations. A Provisional Council of Riga Diocese was formed, consisting of two members from each national section. Not only did Archbishop Ioann agree to the creation of two new suffragancies for the Estonian and Latvian congregations, but he also began to actively lobby the church authorities for their establishment.

The election and consecration of Archpriest Pavel Kulbusch as the bishop of Tallinn was by no means the natural outcome of this process. It is possible that Father Pavel’s national origin was a reason for the unsuitability of his candidacy. Both in the diocese of Riga and among the church authorities, there was a strong fear that strengthening national self-identity and expanding the participation of ethnic groups in church governance would lead to separatism and the ‘Lutheranisation’ of Orthodoxy. Father Kulbusch, a married priest estranged from his wife, was also a rather unusual candidate for the episcopate. Only one third of bishops came from the married clergy, having taken monastic vows after the deaths of their spouses. Divorce was unheard of among the clergy.

In part thanks to the support of Patriarch Tikhon (Bellavin), in the diocese of Riga all the obstacles created by the ecclesiastical authorities to the establishment of a suffragan diocese and the election of Father Pavel Kulbusch were successfully removed. Considering that in the Russian dioceses no candidate from the married clergy was elected bishop, the election of Kulbusch as bishop was a major success. However, on 14 January 1919, the Estonian Workers’ Commune executed 19 prisoners who had been kept in the Credit Bank building in Tartu. Among the victims were two Orthodox priests and Bishop Platon (Kulbusch).

The Tallinn suffragancy was an important first step in the dramatic events that later led to the separation of the Estonian Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate. As the documents below show, in the process of pushing through the Tallinn suffragancy, Estonian Orthodox leaders rallied and congregations were mobilised. Thus, the restoration of the Tallinn suffragancy in 1917 was part of the establishment of the Estonian Orthodox Church, which ran parallel to the creation of a sovereign Estonian state: this process ultimately led to the birth of the autonomous Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church in 1923.

1. Report of Archbishop Ioann (Smirnov) of Riga and Mitau [1], 10 July 1917

To the Most Holy Ruling Synod.

Report of Ioann, archbishop of Riga and Mitau.

The Baltic Orthodox Church, which is primarily made up of up to 75% of the local population, Estonians and Latvians, has always demanded the most attentive attitude from the church authorities to their daily needs. The Estonians and Latvians who converted to Orthodoxy only recently (about 70 years ago in Livland and about 30 years ago in Estland) account for no more than 1/8 of the total population. Due to historical circumstances, the Orthodox are, with few exceptions, the poorest element in the region. The Orthodox communities are scattered over tens and hundreds of square versts and seem to have disappeared among the masses of non-Orthodox believers. The attitude towards Christianity of the predominant non-Orthodox population, headed by the German nobility, has always left much to be desired. An unbiased description of the fate of Orthodoxy in the Baltic countries in local official documents makes the most emphatic impression. To this should be added two anti-ecclesiastical currents which are gaining strength - socialism and sectarianism. And while the Baltic Orthodox Church has always been able to look only to its own numerous needs (ecclesiastical, pedagogical, religious, etc.), the question now, because of the changed circumstances, is the survival of the Baltic Orthodox Church itself: this young and still unestablished organisation, which has recently been abandoned to its own sad fate, has to reorganise its life under such extraordinarily unfavourable circumstances on a completely new basis, which is a difficult task [even] for originally Orthodox areas.  But despite the sorry state of Orthodoxy in the Baltic provinces, one joy remains for churchmen: the poor and few children of the Baltic Church have remained faithful to her, and there are still those who, in their faithfulness, take special care of the Church and wish her well with all their hearts. This joyful mood was expressed particularly vividly at the last extraordinary diocesan congress (25-26 May of this year), where Orthodox supporters searched with all their strength for ways and means for the rebirth and further prosperity of the Orthodox Church, the dear mother of all, in the region. And, above all, the establishment of two more dioceses for the Latvians and Estonians, attached to the diocese of Riga, was recognized as an urgent need for Orthodoxy in the region. The bishop is the head of the church, and it is therefore particularly desirable that now both Estonian and Latvian parishes unite around their own bishops to organise church life on new grounds, which is particularly difficult here because of the special local conditions.

The local bishops would best concentrate all of their small flock into well-organised organisations, which would then, as now, walk hand in hand, led not by a single bishop but by a council of 3 bishops. This question has been raised for a long time, especially in the Estonian part of the diocese, where the suffragan diocese of Tallinn has existed since time immemorial [2]; it came up at the small church council of the diocese in 1905 [3], but also afterwards. Now the time has come to meet this pressing need of the diocese of Riga. Therefore, on the basis of 1) the decision of the last diocesan congress that the Estonian and Latvian congregations in the region should be divided into separate diocesan organisations with separate bishops to govern these congregations under the authority of an independent diocese, and 2) the conclusion of the Provisional Diocesan Council, which recognises that, in view of the situation, which is becoming more and more apparent and threatening to the Orthodox Church in the region, this remedy can no longer be delayed any longer. It is necessary to submit a petition immediately and as a matter of urgency to fill the suffragancy of Tallinn and to establish a similar [suffragancy] for the Latvians, that the candidates for the suffragan bishops be elected at the forthcoming diocesan congress before the forthcoming Church Council, and that (in accordance with the aforementioned decision of the diocesan congress [i.e, the 1905 sobor]) all the Estonian and Latvian congregations be placed under the authority of these bishops, granting them independent pastoral rights [while] leaving Russian congregations under the authority of the present archbishop of Riga and Mitau.  In light of the above, it is my duty to humbly ask the Most Holy Synod to restore the suffragan diocese of Tallinn for the Estonian congregations and to establish a similar one for the Latvian congregations […].

Your Holiness’ most humble servant,

Ioann, archbishop of Riga and Mitau

10 July 1917

Source: RGIA, f 796, op 204, ot. 2, st. 2, d. 332, l. 1-2.

