State, Schism, and Sovereignty: The Battle for Orthodoxy in Estonia

In January 2025, the Estonian parliament passed a law forbidding religious organizations from receiving “guidance” from foreign entities. While the legislation did not say so explicitly, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind: Estonian lawmakers were targeting the canonical Orthodox Church.

As in Ukraine, Orthodox Estonians are divided between two rival bodies.

The larger by far is the Estonian Orthodox Church. It is in communion with, but autonomous from, Estonia’s mother church: the Moscow Patriarchate. This is the Church being targeted by Estonia’s parliament.

The smaller body is known as the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church. It is aligned with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Estonian government—like the Ukrainian government—supports the Church that is aligned with Constantinople.
But why? To answer this question, we must go back to the origins of the Estonian Schism.

Origins of the Schism

As we said, Estonia’s Orthodox community once belonged to the Moscow Patriarchate. These ties go back to the very Christianization of Rus. This all changed after the Russian Revolution. In 1919, Archbishop Platon Kulbusch of Riga—the Estonian leader of the Baltic dioceses—was martyred by the Bolsheviks, along with two of his priests.

The murder of Archbishop Platon was part of a larger Communist plot to divide and conquer the Orthodox Church. Patriarch Tikhon responded to this plot in 1920 by issuing Ukaz No. 362, temporarily granting temporary autonomy to any province of the Russian Church that could no longer communicate with Moscow.

In 1923, Bishop Aleksander Paulus of Reval contacted the infamous Patriarch Meletius IV of Constantinople. Aleksander requested that the “Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church” be received into the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Meletius obliged. That same year, Meletius issued a Tomos acknowledging Moscow’s declaration of temporary autonomy and declaring that, henceforth, the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church would be autonomous under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Aleksander was given the title of Metropolitan. (It is worth noting that Meletius took advantage of the Communists’ persecution of the Moscow Patriarchate by seizing control of Orthodox churches in Finland and Latvia as well.)

In 1940, Metropolitan Aleksander surveyed his clergy: should they remain under Constantinople or return to Moscow? They voted to return to Moscow. Aleksander then wrote to Patriarch Sergius petitioning to be “embraced with love” and accepted back into the Moscow Patriarchate; he also asked forgiveness for the “unintentional sin of schism.” Sergius rescinded Ukaz No. 362 and wrote a letter in reply formally receiving the Estonian Church.

Just a few months later, however, Germany invaded Estonia. Fearing that he would be targeted as a Russian sympathizer, Metropolitan Aleksander broke with Moscow and once again swore allegiance to Constantinople. The other Estonian bishops were divided:

The Diocese of Tallin followed Aleksander while the Diocese of  Narva, under Bishop Pavel Dmitrovsky, remained with Moscow.

In 1944, Russia expelled the Nazis from Estonia. Aleksander fled to Sweden with just twenty-two of his clerics, forming a “synod-in-exile.”

The community that remained in Estonia came to be known as the Estonian Orthodox Church (EOC), while the exiles became the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAOC) and are aligned with Constantinople.

In 1978, the Holy Synod of Constantinople, under the leadership of Patriarch Demetrius, declared that the “canonical communion of the Most Holy Russian Church with the Orthodox Church of Estonia has been properly restored, and the Russian Church can again exercise its pastoral protection and care over it.” The Synod, therefore, said it had a “duty” to declare the 1923 tomos “inoperative.” For the time being, the issue was resolved.

The Reemergence of Schism

Then, in 1991, after declaring independence, the Estonian government recognized the EAOC—now universally considered schismatic—as the “legitimate” Estonian Church. The EOC protested this decision and continues to insist that it is the canonical Orthodox Church in the Republic of Estonia.

In 1993, the EOC was granted autonomy by the Moscow Patriarchate.

In 1996, the Holy Synod of Constantinople, under the leadership of Patriarch Bartholomew, declared the following:

The Mother Church of Constantinople in 1978, prompted by ecclesiastical economy, responding with brotherly love to the request of the Church of Russia, due to the circumstances of the times, proclaimed the Tomos of 1923 inoperative through a Patriarchal and Synodical Act. This means that the Tomos could not be enforced within Estonia which at that time comprised part of the Soviet Union; the Tomos, however, was not regarded as being void, invalid or revoked.

The Synod of Constantinople went on to “declare anew that the Patriarchal and Synodical Tomos of 1923 regarding the Orthodox Metropo­lis of Estonia is reactivated in all its articles. We also recog­nize as the lawful successors of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church those who accepted the Tomos and un­ceasingly preserved her canonical continuation.”

