Talk:Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church

Does this group even exist?

Hello,

I was surprised to learn in Wikipedia the existence of a "Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church" besides the much-known Latvian Orthodox Church. Looking at the claims in the article, it seems that this "Church" is in fact identical to the Latvian Orthodox Church (same name, same hierarch etc.) until 1944, then ceases to have any activity except for a denied attempt to get registered as a religious organisation in Latvia in the 2010s, which is the only fact mentioned in all the given sources.

Looking further into the sources provided, especially the only one which does not seem to be a primary source or a blog, it seems that :

• The group is defined in the article's title as a new church : ...jaunu pareizticīgu baznīcu Latvijā..
• The 9 "parishes" which the group said to be representing were all themselves created around the same time as the original request for registration (2012-2013)
• The group does not even seem to claim to be the direct or legal successor of a 1936-1940 Church that would have been in exile, but merely a spiritual successor.

Besides, the article does not seem to indicate any actual presence of this group either in Latvia or elsewhere, any hierarchy, any website, any physical address.

At first sight this article seems to be either a prank, a hoax, or a side effect of the hot editing context at 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism, and anyway a good candidate for WP:AfD. I suggest that a mention of the legal challenge for registration be moved to a section of the Latvian Orthodox Church article, if at all, and I do not see any other worthwhile content. However, I am open to read if there are other notability signs of this organization which I missed. Place Clichy (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Place Clichy:!

a) First, I want to insure you that in no way did I try to make a prank by writing this article. What pushed me to write this article is a mention in two official communiqués of the Russian Orthodox Church, which state:

1) "the Patriarchate of Constantinople, behind [the ROC's] back and without its consent, took uncanonical actions against [the ROC's] parts – the autonomous Churches in the territory of the young states formed on the borders of the former Russian Empire: in 1923 it transformed the autonomous Churches in the territory of Estonia and Finland into its own metropolias, in 1924 granted the autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church[i], and in 1936 proclaimed its jurisdiction in Latvia. [...]"

2) "The Russian Church was subjected to the atheistic persecutions, and Constantinople did all it could to tear from its living body those parts that were within its reach: Estonia, Finland, Poland, and Latvia."

I could find the churches of Poland, Finland and Estonia which had left the ROC because of a decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, I could not find a church in Latvia in which a similar situation happened, hence why I did some research and created this article.

b) Second, you wrote: "it seems that this "Church" is in fact identical to the Latvian Orthodox Church (same name, same hierarch etc.) until 1944, then ceases to have any activity except for a denied attempt to get registered as a religious organisation in Latvia in the 2010s, which is the only fact mentioned in all the given sources." Exactly, the Latvian Orthodox Church left the ROC to come under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and changed its name, just like the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate became the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, but the EAOC was later forced to exile when the Soviet union invaded Estonia. See 1996 Moscow–Constantinople schism for the full context. Moreover, in 1978 the Ecumenical Patriarchate also deemed the EAOC deactivated (see 1996 Moscow–Constantinople schism).

Thirdly, according to the Latvian supreme court, the LAOC does not claim to be merely a spiritual successor, but to be the same exact same church as the one which was received by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1936: "The Applicant, the religious organization "Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church", believes that the organization is not a new religious organization. It was registered in the Republic of Latvia already before 1940, since 1936 the Autonomous Orthodox Church was in a canonical relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople."

Fourtly, according to Lursoft, the LAOC has its headquarter in Latvia. The EAOC had no church in Estonia until 1996, yet still existed, mainly in Sweden (cf. 1996 Moscow–Constantinople schism). There is a clear parallel between the LAOC and the EAOC, which means the LAOC's situation is totally realistic (albeit pretty complicated). I know the following is not really a good argument, but I still would like to point out this detail: the building which is supposed to be the headquarter of the LAOC is clearly a religious building, as can be see by the icon above the door and the Orthodox cross on the side of the building.

As for the article claiming the church is new, it must be a mistake made by the journalist, as the LAOC is far from being new.

So, from the information I could gather, the religious organization does exist. I unfortunately could not find more information since I do not speak Latvian. Veverve (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thank you for your explanations.

1°) About the 1936 recognition by Constantinople: this is not disputed, already discussed at Latvian Orthodox Church and, in my opinion, does not create the need for a new article for the period of 1936-1940/1944. The Latvian Orthodox Church#History is is the answer to you query: "However, I could not find a church in Latvia in which a similar situation happened." Another name may temporarily have been used, but orthodox churches seem to be frequently know by other names and the first few sources I looked up seem to predominantly use Latvian Orthodox Church rather than any version of Autocephalous or Autonomous Church, see [1] or [2] which consistently use Latvian Orthodox Church for the entire period.

The parallel with Estonia is not relevant because this temporary Constantinopolitan jurisdiction did not create a new separate Church. The Latvian Church, under the same hierarch, Metropolitan Augustin (Petersons), returned to the Moscow jurisdiction in 1941 and Constantinople does not claim any jurisdiction over Latvia today.

2°) According to several sources, the self-called LAOC/LOAC seems likely to be in fact a diocese (or part) of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, a non-canonical "True Orthodoxy" organization established in Suzdal in 1994, following a temporary union of Catacomb Church members with ROCOR after the latter, then uncanonical, had attempted to (re-)establish itself in post-Soviet Russia. See for instance:

bishops - Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church: Archbishop Victor of Daugavpils and Latvia. Born in 1944. In 1988 was tonsured into monasticism. On June 21, 1995 was consecrated a bishop. Archbishop Victor it the head of Latvian Autonomous Orthodox Church in Jurisdiction of Synod of ROAC. Latvian Church is persecuted very much from the Latvian government, that wants all Orthodox parishes to go under Constantinople ( [sic]). Many times church members were taken to the police. Also the city authorities try make them to remove crosses from the church building. Vladyka Victor has 10 parishes in Daugavpils, Riga, Tukumsa and Jurmala. They are building a Cathedral of St. Vladimir in Daugavpils and a monastery of Protection of Mother of God in Tukumsa.