2. Report of the members of the Provisional Council of Riga Diocese to the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, 19 July 1917

To His Excellency,

To the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod.

Report of the members of the Provisional Council of Riga Diocese

In addition to the submission made to the Most Holy Synod by the archbishop of Riga and Mitau about the restoration of the suffragancy of Tallinn for the Estonian parishes of the diocese and the establishment of a similar one for the Latvian parishes, we have the honour to submit the following to Your Excellency.

The Baltic Orthodox Church deserves special attention from the authorities. Due to its location on the periphery, Orthodoxy is the main and, one might say, only support for the Russian state, since it is only through a common faith that it is possible to unite the local peoples with Russia. It is no secret that in the Baltics, two cultures are fighting for influence under the banners of Lutheranism and Orthodoxy: the Germanic and the Slavic. The Germans themselves, at least, do not feel the need to conceal this and are quite unequivocal in saying that Lutheranism is the most powerful force of German influence, not only in the Baltic provinces, but everywhere else in Protestant lands. Thus literally says the Berlin professor Th. Schiemann, in his Handbuch des Deutschtums im Auslande, Berlin (1913, pp. 129-130): “The Lutheran Church is the strongest bulwark of German power, not only in the Baltic countries, but also in all Russia”, because “it is the surest protection against Lutheran intermarriage with the Orthodox and against other perverse influences on the Russian spirit, as well as the best means of securing the spiritual and political supremacy of the Germans over Latvians, Estonians, Finns, and other Lutheran nations.” It is clear to anyone even slightly familiar with the reality of the region that both Russian culture and the Russian state are only conceivable here if there is Orthodoxy among the local peoples, Estonians and Latvians. It is clear that the political leaders of the region, whose eyes and sympathies have always been turned to the West under the influence of Lutheranism, cannot tolerate Orthodoxy in the least. From the very first days of Orthodoxy’s existence in this country, there has been systematic persecution. Initially, it was carried out by pastors with the help of landlords, who would not sell land to the Orthodox, thus turning almost all the Orthodox inhabitants here into down-and-outs. The Germans made no secret of their aims. Thus, for example, V. von Bock [4], who was born in Livland, wrote in 1870 in one of his Livländische Beiträge frankly that “the Baltic States are the north-east colony of Germany, one of the outposts of Germanism and Protestantism”. Another German, Verren, [5] published in Hamburg his Livländische Beiträge, in which he says that the Baltic countries are destined to serve as “German evangelical religious frontiers to prevent Asiatic barbarism and Byzantine papacy” (see Georgii I. Vigrab’s [6] book, pp. 101 and 103).

In recent decades, pastors have successfully played this role with the help of a spiritually Germanised, rabidly nationalistically oriented local intelligentsia. Now, as has become clear, Orthodoxy has been definitively declared in certain quarters to be a dangerous element for the national secession of the local peoples, and it has been decided to take all possible measures to eradicate it, which is particularly easy to do through the regional authorities, where almost all the administration is in the hands of the Lutheran Church. In view of the excellent organisation of this Protestant majority and its ability to act systematically in pursuit of its aims (it is enough to point out that the Estonian newspapers year after year report only negative facts about Orthodoxy, deliberately keeping silent about anything good), this possibility must be taken into account quite seriously. For Orthodoxy, the danger is all the greater because of our own weakness and lack of organisation. Under the old regime, we were hard-wired to be provided with everything and to act only according to the leadership. If there was any sign of initiative and self-determination, it was recognised, if not as political resistance, then at least as a sign of unreliability. In the end, the authorities themselves repeatedly changed their policy towards the church. Thus, the government forces initially carried out punitive expeditions to punish converts to Orthodoxy by making them run the gauntlet, while the first bishop of Riga [7] was deported. A similar threat hung over the heads of his successors. Subsequently, however, the government, apparently having correctly assessed the importance of Orthodoxy in the region, decided to support it with a generous hand. Churches and schools were built, and the treasury allocated sufficient funds to support the clergy. This strengthened the position of Orthodoxy in the region and gave it a lasting stability that is still felt today. Then, during the period of intensified russification, the state authorities unashamedly began to use Orthodoxy for these purposes, thereby causing considerable damage and undermining public confidence in Orthodoxy. Finally, the government, clearly influenced in this matter by the German barons here, has, over the last few decades, left Orthodox churches and schools to their fate, without taking the slightest interest in their plight. As a result of the insecurity of our parishes, there has recently been such a shortage of parishioners that the idea of closing some parishes has already arisen, where there are still parishioners but no longer any workers.

This is the sorry state of our Orthodox event at the present time, when the whole Russian Church is facing profound changes. Involuntarily, the question arises: can Orthodoxy exist or not in this corner of the world? And if we express the wish for Orthodoxy to flourish here, we should see in it not only our instinct for self-preservation, but also our deep conviction that the demise of the Orthodox movement in the Baltic peripheries would be tantamount to the total bankruptcy of the Russian state here. If the government has the slightest interest in the growth of the Russian state in the Baltics, it must, by the very nature of things, rely on the Orthodox cause and do everything in its power to maintain it. This is not in our personal interest, since Orthodox worship was and is a single great act of service here, but above all in the interest of great Russia, which we Orthodox Estonians and Latvians love dearly.

Given the present situation, we are far from thinking of basing our future plans exclusively on government support (on which we have so far relied and without which, in view of the small number and poverty of Orthodox believers, we will not be able to manage in the near future), but are primarily committed to mobilising all local Orthodox forces to act independently for the good of their faith, which will be a great cultural and national-educational factor in the spirit of evangelical love for lesser brothers. Naturally, all this cultural activity should begin among the people themselves, which is why the routine organisation of parishes has already begun. But this is not enough: for this to be a success, it will also require the close concentration of the forces of the congregations, in accordance with their national and local characteristics, around a common centre, their own bishops, who know the language and life of our ecclesial flock and who are thus able to be the true spiritual leaders of the people. In this, especially at the present time, we can see the fundamental contribution to the salvation of Orthodoxy in the region.

