2 of 3

"Out of concern then for the unity of all those who believe in Christ, indeed agonizing and striving for such unity, we—the ones entrusted with the leadership of the Most Holy Orthodox Church—in no way ignore the necessity and obligation to care also for the preservation and increase of unity within our own Orthodox Church," the church leaders state.

The statement also expresses concern about the political abuse of church allegiance. In some countries of the former Soviet bloc, allegiance to the local version of Orthodoxy has been exploited by political leaders who are keen to drum up anti-Russian sentiments. The statement may also be a warning for the Russian Orthodox Church not to align itself too closely with nationalist interests. But, again, no country is mentioned in the document, which states: "The diversity of nations and cultures is beneficial and blessed by God. Our Holy Orthodox Church blesses and sanctifies it. Nevertheless, of its very nature the Church cannot constitute a vehicle for the facilitation or propagation of political, nationalistic or racial interests."

The message is also an indirect call for unity on the issue of jurisdiction over Orthodox Christians in the small Baltic country of Estonia. In the 1990s this proved to be the most troublesome issue within Orthodoxy and, in 1996, it prompted the Moscow Patriarchate to announce a "break in communion" with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The breach was later repaired. But after Patriarch Bartholomeos visited Estonia last October, the Russian church's synod announced in a critical statement on 8 November that it was breaking off relations with Patriarch Bartholomeos and would not be represented at important events at Phanar. However, unlike 1996, there was no break in communion. Russian sensitivity over Estonia is particularly acute because Patriarch Alexei is of Estonian birth and served as a bishop there before his election to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1990.

The issue at the heart of the dispute—the jurisdiction over Orthodox Christians in Estonia—is complex, because while many ethnic Russians there want to retain links with the Moscow Patriarchate, native Estonians would prefer to be autonomous under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

It was agreed in 1996 that Estonian parishes had the right to choose, but in the Moscow Patriarchate accused the Ecumenical Patriarch of breaking the 1996 agreement during his October 2000 visit.

In a nine-page statement issued in November, Patriarch Bartholomeos rejected claims by the Russian synod that he had infringed the 1996 agreement by visiting Estonia. He said that as Estonia now had parishes under his jurisdiction, he was entitled to visit them, as he had done in October.

Patriarch Bartholomeos also raised a complex issue for Estonia, which is the Orthodox principle that each region can have only one Orthodox bishop. While stressing the importance of this Orthodox canon, the patriarch expressed a willingness to tolerate some variation in Estonia until more definitive solutions could be found.

The patriarch also rejected Russian criticisms that he was blocking claims, by the Estonian parishes under Moscow's jurisdiction, to church property in Estonia. Patriarch Bartholomeos pointed out that such issues depended on Estonian government decisions, and urged Russian-linked parishes to register with the Estonian government to pursue their claims for property.

The patriarch concluded his comments by suggesting that the Moscow Patriarchate appoint a delegation to discuss the matter with officials from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. A meeting of officials from both patriarchates is to take place soon in Zurich, Switzerland. Informed observers say the display of unity with the Ecumenical Patriarch shown by the 14 other church leaders at Phanar last month is likely to pressure the Moscow Patriarchate to be more cooperative.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

January (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45