September 2017: The status of legal entity denied to the Latvian Autonomous Orthodox Church, Eurel project (Sociological and legal data on religions in Europe and beyond): In 1994, the Latvian Orthodox priest-monk Viktors Kontuzorovs (b.1944) left the Latvian Orthodox Church and joined the Russian autonomous Orthodox Church. Over the past 23 years, the Latvian autonomous Orthodox Church has tried to gain registration as an “Orthodox Church”. [...] On July 19, 2017, the Constitutional court of Latvia started to examine a case regarding the Administrative District Court’s decision to dismiss the application of the Latvian Autonomous Orthodox Church for entering the Register of Religious Organisations...

Religious belonging - some figures, Eurel project, citing information from the Latvian Ministry of Justice, cites a presence of 220 Orthodox Christians (Autonomous) in 2015, compared with 370,000 mainstream Orthodox Christians and 41,042 Old Believers.

Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, diocese of America: His Eminence, The Most Reverend Archbishop VICTOR of Daugavpils and Latvia. Archbishop Victor was born in 1944, and tonsured into monasticism in 1988. He was consecrated a bishop on June 21, 1995. Archbishop Victor is the head of the Latvian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church under the jurisdiction of the Synod of ROAC. The Latvian Church is greatly persecuted by the Latvian government, which desires that all Orthodox parishes within its borders be canonically-subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople ( [sic]). As a result, on many occasions the faithful have been harassed or arrested, and churches, dwellings, and diocesan buildings have been set on fire or have been vandalized. For resisting submission to the Ecumenist Patriarchate of Constantinople ( [sic]), the ROAC/LOAC faithful in Latvia are denied legal recognition by the government, which, while granting legal recognition to heterodox confessions in Latvia, even goes so far as to deny Archbishop Victor's flock the right to place crosses on their temples.
Vladyka Victor has ten parishes in Daugavpils, Riga, Tukumsa, and Jurmala. Two of these parishes are involved in building projects for the erection of a Cathedral dedicated to the Holy Equal-to-the- Apostles Saint Prince Vladimir in Daugavpils and for the construction of a monastery dedicated to the Holy Protection of Mother of God in Tukumsa.

Frans Hoppenbrouwers, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 2006, "The Baltic Area" (see p. 99): In 1994 the Latvian Orthodox priest-monk Victor Kontuzorov left the LOC and joined the ROCA... Presently Archbishop Viktor heads the Latvian Autonomous Orthodox Church (LAOC), which consists of 14 parishes all over Latvia...

I am tended to give credit to these claims. To sum it up:

1. There is a non-canonical jurisdiction called Latvian Autonomous Orthodox Church, of maybe around 200 members and 10 churches
2. It is part of True Orthodoxy jurisdiction Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, also called the "Suzdal schism"
3. It separated from the ROC/LOC in 1994
4. It is completely unrelated to Constantinople (the website of its mother church actually seems rather hostile to Constantinople)
5. Although it claimed in Court proceedings heritage from the 1936-1941 Latvian Orthodox Church (not called "Autonomous") that accepted the tutelage of Constantinople, there are so visible signs to it, and these legal challenges were denied. I suggest to avoid at all cost presenting as fact that this Church has any link to the 1936 Church (according to the Latvian supreme court..., The church still exists...) and prefer wording such as: In its registration request, LAOC claimed/Asked to be recognized as the same legal entity as the Latvian Orthodox Church registered between 1936 and 1940... To quote the same Supreme Court abstract as you, The [LAOC] launched the renewal of its legal status scheduled for 1940, but the renewal was refused. [...] The applicant requests the Court to take into account that on 13 November 1996 the congregations of the Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church had submitted documents for restoration of spiritually canonical condition before the 1940.

So there is a group called LAOC, but it is not at all what the article says, which has 90% of its content on the 1930s Church! I suggest removing all reference to the 1930s Church, focusing the article on the modern jurisdiction (if a 10-church 200-member diocese is eligible per WP:NCHURCH), and placing a mention about the claim to succession to the 1936 Church in a paragraph about the legal challenge. Place Clichy (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer @Place Clichy:.

It seems that you are right and that I mistook one church for another, mainly because the part of the Latvian Orthodox Church under Constantinople had fled to West Germany, and was apparently still active in 1978, and that I could not find what happened to this exiled church after 1978. From what you showed me, the LAOC is very likely to be a diocese or an autonomous metropolis/archbishopric of the ROAC, I agree.

By the way, the article of the Latvian Orthodox Church incorrectly mentions (without giving any reference (!)):

In the following year, the Latvian Orthodox Church became autocephalous under the auspices of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I believe part of the work I did in this article could be reused to improve the Latvian Orthodox Church article, and that the article about the Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church should be... about the Latvian Orthodox Autonomous Church, but the real (True Orthodox) church, this time!

As for reorganizing the information, I leave it to you. Lastly, I allow myself to suggest that sending an e-mail to the ROAC could help in clarifying some of the details (e.g. is the LAOC an exarchate or a metropolis). Thanks for having taken the time to explain the situation! Veverve (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, any information and source we found regarding the period where the Latvian Orthodox Church went under jurisdiction from Constantinople can be moved to this article. Place Clichy (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: could you please reorganize the information (i.e. change the page of the LAOC so that it does not refer to the Latvian Orthodox Church and precise what the LAOC really is, update the article of the Latvian Orthodox Church, etc.)? Veverve (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I did it myself, in the end. Veverve (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

References