Therefore, the question of the urgent establishment of two independent suffragans in the diocese of Riga for the Estonian and Latvian congregations has acquired a special importance and needs the most urgent positive solution by both the Synod and the Provisional Government.

Tartu, 18 July 1917

Members of the Provisional Diocesan Council

Priest Antonii Laar [8]

History candidate Ivan Ivanovich Berzins of the Latvian laity

Viktor Petrovich Pedosson, a priest [9]

Vikentii Paklär of the Estonian laity [10]

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 2, st. 2, d. 332, l. 3-4.

3. Submission of the Estonian members of the Provisional Council of Riga Diocese to the Assistant Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, 22 July 1917

To His Excellency,

In addition to the memorandum of 18 July concerning the written submission of the archbishop of Riga and Mitau on the establishment of suffragancies for the Estonian and Latvian congregations of Riga diocese, we, as the authorised representatives of the Estonian congregations of said diocese, have the honour to submit the following in the matter of the financial means required for the establishment of these bishoprics.

1) In order to expedite matters, which is particularly important at the present time, we humbly request the Most Holy Synod to restore the suffragancy of Tallinn to the Estonian congregations of Riga diocese on the basis of local funds from the congregations of the future suffragancy for the time being, until the state allocates funds for this purpose. However, as these funds are rather scarce due to the poverty of the parishes, we humbly request the Holy Synod: a) not to refuse, due to the importance of this matter for the Orthodox Church, to allocate, in addition to local funds, an annual contribution of 2,000 roubles for the maintenance of the Tallinn suffragancy, b) to submit a petition to the government to charge this entire expenditure to the state as soon as possible.

2) As we have no authority to make any statements concerning the Latvians, we request that, in connection with such a solution to the question of funds for the establishment of an suffragancy for the Estonians, the question of a suffragancy for the Estonian congregations be separated from the question of a suffragancy for the Latvian congregations, pending the submission of a request to this effect by the representatives of the Latvians, after they have first settled the question of the funds to be spent on this purpose.

Finally, 3) bearing in mind that for the Estonian congregations of Riga diocese, a timely solution of the question of the restoration of the suffragancy of Tallinn is of exceptional importance for the future fate of Orthodoxy among Estonians, especially under the present circumstances (which we have described in more detail in our first letter of 18 July), we once again urge the Most Holy Synod to resolve this issue without delay, so that the election of a candidate for this episcopate, in accordance with the proposal of Archbishop Ioann of Riga and Mitau, may take place already at the local plenary congress of the diocese.

Petrograd,

22 July 1917

Members of the Provisional Council of Riga Diocese from the Estonian population of the diocese:

Antonii Laar, priest of the Aleksandrovskaia Church in Tartu

Layman Vikenti Paklär

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 2, st. 2, d. 332, l. 5.

4. Ruling of the Holy Synod, 1 August 1917

[…]

Having considered the above, and sharing the view of the administration of Riga diocese as to the need to establish new dioceses, but not seeing the need to grant independence to these dioceses and also taking into account the scarcity of funds for the establishment of new dioceses, the Holy Synod rules: 1) to re-establish the suffragancy which existed previously in the diocese of Riga under the name of the city of Tallinn, instructing the Most Reverend Archbishop of Riga to elaborate and submit to the Holy Synod for approval the office of this suffragan […].

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 2, st., 2, d. 332, l. 7-8.

5. The act of nominating Pavel Kulbusch, archpriest of the Estonian Church of St Isidor in Petrograd, as a candidate for the post of suffragan bishop of Tallinn at the Congress of the Clergy and Laity of Riga Diocese, 10 August 1917.

On 10 August 1917, in Tartu [11], in the premises of the higher elementary school, a general congress of churchmen and parishioners of Riga diocese (187 representatives) discussed, on the proposal and under the chairmanship of the Most Reverend Archbishop Ioann of Riga and Mitau, the question of electing a successor to the newly-established suffragancy of Tallinn for the parishes of Estonia. After hearing the opinion of the Estonian section of the assembly, both the Russian and Latvian sections agreed; [thus], the whole Diocesan Assembly agreed that the most suitable candidate for such an office would be the head priest of the Estonian parish of St Isidor in the Petrograd, the Master of Theology Father Pavel Petrovich Kulbusch [12], 48 years old, on which the foregoing deed was made, signed by those present, and sealed with the seal of the bishop.

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 1, st. 5, d. 518, l. 4-5.

6. Petition to the Holy Synod from the Orthodox residents of Pärnu, 29 October 1917

On 26 July of this year, the Synod listened to the most urgent spiritual needs of our region and, in accordance with the petition of our archbishop, the Most Reverend Ioann, and in view of the increasingly threatening situation to Orthodoxy in the region, restored the cathedra of the suffragancy of Tallinn for the Estonian congregations of Riga diocese.

On 10 August this year, the Second Extraordinary Diocesan Congress, at a plenary session of its Russian, Estonian, and Latvian delegates, with the consent of His Eminence Archbishop Ioann, unanimously elected to this episcopal chair Archpriest Pavel Petrovich Kulbush of the Estonian Church of St Isidor in Petrograd. With trembling hearts, the entire Estonian Orthodox congregation began to await the arrival of the new high priest. The more anxious and difficult life became here, the more anxiously the faithful looked forward to the joyful day when the Estonian Orthodox parishes, now beset by many tribulations, would be able to unite around the new suffragan bishop of Tallinn. This is also understandable, since the Orthodox position in this country has always been precarious, and even more so now; it will become worse as fewer Orthodox remain. Even now, in the face of the evacuation that is about to begin, the non-Orthodox are pointing the finger at the departing Orthodox clerics as hirelings. And it must be confessed that they are right, for Christ’s commandment makes not the slightest concession to the shepherd for his human weakness, requiring the good shepherd to give his life for the sheep. It should be noted here that the Lutheran consistory, the general superintendent, and all the pastors have remained in place. In such a case, the immediate arrival of a bishop in the midst of the turmoil of the war, a bishop who could unite the souls of the remaining flocks, organise their activities in accordance with the threatening demands of the times, and be the legitimate representative not only of the clergy, but also of the entire Orthodox population, has become a historic question of the future destiny of Baltic Orthodoxy. In the worst case, if the enemy should dare to do so, both shepherds and the flock would at least affirm the true faith by their sufferings, just as it was affirmed and adorned with martyrdom in the first centuries of Christianity.

