Posted on 09/20/2006 10:04:07 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
HRES 999 IH
Urging Turkey to respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. WATSON, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. BACA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
Urging Turkey to respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Whereas Turkey began accession negotiations with the European Union on October 3, 2005;
Whereas in 1993 the European Union defined the membership criteria for accession to the European Union at the Copenhagen European Council, obligating candidate countries to have achieved certain levels of reform, including stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities;
Whereas the Government of Turkey refuses to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch's international status; and
Whereas the Government of Turkey has limited to Turkish nationals the candidates available to the Holy Synod for selection as the Ecumenical Patriarch and has refused to reopen the Theological School at Halki, thus impeding training for the clergy: Now, therefore, be it
"Quick question ....
He is the Patriarch of the Oecumene, and that includes very large portions of the world outside of Turkey
Can a patriarchate be relocated within the same territory? "
I suppose so. He could move to Mount Athos for example. That's what happened relatively recently with the Patriarchate of Antioch moving to Damascus. And after the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders and the enthronement of a "Latin Patriarch", the Patriarchate reestablished itself at Nicea until the Latins were driven out. But this time it means the end the See of Constantinople. Probably the Pope could move to, say, Mexico City. He'd still be the Pope of Rome, but it sure wouldn't be the same, would it.
As for The Church going underground, well there has been an underground church in Turkey for centuries made up of persons who appear to be Mohammedans but who are in fact Orthodox Christians. But without Turkish citizen priests to chose a Patriarch from, there will be no Patriarchate in Constantinople.
"Do you suppose this bill is simply a formality, much like previous ones that decried the forced abortions in China or lack of religious freedom in the USSR?"
It might work given the precarious situation Turkey finds itself in, at least from the pov of secular Turks. But the days of a secular Turkey seem numbered. In any event, it puts the US on record and its the right thing to do.
The same thing happened to the Catholics in the Ukraine, when they were forced to convert to Orthodoxy. On the surface, they appeared to be Orthodox, but continued to celebrate the Mass in private homes. They hid icons and precious vessels within their homes, and established 'watches' whenever the Catholic priest came to celebrate Mass.
This is also true of the Spanish and Italian Jews who were forced to convert to christianity. They maintained their traditions in the home but practiced the Catholic faith in public.
In any event, it puts the US on record and its the right thing to do.
Agreed!
Actually I am hoping this will not only put the USA on the record, it will force Turkey's hand on this issue. It is not just the "self determination" of the Patriachate, it is also the respect for the various institutions and symbols.
For example it would be worthwhile to start the dialogue that Turkey should return Agia Sophia to the christians as a condidtion of EU membership.
Thanks for pinging this out.
Hopefully people will call their representative since congress is in session. We need to get this out of committee.
Many people don't knwo that the Patriachate gets almost weekly attacks from islamic thugs who literally rush priests and bishops during services.
The last time I visited was about ten years ago. I remember mean looking Turks hanging out outside the gates of the Patriarchate. I remember our hotel concierge telling us that we should be careful going there.
I remember a lot of disgusting things about Turkey and the bordello they have turned the once great city of Constantinople into.
But I think the difference is that when the Eastern-rite Catholics of the Ukraine were forced by the Communists in 1946 to join the Orthodox Church, it was physically possible for an Eastern-rite Catholic priest to come around, even if infrequently, because of modern transportation; whereas when their ancestors who were Orthodox were forced to become Eastern-rite Catholic in 1596 (southern Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine) or 1646 (Hungarian kingdom) there were tight and effective border controls which prevented any Orthodox priest from ever getting there. So our ancestors who were officially ERC from the 1600s until about 1900 could merely IDENTIFY with being Orthodox, facilitated by the prayer life and sacraments being identical in form, with just the addition of the commemoration of the Pope rather than the Patriarch of say Serbia.
The difference with Asia Minor ("Turkey") is that the Turkish government has tried for decades to physically annihilate the Christian presence, and drove out the last 500,000 in riots in 1955, which is why it is wierd to hear Turkey continually praised as a "valuable ally" and a "secular democracy".
Wrote to Rep. Jackson.
God Bless you! Thank-you!
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.