Statement of Communication Service of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations on election of new bishops for Patriarchate of Constantinople’s jurisdiction in Estonia

Representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s jurisdiction in Estonia at their meeting on June 12 in Tallinn nominated clergy for consecration as bishops for Tartu and Pjarnu-Saaremaa and announced that the process of ‘reconstruction of the Estonian Orthodox Church’ would be soon completed by establishing a Bishops’ Synod for it.

In this connection the Communication Service of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations is authorized to state the following.

The canonical status of the so-called autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church, whose foundation was declared by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1996, is not recognized either by the Russian Orthodox Church or other Local Orthodox Churches.

Specifically, the 2000 Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church considered it impossible to recognize the autonomous status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s church jurisdiction that has been present in Estonia since 1996 since ‘the recognition of its status as autonomous does not correspond in full measure to the historical development and the present situation of Orthodoxy in Estonia’.

For over twelve years the Moscow Patriarchate has taken efforts to fix up the consequences of unilateral actions which were taken by the Church of Constantinople in the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church and which led in 1996 to the suspension of the Eucharistic communion between the two Patriarchates. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly shown her readiness to search for mutually acceptable solutions.

Thus, during the recent negotiations on this matter between delegations of the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople on 26 March 2008 in Zurich, the sides agreed to continue negotiations until reaching ‘a comprehensive agreement to include both a solution of the problem of church immovable property in Estonia in pursuance of the 1996 Zurich agreements and a solution of the problem of the canonical status of the church jurisdictions belonging to the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow in that country’.

The position on the settlement of church situation in Estonia presented by the Russian Orthodox Church during the above-mentioned negotiations was set forth in the report by the DECR Communication Service on 16 May 2008.

The decision to consecrate new bishops does not appear to be conditioned by any real needs of the small flock of Constantinople’s church organization which is reported by the Estonian Interior Ministry to number only 25 thousand believers, while the strength of the self-governed Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is estimated by the same body to be 170 thousand believers who are guided by 60 clergy. It is sufficient to note that ‘the diocese of Pjarnu-Saaremaa’ has only six clergy, while ‘the diocese of Tartu’ to be guided by a hieromonk who was only ordained in April 2007 has 9 clergy, with some of them being rectors of as many as three parishes and one serving in two dioceses at the same time.

The churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Estonia are reported to have poor attendance even at rare worship services held in them. The election of new bishops can hardly change this situation as most of the Orthodox believers in Estonia wish to remain faithful to the Mother Church, the Moscow Patriarchate. The decision made on June 12 seems to be motivated by a desire to create an appearance of valid church life in order to gain recognition as an autonomous Church among Local Orthodox Churches and to enlist the support of international Christian organizations.

The step taken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s church jurisdiction without being conditioned by pastoral needs and with the aim to gain unilateral advantages will only complicate the situation of Orthodoxy in Estonia. These actions will make even more difficult the negotiation process with its aim to reach a fair solution of problems involved in the church property and the canonical status of the two ecclesial jurisdictions. Responsibility for this lies fully with Constantinople.