Due to absolute necessity, almost the entire flock remains. And if the shepherd is never conceivable without his flock, he is especially necessary to the flock in days of terrible trial, to support the spirit of the weak, to comfort the afflicted, and, in the extreme, to give by his sufferings an example of Christian courage. And if the holy chief apostles Peter and Paul, who were so necessary to the Holy Church in the age of cruel persecution that was beginning to dawn, unhesitatingly went to their deaths with the faithful when the hour was right in God’s will, there can be no doubt that even now, when the Orthodox flock is threatened with unprecedented tribulations, it is necessary that the cross should be borne by the shepherds of souls, and among them the chief shepherd.

Knowing the state of Orthodoxy in this country, we feel it is our duty to state categorically that if all measures are not taken now, in these days of great tribulation, to save the Orthodox Church, it will be too late. And among these urgent measures, we have already, at the First Extraordinary Diocesan Congress on 25-26 May, given priority to the question of a bishop, who is now particularly needed here. Afterwards, there will probably be no need for a bishop, as it will now be clearly demonstrated to the people that Orthodox shepherds are only prepared to share bright days with their flock, while on dark days of trouble, when they are most needed, they go, leaving the flock to their own devices. Therefore, we, the undersigned representatives of the Orthodox community of Pärnu, who have received word of this from Moscow, dare to say that the Holy Synod has no intention whatsoever of allowing the bishop to come to us, in view of the troubled times and possible occupation of the region by the enemy. We urge Your Holiness to respond to our spiritual need and to resolve as soon as possible, in a positive way, the question of consecrating the suffragan bishop of Tallinn, for whom we have chosen, by the common wish of our archbishop and, exceptionally, of all the clergy, Archpriest Pavel Petrovich Kulbusch. We believe that he, having grown up in our country as the son of a village priest who was a living witness to the birth of the Baltic Orthodox Church and who himself has been familiar with the life of Orthodox Estonians since childhood, will not refuse to come to us for the spiritual support of his flock in all sorts of sad days of bitterness. We also believe that the Synod, in its love for the suffering Estonian Orthodox congregation, will listen to our supplications, which we have raised not out of a vain desire to strive, but from the depths of our own ardent souls, under the roar of cannons and the breath of death hanging over our heads. [We believe that the Synod] will take all measures to let the bishop come to us before it is not yet too late and may hope, with God’s help, to save the state of Orthodox affairs, be it at the cost of great sacrifices.

Pärnu, 29 October 1917.

Aleksei Küng, church elder

[101 signatures]

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 1, st. 5, d. 518, l. 13-15.

7. Report of the representatives of the Orthodox clergy of the Estonian part of Riga diocese to Archbishop Ioann of Riga and Mitau, 29 October 1917.

To the Most Reverend Ioann, archbishop of Riga and Mitau,

Report of the representatives of the Estonian part of Riga diocese.

Recently we have received private reports from Moscow that members of the Holy Synod do not consider it possible at this time to resolve the question of filling the recently restored Tallinn episcopal cathedra in connection with the tense situation in Estonian territories due to the proximity of the front and the possibility of a further German offensive [13].

We were deeply saddened by these reports, for when it became clear to us that Your Eminence is unable to share presumed imprisonment [i.e., German occupation] with the rest of the Estonian clergy, it was only natural to assume that a newly consecrated suffragan bishop of Tallinn, who, moreover, is charged with the care of the region’s Estonian congregations, would come to us in these troubled times. We thought that God Himself had so wisely arranged the situation of Riga diocese that those who were oppressed and those who were scattered would not be without the guidance and consolation of a bishop. However, we are deeply saddened by the negative attitude of the members of the Holy Synod towards the sending of a bishop to us now that the local flock is being subject to a trial by fire from above. We cannot for the life of us explain to ourselves the reasons for such an attitude towards this important matter, and therefore, in filial fidelity, we allow ourselves to address a heartfelt petition to Your Most Blessed Highness: listen to our sorrowful voice and do not refuse once more to go before your Holy Synod with an urgent appeal for your flock, which is suffering from a severe trial, not to be deprived of the merciful guidance of a supreme pastor, which is especially necessary in view of the possible imprisonment of the majority of the flock, both lay and clerical. We have already repeatedly demonstrated the need to consolidate the difficult situation of Orthodoxy in the region by various means, in particular by opening suffragancies for the Estonian and Latvian parts of the diocese. This necessity was most strikingly expressed in Your Eminence’s last submission to the Holy Synod concerning the establishment of a suffragancy. This part of the submission was also included in the decision of the Holy Synod from 4 August of thus year on the restoration of the Tallinn suffrangcy to the Estonian part of the diocese. This necessity was also proved quite authoritatively by the Fifth All-Russian Missionary Congress (from 25 July to 5 August of this year in the Biriuzovskii monastery), which recognized the establishment of the Estonian and Latvian suffragancies as the most important missionary instrument for supporting Orthodoxy in the region. Nonetheless, in view of the negative attitude of the members of the aforementioned Holy Synod towards this issue at this point in time, we try once again to express our fears and anxiety that, in the worst case, we would at least not be held responsible for a possible catastrophe of the Orthodox Church in the Baltic.

