Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analysis: Replacing disgraced patriarch of Jerusalem a tough choice
United Press International (via Middle East Times) ^ | July 28, 2005 | Roland Flamini

Posted on 07/28/2005 2:43:22 PM PDT by monkapotamus

Analysis: Replacing disgraced patriarch of Jerusalem a tough choice

Roland Flamini
United Press International
July 28, 2005

WASHINGTON -- By the time the synod of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem convenes on August 15 to elect a new patriarch of the Holy City, they hope to have evicted the current one from the residence where he has dug himself in, protected by Israeli police.

Patriarch Irineos I was voted out of office by his peers in the Episcopal Synod in May when it emerged that he had, without proper consultation, leased church property in East Jerusalem to Jewish developers.

The expulsion was confirmed at a meeting of Orthodox patriarchs from Moscow, Cyprus, Serbia, Alexandria and Antioch in Istanbul on May 23. Still, Patriarch Irineos remains in the house adjoining the church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem with Israelis guarding him from any attempt to remove him forcibly.

Responsibility for maintaining the holy places in Jerusalem including the landmarks connected with the life of Jesus is shared by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy, but the partnership between clerics has not always been a happy one. Irineos himself led at least one demonstration in which Catholic pilgrims were beaten up by Orthodox churchgoers, and the clashes had to be broken up by Israeli police.

The Jerusalem government's support is based on its claim that it has the right to approve both the appointment and - as in this case - the removal of the Orthodox patriarch. The government of Jordan claims the same right, but contrary to the Israelis it has endorsed the synod's ouster and supports the selection of Irineos' successor. On July 14 Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), issued a statement also endorsing the patriarch's removal.

The fact that the Jewish state and two Muslim governments should claim to exert authority over an Orthodox Christian patriarch is a somewhat tenuous link to the Ottoman Empire, and before that to the Byzantine Empire in which the affairs of church and state were very closely entwined.

Jerusalem-based historian, David M. Jaeger, a Franciscan friar, recently wrote that the Greek Orthodox patriarchate came under Islamic control when the Ottomans conquered Jerusalem in the first half of the sixteenth century.

Jordan assumed that authority when the Hashemite kingdom ruled the eastern section of a divided Jerusalem. The 1967 Six Day War left Israel in possession of all of the Holy City, and the Israelis insisted on a right of approval of the Jerusalem patriarch. Irineos I, for example, assumed office in 2001, but the Israeli government - which had vetoed his submission as a candidate - did not recognize the election until three years later after long and secret negotiations.

In the charged atmosphere of that troubled region, the secrecy surrounding his acceptance led to a suspicion that the patriarch was serving Israeli interests. When it emerged earlier this year that he had sold a complex of buildings in the Old City (where the patriarchate is the leading landowner) to Israelis, he faced a revolt and eventually a vote for his removal.

Some sources maintain the Greek patriarch's removal is part of a coup by Arab church members to gain control, or at least to break the centuries-old dominance of the Greek clerics - hence the support of the PA.

The patriarchate has a following of around 65,000 people. Of these 200 are of Greek extraction; the rest are Arabs, including converts from Islam - and that is after many Arab Christians have left Israel to avoid the turmoil of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the hierarchy is still predominantly Greek, including the 18-member synod that elects the patriarch.

Last week an Israeli civil court in Jerusalem rejected the ousted patriarch's appeal for an injunction to block the synod to replace him. Judge Michaela Shidlowsky Or said that the court had no jurisdiction over religious issues.

Later in Amman the Jordanian interior minister announced that he had received a list of 13 candidates to succeed Irineos. And a spokesman for the church said on Tuesday that the election would go on as scheduled.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholic; christianity; greekorthodox; irineos; israel; jerusalem; patriarch
I'm not very familiar with the relationship between Orthodox Christian structure and government, but allowing the Israeli government (or any government) to have veto power over the selection or removal of an Orthdox Christian Patriarch seems to be wrong. A (thankfully nonexistant) comparison would be the Clinton adminstration having the authority to select Roman Catholic Bishops in the United States - something which would not be in the best interest of the church.
1 posted on 07/28/2005 2:43:23 PM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus
Originally, the Orthodox Patriarchs were approved by an Orthodox Emperor. When the Turks overthrew the Emperor and replaced him with the Sultan, a thousand year tradition of Christian patriarchs serving with Christian Emperors ended.

So there was a gaping hole in the procedure.

The Sultan eventually permitted the Christians to choose their own Patriarchs and he would only reject them if he found them truly objectionable.

In practice there wound up being very little conflict.

2 posted on 07/28/2005 2:50:25 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aomagrat; GipperCT; MarMema; crazykatz; don-o; JosephW; lambo; MoJoWork_n; newberger; ...

An Orthodox ping.


3 posted on 07/28/2005 2:52:37 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Clearly written with a pro Roman Catholic bias. Proper wording would be:

The Jerusalem Patriarchate has spiritual and legal authority over the Christian Holy Sites. Roman Catholics have been allowed in the past to build structures for their use adjacent to these sites.

4 posted on 07/28/2005 3:15:08 PM PDT by OldCorps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

In practice there wound up being very little conflict




Wow...what a statement to make! Dhimmis or Christian slaves had no choice but to acquiesce. Nevertheless, they suffered enslavement, death and forced conversions.

Some peace.


5 posted on 07/28/2005 3:18:04 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Very curious, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Well, I trust the Almighty will inspire the Orthodox leadership to come up with a worthy Patriarch. A little good news from Jerusalem would certainly be welcome.


6 posted on 07/28/2005 3:19:15 PM PDT by infidel dog (nearer my God to thee....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

Religion conflicts make strange bedfellows. His own people removed him. If the church is made up of Arab Christians, then that church should have a say, not Muslims or Jews.


7 posted on 07/28/2005 3:20:53 PM PDT by followerofchrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus
I'm not very familiar with the relationship between Orthodox Christian structure and government, but allowing the Israeli government (or any government) to have veto power over the selection or removal of an Orthdox Christian Patriarch seems to be wrong.

I think that Israeli government is interested in the real estate of Christian Arabs.

8 posted on 07/28/2005 3:22:30 PM PDT by A. Pole (For today's Democrats abortion and "gay marriage" are more important that the whole New Deal legacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

Behold the heresy of statism and the evils thereof.


9 posted on 07/28/2005 3:57:54 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Life was very tough for Christians - but at least there were not too many outright confrontations over choice of bishops.


10 posted on 07/29/2005 5:36:36 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave troops and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

"I'm not very familiar with the relationship between Orthodox Christian structure and government, but allowing the Israeli government (or any government) to have veto power over the selection or removal of an Orthdox Christian Patriarch seems to be wrong."

Ever hear of the Investiture Crisis in the West? The question over who has the ultimate say on who gets to be a hierarch has been going on, East and West for centuries. As recently as the mid 20th century, the Roman Church and secular governments were making treaties over this very issue.


11 posted on 07/29/2005 5:41:55 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson