Riga, September 8 (Interfax) - The Latvian Saeima at a plenary session on Thursday passed in the final reading amendments to the law on the Latvian Orthodox Church (LOC) submitted by President Egils Levits, which envision changing the LOC status so that it would operate fully autonomously and independently, the BNS news agency reported.
The LOC used to act under the Moscow Patriarchate. According to Levits, the amendments will reinstate the LOC's historical status and rule out any authority of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Latvian Church.
The law stipulates that the LOC with all its dioceses, parishes and institutions is completely independent and not dependent on the authority of any Church outside Latvia.
The law establishes a fully autocephalous status for the Church and stipulates that it will be headed by a primate of the Church who is not dependent on any Church authority outside of Latvia.
It is also stipulated that the Church will inform the presidential chancellery in writing of the appointment or dismissal of church leaders, metropolitans, archbishops and bishops. The presidential chancellery will then announce the reshuffle in an official publication, as well as forward this information to an institution responsible for registering religious organizations and their institutions.
The summary of the bill said that this regulation will make it possible to verify that an elected person meets all the requirements of the regulations and the interests of national security. By October 1, the Church must notify the presidential chancellery of the incumbent church head, metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops.
It is stipulated that by October 31, the LOC must bring its charter into consistency with the amendments to the law on the status of the Church by making the necessary changes to it.
The authors of the bill believe that by amending the law Latvia does not affect and does not interfere in matters of the church's teaching and the canon law.
When asked whether the LOC will be able to continue contacts with the Russian Orthodox Church following the enactment of the law, Levits emphasized the known "canonical ties," but at the same time noted that the LOC will not be linked to the Russian Church. The Latvian Church as an independent Church can communicate with all Churches of the world, the president added.
The bill was drafted jointly with the Justice Ministry and discussed with all competent state institutions, and the National Security Council made a decision on it.
Thursday, September 8, 2022
Latvian Orthodox Church seeks independence from Moscow
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm seeing numbers for the size of the Latvian Orthodox Church being around 300,000. The RC's are almost twice the size, and the Lutherans much larger than that. Now, will the Latvian parliament be demanding the same independence/"autocephaly" from the Rome and Pope Francis? Since the answer is no, why not?
ReplyDeleteWe know why: Orthodoxy is in fact a collection of ethno-national "churches" in a way Protestant and Roman Catholicism is not. Heck, if we are honest, we could say that the Protestant's and Roman Catholics are de facto more universal, more "ecumenical", more unified (i.e. as in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church...") than Orthodoxy - at least in the sense of de facto church, state, and cultural relations.
What's the place of Orthodoxy in Latvia? Many things no doubt, but one thing fer sur it is a "identity" and thus a cultural and thus political football between national aspirations and Russia.
Anyone know what was the LOC role in this legislation? Did they ask for it behind the scenes in an effort to give themselves legitimacy in declaring "autocephaly"?
ReplyDeleteSize nor savvy administrations are not signs of one, holy catholic, aposolic church but rather adherence to to the Faith once delivered.
ReplyDeleteAnd that Faith "once delivered" is the defacto ethno-national ecclesiology we all practice, even in places like Latvia where Orthodoxy is a small minority yet somehow central symbol of national identity and aspiration? No offense Archimandrite Gregory, but this sort of answer is just a platitude - simplistic avoidance of realities.
DeleteI admit I used to talk this way, particularly to inquirers/catechumens. I don't any longer because it simply is not the truth.
If i agreed with you Jake i would then brcome Roman Caholic since they have what you seem to hold as being most important.
DeleteNo. Folks such as me who recognize basic realities are no way forced into "becoming Roman Catholic" or any other (yet another simplistic) either/or.
DeleteWhat it does mean is that we live in a grey area - nothing less than a 'glass darkly'. We don't have to pretend the mirror is clean...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Latvian Orthodox!?" - Estelle Costanza
ReplyDelete"Wait, is this the group that goes around mutilating squirrels?" - Frank Costanza
https://youtu.be/SC_gchsYFrM
https://youtu.be/Vb5dOuipR_w
"In this age of uncertainty and confusion, a man begins to ask himself certain questions..."
Delete"Is there one aspect of the faith you find particularly attractive?
I think the hats."
BAH!
Hoe does this government-created "Latvian Orthodox Church" differ from the Chinese Catholic "patriotic church" or even the Church of England as created in 1559?
ReplyDeleteAfter the schism with the Eastern churches, Rome no longer had a mechanism to recognize any other autocephaly apart from their one Pope. If Rome had not gone that route, then perhaps the Church of England and the Chinese Catholics would be recognized as autocephalous Orthodox churches today.
DeleteJL. Whatever differences we may have with Rome, I don't think the comparison is fair. The CofE was, and is, plainly heretical. For its part the CPA is just a front for the Communist Party. I see them as a Catholic equivalent to the Sergianism in the ROC during the darkest days of Stalinist persecution.
DeleteAnd yet Constantinople apolitically recognized even the Soviet "Living Church".
DeleteTrue that the CofE was orchestrated by heretical Protestant reformers and with the backing of their king, but it begs the question of whether there would have been a Protestant Reformation had Rome not gone into schism first. At any rate, England has been at odds with the rest of Europe at various times in history, so some type of autocephaly was bound to happen.
PLENTY of the various local Orthodox Churches were created by different governments historically in the same way the Latvian government is doing now. If some modern Orthodox hoot and holler about Latvia, Ukraine, etc...then they should be honest and also start condemning their own autocephalies...Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc...
ReplyDeleteIn the light of the subsequent posting on this subject, it seems accurate to conclude that the Latvian Orthodox Church "seeks" independence from Moscow in the same sense that the Church of England "sought" independence from the papacy in 1559 (cf. the resolutions of the Convocation of Canterbury on the subject while the Supremacy legislation was being debated in Parliament) or the Chinese Catholic Church "sought" independence from Rome in 1957. It remains to be seen if the response of the Latvian Orthodox will be more, or less, supine than that of the faithful, and especially the bishops, who were faced with those situations.
ReplyDelete"...Latvian Orthodox Church "seeks" independence from Moscow in the same sense..."
DeleteI admit it is hard for me to imagine this Dr. Tighe - that a substantially same "sense" or "spirit" is behind these three diverse events within the life of the Church. The turmoil of Reformation/Counter-Reformation western Christendom & Mao's China strikes as more different/unique then the same as the ethno-national "identity" and cultural (and thus political) "consciousness" that is the driving force behind so much of Eastern Orthodoxies ecclesiology and "autocephaly" since the break up of the Roman Empire.
What I meant to insinuate - do I really need to spell it out? - was that in all three cases "the Church" - meaning the bishops in particular, but also the clergy and (more difficult to prove) the generality of the laity - was not "seeking" what was thrust upon them from outside. Should the Moscow Patriarchate stigmatize the acquiescence of the Latvian Orthodox bishops in the enforced severance of the Latvian Orthodox Church from its "jurisdiction" as a schismatic act, it would seem to me to be little different on an ecclesiological level from how Rome viewed the events of 1559 and 1957 (putting aside the differences between Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies).
ReplyDeleteSometimes the secular political forces that are thrust upon the "mother church" prevent it from granting a new autocephaly. This seems to be the case with Russia now, but it was often historically the case with Constantinople too. We can see, for example, how Constantinople often resisted the autocephalies of national churches. However, eventually those churches are recognized when the "mother church" is no longer bound by those same secular political forces.
DeleteConversely, the Vatican asserts itself as a politically neutral sovereign state, but it has yet to recognize or grant autocephaly to anyone else. The RCC really is a different papal ecclesiology.