Life has been difficult for the Baltic Orthodox Church since the early days of the diocese of Riga. Orthodoxy and Orthodox Christians were treated as evil. Now the secular press is already clearly saying that Russia is perishing because of its ancient foundations - Orthodoxy and self-government. At a recent teachers’ congress, one of the pastors said even more clearly that Russian pogroms and anarchy are all the fruit of Orthodoxy: we Protestants have no pogroms. This means that a ruthless war has already been declared against us, aimed at the total annihilation of Orthodoxy in the region. And if all this is already being done now, when our land is still part of Russia, it is easy to imagine what will happen when the region is conquered, even if only temporarily, by the Germans, the most brutal enemies of Orthodoxy. There is no doubt that they will make every effort to provoke a mass conversion to Protestantism, and thus destroy our already weak parishes, half of which are not even parishes in the full sense of the word, but mission stations for 300-400 Orthodox souls scattered over tens and hundreds of square versts. Of course, it may that there is nothing to be done anyway; therefore fruitless sacrifices are useless. But we believe the words of St Prince Aleksandr Nevskii, that God is not in power, but in truth. We see how the Orthodox flock, despite all the horrors with which the “cultured” Lutherans threaten it in the event of a Germanic captivity, remains faithful. Orthodox Christians, who have always turned to their pastors in the most difficult moments of their lives, are still anxiously asking: will the clergy still be with us? And having received the answer in the affirmative, they calm down. But if the opposite is true, it is clear that the true believers face the most agonising days ahead: not only are they jeered at by the Lutherans for their ‘hired faith’, as a pastor recently ventured to put it, but they have no one left to turn to, whether for a kind word or not, just as they are unable to understand what compels a priest to leave the fold before any danger, as has now happened since the invasion of Riga and Saaremaa [14], when more than a dozen priests out of danger have left their congregations.

But therein lies the crux of the matter. For as long as the clergy are present, there is no need to fear for the congregations. Whatever the Germans may do to the priests, the people will still find comfort in the knowledge that our father remains with us and suffers for us. And the greater the affliction, the more closely the shepherd unites himself with his flock, the more firmly the latter remains Orthodox. But woe if the shepherd forsakes the flock: then the last foundation of our cause collapses. A nation confronted with the horrors of the trial by fire rebels with understandable anguish of spirit, and will never forgive the cowardice of those who ought by their example to maintain virtue in men. It is clear that when the majority of souls leave Riga diocese, only a few paltry remains will remain, and in so doing we ourselves will be doing our best to help our enemy in the eradication of Orthodoxy. The question may now be asked: why will the clergy remain? The answer is: they must remain, because under the present conditions, there is nowhere for the people to flee to, for refugees are forbidden to enter the 56 inner provinces.

Finally, one may ask: why then is it that the majority of the clergy do not seem to have sufficient determination, despite the fact that their departure, especially premature departure, will obviously spell doom for Orthodoxy? But this, too, is easy to explain: without a head, the body, however great or strong, will perish. The bishop is the head of the ecclesiastical body. Without him, the clergy are orphans. Accustomed as we are, in our poor diocese, to turn to the bishop for a solution in everything, even in the most trivial matter, the clergy, struck by a storm of the unprecedented and unheard of, has now, lacking the authority of superiors so necessary at the present moment, lost their heads altogether. Many cannot even imagine how to live and act when the last catastrophe is at hand, when there are no even communications with the supreme clergy and only enemies all around. As a result, courage leaves them. The terrifying, bloody images of bombardments rob them of their last courage. A man has no one to rely on - that is why his heart drops to his boots and he leaves, mad with horror. So it turns out that the [question of] a bishop who would choose to stay here even in a thunderstorm is centred on the question: can Orthodoxy exist in Estonia or not? If the bishop stays, the clergy will undoubtedly stay, too, if not all of them, then at least most of them, because the souls of the faithful will feel that there is a man who is clothed with the supreme grace of clerical station, to whom they can turn for advice and help and, if need be, for intercession; there is a centre which unites the whole clergy and can authoritatively steer the church ship in rough seas. The organisation is preserved, priests remain in place, and Orthodoxy is saved. After all, the people will not be surprised if the pastors, who are of one faith with the Germans, remain; but if the priests remain, and with them the bishop, then the highest proof is given to the people that Orthodoxy is indeed the true faith, for which the people sacrifice everything, give everything. In such a case, it would not be a fearful thing if the Germans were to make an attack on the lives of the souls of the shepherds: the harder the heathen persecuted the Christians, the more the light of Christ spread, for the wheat does not bear fruit unless it dies. Why, at such a terrible time, when half the world is in ruins, when kingdoms and thrones are perishing, when millions of the better men of this world are slain or maimed, should the Orthodox shepherd tremble with fear, when without the will of God not a hair of man’s head shall fall. We remain, after all, to watch over the tens of thousands of souls redeemed by Christ’s own blood and death. And no matter how strong human nature’s desire to hide from the storm in a quiet place, in our age of overwhelming destruction we are inadvertently reminded of Christ’s words: “For what profit is it to a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and but forfeits his own soul?”[Mat 16:26]For we can now at any moment stand before His fearful seat of Judgment, and so it is necessary to consider what response we will make there.

With all this in mind, when it became clear that most of our flock will remain in place, we decided, with God’s help, to stand up for the greatest good He has shown us  (holy Orthodoxy) to the end. Therefore, through Your Eminence, we beseech both the Most Holy Ruling Synod and the Most Holy Ecumenical Church Council to bless us and to send us a living bearer of apostolic blessing, a bishop. For we cannot even think that, with the blessing of Your Eminence, Father Pavel Kulbusch, unanimously elected by the whole flock to be the bishop of Tallinn, should refuse to come to us, when the Holy Synod and the Most Blessed Church Council have shown an indispensable will to do so and when the need for him here is so great. We therefore beseech thee once more, Your Eminence, to hear our heartfelt prayer and to beseech the Most Holy Synod and, if need be, the Most Holy Church Council, to bless us with the bishop as soon as possible, before the cover of the enemy falls over us. The Lord Himself blesses You for Your attention to the tears of a flock of souls, fervent in their agony and therefore seeking salvation through prayer and close communion with the shepherds of souls, who are in turn in spiritual turmoil under the terrible burden of the historical responsibility for Orthodoxy and, sensing their own infirmity, are seeking support from the authority of the supreme bearer of divine grace as the supreme healer of the weak.

