As far as religion is concerned, Estonia is famous for three reasons. Firstly, the level of secularisation in Estonian society is relatively high; secondly, Estonian legislation on religion is very liberal; and thirdly, since 1993, there has been a bitter dispute between the two branches of the Orthodox Church in Estonia.

It is partly the secularisation of society that accounts for Estonian liberalism in religious matters; especially as far as religious associations are concerned, Estonian legislation is one of the most liberal in post-Soviet society. The principles of equality for religious associations were reflected in the Churches and Congregations Act passed in 1993 as well as in the new Churches and Congregations Act which replaced the former in 2002.

The third keyword - the controversy in the Orthodox Church - is more complex than the first two. The controversy started in 1993 when the Ministry of Internal Affairs entered the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (EAOC), which had maintained its legal continuity in emigration since 1944, into the Registry of Churches and Congregations, and refused to enter into the registry the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate under the same name. To understand the underlying causes of this controversy, we should look at Orthodox church history in Estonia.

History of the controversy

In 1919, after the emergence of the independent Estonian state, the Orthodox congregations under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate established the Estonian Orthodox congregation and applied to the Patriarch of Moscow for autonomy. In 1920, Patriarch Tikhon granted the Estonian Orthodox Church independence. Because of the political situation, relations with the Moscow Patriarchate were complicated - Russian church life was disrupted by the ongoing warfare; as a result of the anti-church policy of the young Soviet power, Patriarch Tikhon was dismissed, and so the leaders of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church did not want to maintain links with the "new" Russian Orthodox Church. The EAOC leaders turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1923, Patriarch Meletios IV granted the EAOC the tomos. In the 1920s till 1930s the EAOC split into two dioceses on the basis of ethnic origin - one was Estonian and the other Russian.

The changes came in 1940 when Estonia was incorporated into the Soviet Union. Regarding Estonia as their canonical territory, the ROC rejected the decision of the EAOC to leave the Moscow Patriarchate as illegal, and the EAOC was merged with the ROC. In 1942, when Estonia was occupied by the Germans, the EAOC declared itself autonomous, while the Russian diocese remained under the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1944, with the advancement of the Soviet Army, Metropolitan Alexander fled abroad, and since then the continuity of the EAOC was maintained outside Estonia. In 1945, the EAOC was liquidated in Estonia by the Moscow Patriarchate. The congregations in Estonia were included in the ROC as a diocese. The situation in which the EAOC continued in exile and all the Orthodox congregations on Estonian territory fell within the jurisdiction of the ROC diocese, lasted until 1993.

The overall tendency after the re-establishment of Estonia's independence, was the restoration of pre-Soviet associations. The Estonian Orthodox community was split into two - part of the clergy and congregations wanted to be linked to the Moscow Patriarchate and the others wanted to restore the EAOC in Estonia. The division was not on an ethnic basis. In 1991, Bishop Kornily entered the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the Estonian registry of Business Companies, Institutions and Associations under the name of "Orthodox Church in Estonia. The Board of the Tallinn Diocese", which in 1992 was declared subject of property reform. This meant that the "Orthodox Church in Estonia. The Board of the Tallinn Diocese " would be the sole owner of church property expropriated in the Soviet time.

The second act

In 1993 the Churches and Congregations Act was passed in Estonia. According to the new law, churches, congregations and religious associations were to re-register their statutes in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In August 1993, the 1935 EAOC statute was registered by the Ministry according to which the EAOC had maintained legal continuity in emigration. In November, the same year, Bishop Kornily, also submitted the 1935 church statute for registration under the name of Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church. The Ministry of Internal Affairs refused to register the church of the same name, referring to the law. Bishop Kornily took the case to court trying to prove the historical and judicial continuity of the Church under his leadership with the pre-Soviet EAOC. The allegations of Bishop Kornily were not proved in court and the EAOC became now subject of property reform.

