There has been much debate over the Churches and Congregations Act, which the president sent back to the Riigikogu, asking parliament to bring it in line with the Constitution. In your opinion, is this law necessary?

This law is absolutely necessary. I believe it should definitely be adopted, for two main reasons. From a geopolitical perspective, when we look at Europe, we see just how many threats currently exist — especially in Northern Europe and in this region. That's particularly true because we share a border with a neighboring country that is far from friendly.

The issue isn't just about Ukraine; we must also take into account the threats directed at the Baltic states, including our own country. Across Europe, we're seeing rising concern over national security. A country's legal system and legal behavior cannot only react to immediate circumstances — it must also proactively look ahead and prepare for what may come.

Take a country like France, where there is already a clear understanding that their current legal framework no longer meets today's threats and challenges. A state has a duty to legislate in a way that anticipates, identifies and prevents threats to its nation and its people.

I also want to state clearly that my support isn't about siding with the government; it's about supporting law and justice. I believe the state is currently taking the right, fair and forward-looking approach. This is not just an issue for Estonia — it concerns all of Europe. We'll see how things develop and what the final decisions on this law will be. We must also show trust in the people we've elected to the Riigikogu and understand the president who faces difficult decisions.

This law concerns the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church (EKÕK, formerly MPEÕK) and its ties to the Moscow Patriarchate. Is it justified for the state to get involved in this matter?

As far as I understand it, this law concerns only national security. It's clear that no one has the right to endanger the security of the state. The Ministry of the Interior and various interior ministers have said that the existence of any congregation is not under threat.

If this law comes into effect — whether now or in the future — everyone, including churches and citizens, will be obligated to follow its principles. We cannot allow a situation where national security is threatened through or under the cover of a religious organization. We're already seeing this shift in mentality across Europe, where it has been highlighted in various places how the Moscow Patriarchate, in cooperation with the Russian state, undermines the security of other countries and interferes in both politics and public life. We cannot accept a situation where freedom of religion is exploited to sow confusion and chaos.

In other words — law is law and we must respect it. As religious organizations and churches, we have a duty to remain churches and to carry out the mission of Christian churches — not to play political games or engage in manipulation.

What lies ahead for Estonian Orthodox believers if the Churches and Congregations Act comes into force?

As an Orthodox Christian, I don't see anything changing except that we will continue our religious service: bearing witness to the Gospel, living out the sacramental life of the Church and showing respect toward our neighbors. All the sermons we preach in church — we are called to continue doing that. We are citizens of this country, and naturally, we are not entitled to any special exception just because we are Christians. We must live as Orthodox believers in the same way as everyone else lives here.

At least for now, considering the positions expressed by Bishop Daniel of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church before the law was passed, it seems they do not agree with the changes and do not intend to sever all ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. In your view, what possible future scenarios might unfold?

If they do not sever their canonical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate, then the question arises: what will their position be from a legal and legislative standpoint? It's clear that there will be both societal and legal consequences.

I certainly do not want to attack Bishop Daniel. Allow me to say that he is still a very young bishop who finds himself in a very difficult situation. I understand that well. I think he hasn't fully delved into everything he's speaking about and is rather repeating what he's been told. If the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church does not cut ties with the Moscow Patriarchate, then they will no longer be recognized or accepted as a religious organization by the state, and according to the law, that is exactly what would happen.

This law is not targeted at just one church. It applies to everyone — both religious institutions and, more broadly, non-religious organizations — that could pose a threat to national security through their activities. Security agencies are well aware of how Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate use local churches and entities outside of Russia to project their influence and achieve their goals.

I say this with deep pain. I am tired of the hatred and slander, of all the things that have been said. I must admit that the Moscow Patriarchate has placed us Orthodox Christians in a very difficult position. Orthodoxy has been placed in a difficult position not only here, but also in Ukraine. As Christians and Orthodox believers, our primary calling in society is to build peace and bring people together — not to stir up anxiety or create division. As the head of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, I am very strict with all clergy whose actions or words stray from the spirit of the Gospel. We cannot use the altar and the pulpit for anything other than what the Gospel and its spirit call us to.

What is the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church and Metropolitan Stephanos doing to help calm the situation?

I've made two proposals to the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. My proposal involves the creation of a vicariate. Of course, the term vicariate has a specific meaning, but in using it here, I've extended it beyond its usual definition.

