Although the Russian Orthodox Church in its documents regards Estonia as part of its canonical territory, from the point of view of Orthodox canon law this is not the case.
This is stated by church historian Priit Rohtmets and specialist in Orthodox canon law David Heit-Stade in an article published by ERR.ee.
The authors analyze the situation in light of amendments to the Law on Churches and Parishes that have reached the State Court of Estonia.
In the authors’ view, during this dispute the word “canonical” has become almost as popular a concept as “freedom of religion.” In particular, representatives of the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church operating in Estonia describe their ties with the Moscow Patriarchate as “blood bonds,” while withdrawal from the Russian Orthodox Church is called a “canonical crime.”
The concept of the canonical territory began to be used systematically by the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 1980s, and its roots do not extend further back than the twentieth century.
“With its help, the Russian Orthodox Church sought to entrench the idea that the territories that had been part of the church structure during the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union should remain within the Moscow Patriarchate,” Priit Rohtmets and David Heit-Stade write.
They argue that although, in accordance with the church legal concept of the Russian Orthodox Church and its charter, the territory of Estonia is also considered part of its canonical territory, from the perspective of Orthodox church law this is not the case at all.
Estonian Orthodox believers, who had operated within an independent state since 1918, withdrew from the Russian Orthodox Church in the early 1920s in a canonically correct manner by appealing, in accordance with Orthodox church order, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which accepted the Estonian Church into its jurisdiction as autonomous.
“Thus Estonia ceased to belong both to the Russian Orthodox Church and to its imagined canonical territory. However, this did not mean the disappearance of Orthodoxy of the Russian tradition in Estonia, since both Estonian and Russian traditions coexisted within the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church,” the article says.
The decisive period for Estonia was the occupation of the 1940s. The liquidation of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church by the Russian Orthodox Church during that period was unlawful and cannot serve as a canonical basis for contemporary territorial claims. Nevertheless, arguments continue to appear in public debate that reproduce the logic of the Russian Orthodox Church and ignore the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church.
As a reminder, the Riigikogu adopted amendments to the Law on Churches and Parishes in response to the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church during Russia’s war against Ukraine. The purpose of the document is to protect state security and the constitutional and public order.
As reported by LF, the State Court of Estonia in an open hearing on February 3 considered a petition by President Alar Karis to declare the amendments to the Law on Churches and Parishes inconsistent with the Constitution. The Moscow Patriarchate’s church believes the document is directed against it, while parliament refers to national security considerations.
Earlier, Patriarch Kirill Gundyayev of the Russian Orthodox Church stated that in a number of countries, including Estonia, there is allegedly an ongoing campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church.