Throughout the 1990s, the ROC and the Russian authorities accused Estonia of discriminating against the Russian-speaking Orthodox believers as well as the Russian minority, bringing as an example the refusal of the Estonian authorities to recognise the Russian Orthodox Church under the leadership of Bishop Kornily. However, the reports of the US State Department and Freedom House on religious freedom, did not confirm the accusations of discrimination on a religious basis in Estonia. Russia linked the improvement of Estonian-Russian economic relations with the registration of the ROC under the Moscow Patriarchate as the legal successor of the EAOC. It should be noted, however, that the real source of the dispute was legal continuity - the issue of expropriated buildings and lands - who will own them and to whom they will be restored.

During the 1990s official and unofficial talks were held between the Estonian authorities and the representatives of Bishop Kornily on the question of registration of the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the 1990s the entries of one Russian Orthodox convent (1997) and one congregation (1999) into the registry of Estonian churches and congregations were announced. This gives sufficient grounds to allege that the ROC was not persecuted in the 1990s. The refusal to register the Church was, above all, a legal question.

In 1996 Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople restored the 1923 tomos (it had been annulled for Estonian territory, but not outside of it), according to which the EAOC fell within the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate. This fuelled the conflict and the Moscow Patriarchate broke off relations with the Constantinople Patriarchate. The interests of these two patriarchates clashed not only in Estonia but in other former Soviet-bloc countries, as both regarded them as their canonical territory. The only compromise reached by the two patriarchates was that the congregations in Estonia were permitted to choose themselves to which parish they wanted to belong. The majority of Orthodox congregations in Estonia chose the EAOC. However, even as late as 2000, the Council of the ROC Archbishops did not recognise the EAOC or its jurisdiction within the Constantinople Ecumenical Patriarchate. In the same year, Patriarch Bartholomew made a historic visit to Estonia and suggested that the Moscow Patriarchate replace the local church leader Kornily.

Possible solutions to the conflict

In early 2001 the conflict seemed to find a solution - the church within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate did not apply for registration as the EAOC and was prepared to give up allegations of direct legal succession. The new name under which they were to be registered was the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (EOCMP). However, the judicial question of legal succession of the EOCMP turned into a political one, because of the internal power struggle in Estonia. Moreover, the EAOC did not accept the name of the EOCMP, considering it to be misleading. Partly as a result of active promotion by the EAOC, the Minister refused to register the EOCMP.

The reason for refusal was the confusing similarity between the two names of the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, a possible interpretation of some dates in the EOCMP statute as proof of legal continuity and the question whether this was the foundation or the first registration of congregations, in which case additional documents were required. Bishop Kornily accused the Minister of Internal Affairs of bias and sued the Ministry, after which the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the EOCMP started negotiations to reach an out-of-court agreement.

The EAOC suggested that the congregations within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate should be registered as the ROC diocese or as the ROC in Estonia. This viewpoint reflects the reaction to the unwillingness of the ROC to recognise the EAOC as an autonomous church. The same name was proposed by the representatives of the Estonian government. These names did not satisfy the EOCMP. The experts whose opinion was sought, did not find the name of the EOCMP misleading. At the same time, the Estonian Business Association increased its lobbying activity in the hope that after the registration of the EOCMP, the double customs tariffs on Estonian-Russian trade would disappear. Their hopes were fostered by the earlier statements of the Russian authorities.

In June 2001 the Prime Minister announced that the name of the EOCMP was acceptable. After the revisions of the statutes, which were to do away with the ambiguity of the dates, the EOCMP was entered into the Registry of Estonian Churches and Congregations on 17 April 2002. The registration did not, however, lead to the disappearance of double customs tariffs that the companies engaged in Estonian eastern trade had hoped for. The ROC recognised the efforts of the Business Association by conferring an award on one of their leaders. The ROC also thanked the Russian authorities for supporting them in the controversy.

Now, however, a solution seems to have been found to the question of church property, as several buildings used by the EOCMP belong legally to the EAOC. The latter was prepared to cede its property rights to the state, which will be passed on to the EOCMP; the state, in return, shall renovate the EAOC churches.

What will be the future relations between the two autonomous branches which fall within the jurisdiction of two different patriarchates? Only time will tell. In the future, the question of the spheres of influence in society will become important, as well as the inclusion of ethnic, cultural and social groups in the church and their role in society. Despite the fact that the dispute has been settled, it would be too early to say that the "religious controversy" has been overcome. The traces of history may last for a long time.