A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY
|
|
|
| Volume 6 Number 20 - Tuesday, May 18th, 2004 |
A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY |
|
• Search Engine
•
OCN
Website
|
The Orthodox Christian News Service |
|
|
The Patriarch
Creates His Own Problems
The National Herald, May 14, 2004 - Two years ago almost to the day, on May 11-12, 2002 to be exact, I wrote a regular column in this newspaper under the title “The Patriarch’s Problem.” It was the time just before the Clergy-Laity Congress of that year and the main issue, as you may recall, was the Patriarch’s insistence on imposing his own views on the revision of the Archdiocese’s Charter. In that column, I had pointed out the obvious fact that “the Patriarchate has no police, no courts, no prisons. It has no machinery of enforcement, no means of punishment...[It] does not have the authority to collect taxes.” The Patriarch, I argued, is trying to exercise governing authority without having the means of doing so. I concluded that “the Patriarchate is a symbol. Its major source of strength is the affection, the support, the veneration of the faithful.” I respectfully submitted that “to bring back the old feelings of love and honor, the Patriarch—on his own volition, not as a grudging surrender under pressure—must declare that he wants the “province” in America to manage its affairs under the canons of the faith, not the rulings of the Patriarchate.” As the Clergy-Laity Congress was near, I suggested that it offered “a unique opportunity for the Patriarch to restore the Patriarchate as a respected, beloved, venerated spiritual symbol that all the faithful freely and genuinely will uphold and support as the supreme center of our faith.” A few weeks later, on Monday, July 8, 2002, Patriarch Bartholomaios, in his message to the Clergy-Laity Congress said: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not have either the possibility or the intention to interfere in the self-governing of the Holy Archdiocese of America and of the parishes and communities or institutions that are under it. Neither does it have the intention to restrict the autonomy of the above that has existed for some time.” It was as if the Patriarch read the article and responded positively to it. In good faith, I wrote in a subsequent column: “I think we should accept that the Patriarch means exactly what he says. His message is clear—and binding.” Time soon revealed that the message may have been clear, but in the mind of the Patriarch, it was neither binding nor real. Two years later, Patriarch Bartholomaios continues to live and operate under the illusion that he has the power to govern. He apparently does not accept or even comprehend that being financially dependent on others, who voluntarily contribute to the Patriarchate, cannot accept his will imposed upon them. It is a harsh reality, but a reality that should not and cannot be ignored. Now, a number of Greek Orthodox laymen have filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of the State of New York against the Archdiocese on the grounds that it has violated the Charter by not obtaining the approval of the Clergy-Laity Congress on the revisions imposed by the Patriarchate. It is a regrettable action but it is not an indication of enmity, or disrespect to our Church as a venerable institution. It is a reaction to the Patriarch’s continuing arbitrary behavior. For many decades, even under such giants as Patriarch Athenagoras, the relations between the Patriarchate and the Archdioceses of North and South America were as they should be. To Greek American Orthodox Christians, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople was a highly honored and revered center of the Faith. At every difficult moment, the Patriarchate could count on the decisive support and defense from the faithful parishioners of the Archdiocese. It was a sacred symbol. Patriarch Bartholomaios has undermined and weakened those ties. From a revered symbol, he became a source of controversy. This is most regrettable. The Patriarch’s misconception of his role does not create problems only in the United States. He is now embroiled in a serious conflict with the Autocephalus Church of Greece. The issues are complex, but a brief summary of the key points may help the reader to understand. During the Balkan Wars, (1912-1913), several areas in northern Greece and the islands were liberated from Turkish rule. The dioceses that existed there and, which up to that time were not under the jurisdiction of the Autocephalus Church of Greece, became known as the “dioceses of the New Lands.” In 1928, an agreement between Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate defined the authority of the Patriarchate, limiting it mostly to a spiritual connection. For the next 70 years, the Church of Greece would elect the bishops for these dioceses without any objection or interference by the Patriarchate. Lately, the Patriarchate stated that the dioceses, such as that of Thessaloniki, which were vacant due to the death of the last metropolitan, should be filled by hierarchs selected and appointed by the Patriarchate. This caused serious dissension. Archbishop Christodoulos of the Church of Greece agreed only to send the list of the replacements “for information only.” This was rejected by the Patriarchate. The Church of Greece went ahead and elected the new metropolitans. The Patriarchate declared the elections null and void. To strengthen his position, Patriarch Bartholomaios convened “a wider synod” in which he invited several hierarchs, including our Archbishop Demetrios. Pointedly, he left out several others who evidently were not likely to agree with him, and he imposed certain ecclesiastical penalties on Christodoulos. As of this writing, the problem remains unresolved.
Whatever the outcome of these disputes, the fact
remains that the Ecumenical Patriarchate can
survive only as a symbol. But symbols do not
remain revered symbols when they become the cause
and the object of controversy. A simple truth, the
Patriarch apparently forgot. |
|
Home • Archives • Search • Submissions • Support Us |
||
|
Orthodox News, PO BOX 6954 |