The most obedient servants and humble supplicants:

Delegate of the church council, Võru dean, priest N. Päts [15]

Member of the Provisional Diocesan Council from the Estonian part of Riga Diocese and substitute for the delegate to the All-Russian Church Council from among the clergy of the same diocese, Antoni Laar, priest of the Aleksandrovskaia Church of Tartu.

Priest Joann Paavel, missionary of the diocese [16]

Priest Mihhail Bleive, pastor of the second district of Tartu [17]

Tartu, Estland province. 29 October 1917.

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 1, st. 5, d. 518, l. 7-9.

8. Minutes of the Extraordinary Session of the Provisional Diocesan Council, 22 November 1917.

A report was heard from priest A. Laar, secretary of the council, to the effect that, according to information received from Moscow, from members of Riga diocese at the All-Russian Church Council, it is planned in the near future to transfer Archbishop Ioann from Riga diocese to Riazan diocese, and that it is planned to place in the diocesan cathedra of Riga Bishop Makarii, formerly bishop of Orel. After a full discussion of this very important and, from the point of view of the fate of Baltic Orthodoxy, consequential question, the Provisional Council of Riga Diocese, as the only representative of the Orthodox congregations of the diocese, which [today] includes three deans as additional members, has adopted a unanimous decision on the basis of the present situation of Baltic Orthodoxy:

1) At the present time, when the diocese of Riga, in addition to the ever-growing civil war, is being mercilessly pushed under the heel of the enemy, when some of the clergy are in exile and some are in captivity at the hands of the enemy, while the rest are awaiting all sorts of miseries until the hour of death, in the anguish of soul, and demanding special spiritual support, the departure of the bishop, who had been divinely appointed to share the unprecedented sorrow of his flock, must be declared indisputably untimely; [as such, we] URGENTLY ASK His Eminence, on the basis of the voice of the flock of Riga represented by the Diocesan Council, to find a way to prevent the planned transfer and not to refuse to bring this request before the Synod.

2) If, however, the said transfer can no longer be prevented for whatever reason, the Provisional Diocesan Council is of the opinion that the filling of the diocese of Riga, as a vital outpost of the Russian Orthodox Church, surrounded as it has always been by numerous and powerful clerical enemies of the Orthodox Church, and now also by the cruel blows of the secular enemy, is a matter of the utmost importance and cannot in any way be resolved by bypassing the clergy. If the right of universal suffrage has already been granted to the clergy of the inner dioceses, then all the more deserving of this canonical right is the clergy of the Baltic Church, which has to defend Orthodoxy with special vigour against the systematic encroachments of a secular mass ten times stronger, and where every priest, every bishop, every layman is a fighter for the sacred cause. In order to defend sacred Orthodoxy, an asset which is dear to us all, at this time of turbulence for the whole Church, which is particularly frightening in the peripheral regions, there is a need for the closest unity of shepherds and flocks, based on mutual love, and a close knowledge of the particular conditions of the spiritual work of the Baltic. It is therefore quite natural that the most worthy candidate for the cathedra of Riga should be the bishop recommended by the diocesan assembly of Riga. From this, it is also clear that, at a time when Orthodox work in the region is under the greatest threat, when all efforts are needed to preserve Orthodoxy here, there can be no question of filling the episcopate of Riga without respecting the will of the clergy. For this reason, the Diocesan Council, and, we dare to say, the whole ecclesiastical community of Riga, remain completely at a loss to understand the motives behind the nomination of candidates to the diocese of Riga whose service to the Holy Church, as sad experience has shown, cannot continue in accordance with the apostolic condition of keeping unity in spirit through the bonds of peace.

3) However, taking into account the fact that Riga diocese is also involved in hostilities, that the cathedral city has been captured by the enemy, and that the entire diocese is in a rather unfavourable situation due to wartime circumstances, which prevent the flock from coming to the assembly to elect a new bishop, the Council thinks that the filling of the cathedra of Riga should be postponed until the end of the war, when the future of the Baltic provinces, which are at present half under enemy rule, will have been clarified, and the whole body of the Church of Riga will again have an opportunity to meet to organise its church affairs.

4) However, in these turbulent times, the Riga clergy is in particular need of leadership and the presence of a bishop here, where the question of the future existence of the Orthodox Church is already being resolved, and which has been presented in detail by the representatives of the clergy of the Estonian part of the diocese in its report of 29 October this year, the Council urges the entire diocese of Riga to unanimously elect Archpriest P. P. Kulbusch by facilitating his divorce and to entrust to him, as a person familiar with the Orthodox situation and needs of the region, the provisional administration of the entire diocese of Riga as the legitimate diocesan suffragan.

[…]

Priest N. Perehvalski, priest of the second Tartu district [18]

Priest Mihhail Bleive, priest of the second Tartu district

Priest Boris Bezhanitskii, priest of Haapsalu

Priest K. Vitols of Võnnu

Member of the Council Ivan Ivanovich Berzins

Vikenti Samuilovich Paklar

Andrei Andreyevich Tsimbrots

Secretary of the Council Priest A. Laar

Archdeacon K. Dorin

9. Petition of Aleksander Kaelas, a member of the Local Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, representative of the Orthodox Estonians, to the Holy Synod, 10 November 1917.