My first concern has been how to help our fellow Orthodox Christians from the Russian Orthodox Church maintain their recognition in society — especially in the event that the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church decides to break its current ties. The state cannot help in this, because while it can address legal matters, it cannot intervene in ecclesiastical or canonical issues. According to the statutes of our Orthodox churches here in Estonia, we are, on the one hand, obligated to respect and follow the laws of the state, and on the other hand, to remain obedient to and in communion with our church leadership, which guarantees our ecclesiastical existence.

My proposed solution was to offer them a way to preserve their canonical status and ecclesiastical identity even if they break communion with the Moscow Patriarchate — so they wouldn't become a sect in the eyes of Orthodoxy. Once a church body turns into a sect, it can further splinter into other subgroups and factions. My offer was an outstretched hand, an attempt to meet them where they are and support them in this difficult situation they've found themselves in. This came with no coercion — only the offer of canonical communion and ecclesiastical integrity. I am not asking anything in return, except one thing: that, as a sign of communion, their bishops mention my name during liturgies. I have the right to be commemorated. That was my first proposal.

I am not demanding that the two churches immediately merge. They would retain the freedom to continue operating as they have until now. I've also shared this idea with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which likewise recognizes the need to assist our Orthodox brothers and sisters from the Russian church. At the same time, this offer serves as a gesture of forgiveness for the persecution and destruction our church suffered beginning with the occupation of Estonia. Historically, we were the victims here. I'm sorry to bring this up again, but by 1945, we had 200,000 Orthodox faithful in Estonia, 180 clergy and 153 congregations. When I first came to Estonia, what did I find? Ruins — and those ruins cannot be forgotten. When you travel around Estonia and see the churches that lie in ruins, they are Orthodox churches. Congregations were dissolved, holy places destroyed, and no one knows what happened to many of the clergy. We will remember what happened here, but we cannot remain stuck in the past — we must move forward. What will carry us forward is mutual forgiveness, even when the other party does not ask for it. The intention behind this proposal was to extend a helping hand and show that we have love for our brothers and sisters.

The second aspect is societal. I've been in Estonia for 26 years, and in all that time, we've never once held a joint prayer service with the Russian Orthodox faithful. They severed communion with our church. Yet in a societal sense, they have their own church community. Despite the strong propaganda that the Russian church has spread against our church and various individuals, there are many among them who are in fact willing to cooperate with us. The vicariate proposal offers a way to enable such cooperation — without subordinating or merging anyone — so that collaboration is possible. This would allow us to begin learning about each other and create a fraternal and friendly atmosphere that ultimately benefits society as a whole.

These are the two initiatives I've put forward, and there has been no change in my stance. I want to hope and believe that in the end, the spirit of love will triumph over the spirit of hostility.

How can the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church provide canonical integrity to the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church if they were to break ties with the Moscow Patriarchate?

In the entire Orthodox world, there are three autonomous churches: the Monastery of Saint Catherine in Sinai — limited to the Sinai Peninsula — and the Orthodox Churches of Estonia and Finland. Why are these churches autonomous and not autocephalous? At the time Estonia and Finland came under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it was decided not to grant them autocephaly because they were not deemed strong enough to function independently as fully self-governing churches. Instead, they remained under the support and protection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

A defining feature of autonomous churches is that they elect their own bishops. The only position appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate is that of the metropolitan. As a synodal-autonomous Orthodox Church, we have the right to offer canonical integrity to members of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, should they choose to break communion with Moscow.

According to representatives of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, it is not possible to break canonical ties with the Moscow Patriarchate. In your view, is that impossible or just difficult?

In this case, the question isn't whether it's impossible or difficult. The question is whether there is any will to do it. After I made the vicariate proposal, anyone from their side could have come to speak with us to find out what the proposal actually entails. They could have asked for clarification. But no one has come forward or shown any interest. They're simply talking.

One final question on a different topic. At a recent gathering of religious leaders in Rome, Pope Leo XIV said that there is a need for all Christians to celebrate Easter on the same date. At present, the difference in calendars makes that impossible. What do you think of this idea?

This is not a new issue — it's been discussed for quite some time. That said, it's notable and positive that Pope Leo has brought renewed attention to it. The topic gained significant momentum during Pope Francis' tenure, and I'm pleased to see that the new pope is continuing the principles of his predecessor. In my view, if a common solution can be found, then it absolutely should be pursued. I hope it happens soon.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and X and never miss an update!