Put simply: Bartholomew claimed that Constantinople, not Moscow, had the right to grant autonoym or autocephaly to the Estonian Church. This is underscored by Constantinople referring to itself as the “Mother Church”—a title that, in this instance, properly belonged to Russia. Constantinople also declared the EAOC to be the sole legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction in Estonia.

This is a clear contradiction of Constantinople’s 1978 decree—going to great lengths to reinterpret the decree as temporary. Patriarch Demetrius spoke of “canonical communion” between Moscow and Estonia being “properly restored,” allowing Moscow to “again exercise its pastoral protection and care over” Estonia’s Orthodox Christians. Additionally, it’s worth noting that by rescinding Ukaz No. 362 in 1940, Sergius had removed the very basis for Estonia’s temporary membership in the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Moscow broke communion with Constantinople in response to Bartholomew’s decree. But this schism was short-lived. About three months later, the two patriarchates agreed “to let the Orthodox Christians in Estonia freely decide to which church jurisdiction they wish to belong,” essentially establishing two canonical Orthodox churches in Estonia. Moscow and Constantinople then restored full communion.

The Schism Today

Orthodox Estonians have, indeed, “voted with their feet”: According to the latest census data, nearly 75% of Estonia’s Orthodox community belongs to the Moscow-aligned EOC. Less than 10% belong to the Constantinople-aligned EAOC.

This made it all the more surprising when, earlier this year, the Estonian government began moving to suppress the EOC.

Then again, is it really surprising?

The Estonian government is lashing out against the EOC in revenge for Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. And they are quite open about that fact. In May, Interior Minister Lauri Läänemets stated the following:

There is a canon which states that in the case of heresy, or false doctrine, parishes can take independent steps and do not have to adhere to their previous vows. According to the teachings of the religious world, heresy in Christendom is when someone talks about murder, rape, blessing war and destroying another country. . . . And what Patriarch Kirill did today is heresy.

Even if this were true, there is quite an enormous difference between the local Church declaring its autonomy/autocephaly, and the government declaring it for them—against the local Church’s wishes! It is especially perplexing when the government claims to be secular.

Here we have another parallel to the situation in Ukraine. As UOJ readers will know, Ukraine’s Orthodox community is split between two bodies. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) was granted autonomy from its mother church, the Moscow Patriarchate. The Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), meanwhile, was granted “autocephaly” by Constantinople. Firstly, the UOC is clearly the larger of the two. Secondly, the OCU is being propped up by the “secular” government of Ukraine.

Both the Estonian and Ukrainian governments are using the War in Ukraine as an excuse to suppress the canonical Orthodox Church in their respective countries. Why? Because those canonical churches recognize that they can only receive autonomy/autocephaly by their mother church.

What’s more, both the Estonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine! Metropolitan Onufriy of Kiev, Primate of Ukraine, openly criticized Patriarch Kirill of Moscow for supporting the Russian war effort. Likewise, the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Religious Freedom clearly states that Metropolitan Yevgeny of Tallinn, Primate of Estonia, issued a statement saying that “the church is guided by Estonian legislation, its own statutes, and Eastern Orthodox teachings in condemnation of war.”

Still, this does not stop the Estonian and Ukrainian governments from attempting to suppress the EOC. In fact, the Estonian government has threatened to merge the canonical Church into the EAOC wholesale. The EOC, of course, has refused.

The future remains uncertain for Estonia’s Orthodox Christians. Bishop Daniil, the vicar of Tallinn for the EOC, renewed his condemnation of the Ukraine War while also warning that the Estonian government would try to steal their churches and monasteries, as happened in Ukraine:

It has never happened, and it will never happen, that an entire Church must change its canonical jurisdiction because of the opinion of a single individual. Throughout history, there have been instances where leaders of local Churches supported false teachings, but even then, entire Churches did not transfer under a different hierarchy. We do not support Patriarch Kirill’s position on the war in Ukraine. We are not obligated to support it. We have our own stance.

Bishop Daniil acknowledged the irony: that Estonia would ban the largest Orthodox body in the country—and all in the name of freedom. “Passing a law that allows for the closure of a specific religious organization is wrong,” His Grace said. “We operate in accordance with Estonian laws. We want there to be freedom of religion. The Church must have the right to decide for itself.”

Patriarch Theophilus III has bravely spoken out in defense of the canonical church. Tragically, however, Constantinople remains committed to supporting the EAOC. The Estonian government also remains committed to suppressing the EOC. This would be a great victory for Estonia’s left-wing, pro-EU government. But it would be a crushing blow to everyone who believes in liberal, democratic values—not to mention the Orthodox Christian Faith. 

Read also