28 November 1917

To the Most Holy Synod

From the representative of the Orthodox Estonians attending the Church Council, Aleksander Kaelas [19]

From the very beginning, the Orthodox Church has been the object of hatred and persecution in the Baltic. Having emerged against the will of the Germans and firmly rooted in the midst of Lutheranism, it was only able to maintain its existence thanks to the support of the central authorities. The cutbacks in the government subsidy, which began in 1895, and the 1905 Edict of Religious Toleration put the Orthodox Church in an extremely precarious situation. The Baltic Orthodox Church, however, found itself in an impossible, even fatal, situation as a result of the coup d’état in Russia this year and the extremely sad developments in the related crackdown. Orthodox congregations are disintegrating and perishing; shepherds and even flocks have been scattered in some places. Faith in the future of the Orthodox Church is fading and disappearing; the hopes of the very militant Lutherans for the total displacement of Orthodoxy from the region, on the other hand, are growing by the hour, and this is often announced directly, openly, and audibly, even to Orthodox believers.

Such a frightening situation of the Orthodox Church in the region cannot leave the hearts of her faithful sons indifferent. Especially concerned are the Orthodox Estonians, among whom Orthodoxy has made the greatest progress and in whom faith in the survival of Orthodoxy in the region has not yet been completely extinguished. Trying to do their utmost, the Estonian Orthodox have come to the conclusion that Orthodoxy in Estonia can only be successfully fought for by all Orthodox Estonians, in the face of Lutheran and difficult external circumstances, by rallying around an Estonian-speaking chief shepherd who would be able to defend our faith both orally and in writing. The Most Reverend Ioann, archbishop of Riga and Mitau, anguished in his soul for the sake of his clerical children and keenly aware of their urgent need, fully supported the opinions and assumptions of the Estonian figures. On the basis of his intercession and prayer on 26 July, the Holy Synod restored the chair of the suffragan bishop of Tallinn so that a person who could speak Estonian could be elected. On this basis, the Extraordinary Congress of the Riga Diocese elected the Archpriest Pavel Petrovich Kulbusch on 10 August. All were confident that the person they had chosen would be confirmed without delay and would appear among them at the earliest opportunity to unite the Orthodox Estonians around him and save what could still be saved from Orthodoxy.

Now, three months have passed since those elections, but Tallinn and all of Orthodox Estonia are still waiting for the much-needed bishop. Such delay makes Orthodox Estonians fearfully anxious, but since the Germans’ new advances in the Baltic (the conquest of Saaremaa, Hiiumaa and the whole of the Gulf of Riga), it has also caused many to grumble and despair. Does the Holy Synod really not care at all about the fate of Baltic Orthodoxy? One’s heart sinks with pain when one looks at this inexplicable disregard for the supplications and prayers of Estonians who are plagued by fears and hopes. I, as the representative of the Orthodox Estonians in the Church Council, was first asked by letter about the time of the arrival of the new bishop, but now that it has become clear that he has not even been confirmed, having so far remained only a mere candidate, I am bombarded with incessant demands to inquire as to what is the cause of such fatal delay. Along with this comes the news that the parishes have decided to renew their urgent request to the Holy Synod to confirm Father Kulbusch as suffragan bishop of Tallinn and to consecrate him as soon as possible. Such petitions are being written and signed in various places, but one from the city of Pärnu, bearing the signatures of many parishioners, has also been sent to me these days for delivery to the Synod.

By sending the above-mentioned letter and asking for permission to send others if they are sent to me, I, in turn, join with all my heart in the supplications of the Orthodox Estonians represented by me, and fervently implore the Most Holy Synod to meet them and grant them the much longed-for bishop. There are no obstacles to this. It is true, we would very much wish that Father Kulbusch should not be required to take monastic vows prior to his consecration: this is, after all, forbidden directly by the canons themselves (rule 2 of the Council of Constantinople, cf. 6.). It is particularly undesirable in view of the special conditions of service in the Baltic provinces (among Lutherans). However, if the Holy Synod desires to stick firmly to the practice which has been in use in the Russian Church up to now and which is not in accordance with the canons, and does not intend to give us the bishop in any other way, then all of us, i.e., the Orthodox Estonians as well as Father Kulbusch himself, are ready to accept this difficult condition in order to save the greatest and most precious thing – Baltic Orthodoxy. We have appointed a new bishop, and he fully agrees. But as to the end of Father Kulbusch’s marriage, he cannot formally commence and carry it through until his election as bishop of Tallinn is confirmed. In order to escape this circle, I would urge the Most Holy Synod to make a decision in the sense of confirming Father Kulbusch as bishop of Tallinn according to election, but on the condition that he divorces his wife and takes monastic vows (if required) before his consecration.

Moscow, 10 November 1917

Member of the All-Union Church Council, Representative of the Orthodox Estonians of the Diocese of Riga, lecturer at the University of Moscow, Aleksander Kaelas.

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 1, st. 5, d. 518, l. 16-17.

10. Ruling of the Holy Synod, 20 January 1918.

The Synod heard: The petition of the delegates of Riga Diocese to the effect that a) that the cathedra of the bishop of Riga should not be filled until the end of the war and the liberation of the diocese from the enemy, and b) that the temporary management of the diocese should be entrusted to the most exalted suffragan bishop of Tallinn. RULES: Having considered this petition, and taking into account the fact that, according to the information available to the Holy Synod, Bishop Iosif of Uglich [20], who had been entrusted by the Holy Synod with the temporary administration of Riga diocese, cannot arrive in the diocese due to the present war conditions, the Holy Synod decides: (1) not to temporarily fill the cathedra of the bishop of Riga and to postpone the election of the bishop of Riga until the end of the war and the liberation of the Riga diocese from the enemy, (2) to release Bishop Iosif of Uglich from the temporary rule of the diocese entrusted to him, and (3) to appoint as the temporary bishop of that diocese the newly consecrated Bishop Platon of Tallinn […].

Source: RGIA, f. 796, op. 204, otd. 1, str. 5, d. 518, l. 37

Notes

[1] Archbishop Ioann (Smirnov; 1844-1919) was archbishop of Riga from 1910 to 1917. In 1915, as the German army approached Riga, he evacuated with church institutions and property to Tartu, where many government institutions also fled. In August 1917, he travelled to Moscow to attend the Local Church Council. On 20 November 1917, he was transferred to the vacant diocese of Ryazan.

[2] On 13 July 1817, the Tallinn suffragancy of St Petersburg diocese was opened, which was transferred to the diocese of Riga on 6 May 1865. Its bishops were Veniamin (Karelin; 29 May 1866-2 March 1870), Nikolai (Kasatkin; 30 March 1880-24 March 1906), Platon (Kulbusch; 18/31 December 1917- 01/14 January 1919).

[3] See I. Paert, “Conciliarity in the Borderlands: The Riga Orthodox Council (Sobor) of 1905 and the Church Reform Movement in Imperial Russia”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 73, no. 3 (2022), pp. 572−594.

[4] Voldemar von Bock (1816-1903) – Baltic German lawyer, historian, publicist, and politician, born in Loodi Manor, Viljandi.

[5] The supposed pseudonym of Carl Schirren (1826-1910), Livonian historian, publicist, and social activist who became famous in his disputes with Yuri Samarin.

[6] Georgii Vigrab (Juris Vigrabs; 1881-1958) - Latvian historian and publicist who studied at the University of Tartu from 1899 to 1916. His book Priibaltiiskie nemtsy: ikh otnoshenie k russkoi gosudarstvennosti i korennomu nasleniiu kraiia v proshlom i v nastoiashchem was published in Russian in Tartu in 1916. For more on Vigrab, see Aadu Must, Muutugu ja kadugu! Baltisakslased ja Esimene maailmasõda (Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2016), 160–167.

[7] Irinarkh (Popov; 1790-1877), who was suffragan bishop of Riga from 1836 to 1841.

[8] Antonii (Anton) Laar (1885-1933): Orthodox priest, founder and first priest of the Aleksandrovskaia church in Tartu, church activist, publicist, and editor of the Orthodox magazine Uus Elu.

[9] Viktor Pedosson worked as a parish priest, school teacher, and choirmaster in Tartu’s Aleksandrovskaia congregation from 1915-17.

[10] Vikentii Paklär worked as a school teacher in the Tartu Aleksandrovskaia parish from 1915.

[11] The offices of Livland’s provincial government were evacuated to Tartu in 1915 after the German invasion and Riga’s transformation into a frontline city. This situation remained even after the Provisional Government incorporated the Estonian-populated northern counties of Livland, including the city of Tartu, into Estland province in March 1917.

[12] After graduating from the Riga Ecclesiastical Seminary and the St Petersburg Ecclesiastical Academy in 1894, Bishop Platon (Kulbusch, 1869-1919) was the first priest of the Estonian parish of St Isidor in St Petersburg in 1907. In 1918-19, he was the bishop of Tallinn and the temporary manager of Riga diocese; he was brutally murdered by Estonian Bolsheviks in Tartu on 14 January 1919.

[13] During the operation in the Muhu Strait in October 1917, German troops occupied the West Estonian archipelago and there was an imminent threat that the Germans would occupy the Estonian province as a result of the landing.

[14] German troops occupied Riga on 3 September 1917, and Saaremaa and Hiiumaa during the operation in the Muhu Strait (12-20 October 1917). See I. Paert and J. White, “Letters of Orthodox Priests about the German Occupation of Estonian in the First World War”, Quaestio Rossica, vol. 8, no. 1 (2020), pp. 222-241.

[15] Nikolai Päts (1871-1940) - Orthodox priest. Võru provost (1914-18); member of the Local Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church (1917-18); deputy chairman of the Synod of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (1919-31) and chairman of the Synod (1935-40). Brother of Konstantin Päts (1874-1956), Estonian statesman and first president.

[16] Joann Paavel (1874-1940) - Orthodox priest and school teacher. He was a missionary in Riga diocese from 1911-17, and later a school teacher in Tallinn.

[17] Mikhail Bleive (1873-1919) - Orthodox priest of the main church of the Assumption of the Mother of God in Tartu (1916-19). He was killed on 14 January 1919 in the basement of the Tartu Credit Bank, together with Bishop Platon.

[18] Nikolai Perevalskii (1873-1966) - archpriest. From 1899, he was the priest of the Aleksandrovskaia church in Riga. In 1905, he was a delegate at the Riga council. He was evacuated to Iaroslavl during the First World War. In 1918, he was elected first priest of the Aleksandrovskaia church in Riga. In 1944, he emigrated to Germany, and from there to the United States.

[19] Aleksander Kaelas (1880-1920) - Estonian theologian, philosopher, and psychologist. Studied at the Riga Ecclesiastical School and Seminary from 1891 to 1901; ghe raduated from the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy in 1905 and from the Faculty of Philosophy at Moscow University in 1911. In 1914-19, he was a lecturer at Moscow University, and in 1919-20 a professor. Participated as a representative of Orthodox Estonians in the 1917-18 Local Church Council. After the death of Bishop Platon, he was unanimously elected bishop at the first Plenary Assembly of the Estonian Orthodox Church in Tallinn in 1919. However, he died suddenly in Irkutsk in April 1920 before consecrecration.

[20] Metropolitan Iosif (Petrovykh; 1872–1937) – bishop of Uglich in 1909–20.

Source

Originally published in Estonian as I. Paert, ‘Tallinna vikaariiskopkonna taastamine 1917. Aastal ja piiskopi valimine kui “kirikurevolutsiooni” ilming Riia piiskopkonnas’, Ajalooline Ajakiri, no. 1(167) (2019), pp. 69-118.

Translators

Irina Paert and James M. White