Posted on 12/01/2006 2:49:30 PM PST by Kolokotronis
It is the peculiar genius of Byzantine history that its glory reached its apogee in the era known to the West as the Dark Ages. It has no great literary heritage – a half-millenium of Muslim domination ensured the annihilation from memory of its major works beyond the Alexiad of Anna Comnena, the anonymous epic of Digenes Akritis, and various religious texts. The latter survived because the Church survived, even as the Empire did not. Chief among them are the great liturgies, and chief among the great liturgies is the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It is the queen of liturgies: a Greek epic of its own, also of the Western Dark Ages, emphatic and deliberate in its insistent worship of Christ. The liturgy has a heavenly glory in its song and prayer. It also has a mundane length to it. Properly done, it lasts hours. Yesterday, it lasted five hours, from 8am to 1pm. It’s a feat of endurance for the best Christian – particularly as the great majority of it has one standing. I am not among the best Christians. But yesterday, I did it.
Yesterday, I was in the Church of St George at the compound of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Fener district of Istanbul. Across from me sat the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, holder of the last office of the Eastern Empire, and spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians of the world. Mere feet away, within arm’s reach, sat Pope Benedict XVI.
The Patriarchal compound is a small place, kept deliberately so by the Turkish authorities who object to the claim of an ecumenical title by the Patriarch. No matter that the Patriarchate in Constantinople has been the Ecumenical Patriarchate since nearly eight hundred years before the Turkish seizure of this city, and no matter that even the Ottoman Sultans acknowledged this fact: the modern Turkish state believes the Patriarch to be merely the religious leader of the Orthodox Christians of Turkey – reduced from a thriving community of millions to a mere two thousand in Istanbul proper in the 20th century – and nothing more. So vehemently do they deny any greater role for the successor to St Andrew, that in this very week, they sent police personnel to tear down English-language banners with the phrase “Archon Pilgrimage to the Ecumenical Patriarchate” on it. The Archons are properly the Order of St Andrew, and they are a collection of lay worthies of the Greek Orthodox Church in America. They also had passes allowing them entry into the Patriarchate for this Liturgy with the Pope, and to the previous night’s Doxology; but because it too mentioned an “Ecumenical Patriarchate,” they were made to put them away before the Turkish police would allow them entry into the Patriarchal compound. They complied – what else could they do? – and in a nice irony, were issued badges by the Turks which read, “Istanbul Rum Patrikhanesi.” The Patriachate of the Romans of Istanbul. Even now, five hundred fifty-three years after the conquest, Turkish idiom acknowledges what the Great Church and its people once were.
The Church of St George, sole church in the Patriarchal compound, acknowledges it as well. Embedded in its walls, and strewn about its tiny grounds, are fragments from the hundreds of churches of old Constantinople that were demolished in the centuries of Muslim rule. Here there is a frieze of Christ. Here there is an Apostle. Here there is a slab of marble in which a scarred IC XC is inscribed. And here there is an imperial double-headed eagle, symbol of the Eastern Imperium. It is a bit of symbology that has been inherited by several nations of the old Byzantine commonwealth, among them Russia and, improbably, Albania. The Patriarchal compound is strewn with them, giving truth to the phrase Istanbul Rum Patrikhanesi. For a moment, one may lose oneself in the fantasy that it is all still real, and all still alive – but then you look up, and see the mosque that the Turks have built athwart the compound on the overlooking hillside. The minarets peer down in the very courtyard of St George’s itself, and the message is clear: five times a day, every day of every year, the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Christians of the world must hear the muzzein at close quarters. The temporal victors are deeply unsure, even now, of their victory.
On this day, the minaret and all the surrounding rooftops are occupied by Turkish soldiers. They look down upon us in the courtyard and glare. There is security and insecurity in their presence: they will assuredly protect us from any Islamist who would seek to wreak mayhem – though none, not even unfriendly crowds, are in evidence – and they are assuredly not our friends. The Patriarch himself, Bartholomew I, once served in the Turkish Army, in keeping with the Turkish state’s stricture that the occupant of that office must hold Turkish citizenship. I looked up at the soldiery, and reflected on the pity of this state, which he served, that is now bent upon squeezing his ancient office out of existence.
Inside the chapel all is gilt and gold, a nineteenth-century version of Orthodox splendor, and it is possible to forget the scene outdoors. The place is suffused with holy relics: among them, the remains of Ss John Chrysostom, whose liturgy we celebrate, and Gregory the Theologian – both recently returned by the Vatican. Across the chapel, a supposed piece of the True Cross, and the purported pillar upon which Christ was scourged. There are sarcophagi in which various saints rest, and niches in which holy icons are venerated. It is a wonderland for the faithful. But not only the faithful are there: there is also the media of the world, armed with telephoto lenses and cameras, and looking shabby in the way that media typically do. It does not occur to them to dress appropriately – one may wish, after all, to look presentable before the putative Vicar of Christ on Earth – but then, it wouldn’t. They crowd onto platforms along the periphery of the chapel, and wait.
Patriarch Bartholomew I arrives, decked in brilliant finery and surrounded by black-clad deacons and Metropolitans. Pope Benedict XVI arrives, dressed in thick red robes, and accompanied by bright red-and-purple Cardinals. The Liturgy, which has already been underway for an hour, assumes a new pitch. The lights brighten. The gold upon the icons flare. We pray. We worship for another four hours, with varying levels of comprehension of the thousand-year-old Greek of the Liturgy. I scurry about from point to point, taking photographs and looking on in awe.
Finally, it comes time for Communion. My father asks me if I will go, and I reply that I probably should not. He urges me to, and I give in. Now, we file forward, toward the Ecumenical Patriarch His All-Holiness Bartholomew I, holder of the last office of the Eastern Empire, who gives us the Body of Christ. Mere feet away, Benedict XVI sits on the Papal throne, looking down upon us supplicants. I am overcome and cannot glance toward him. Behind me, others have more courage: they break from the line, rush forward, and kiss Benedict’s hand. He is calm and gentle. He smiles and clasps their hands, saying a few words in German and English, before urging them to go receive the Eucharist. It is profoundly moving too see these devout Orthodox who have come to pay homage to the bishop of the New Roman, and who are so overwhelmed with the presence and love of the bishop of the Rome that they must give him the same. The small space encompasses a universe, and we are at its center.
Bartholomew ascends to the iconostasis and welcomes Benedict in Greek. Benedict, aware of the cameras surrounding him, replies in English. We must, he says, recall Europe to its Christian heritage before it is too late – and we must do it together. Then they emerge into the cold sunlight of a cold day. They ascend to a balcony overlooking the courtyard where we gather in expectation. They speak briefly. And then, they clasp hands, Pope and Patriarch, smile and raise their arms together. Tears come to my eyes, and I am shocked to see several media personnel crying openly. For an instant, the Church is one. For a shadow of a second, the dreams of Christendom are again real.
I like the cedar tree!
I believe the proper term is Indult Tridentine. And yes, the Anglican Use Rite falls under the Western Church. But why stop there ;-)
Western Rites and Churches
Immediately subject to the Supreme Pontiff as Patriarch of the West
ROMAN (also called Latin)
The Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the world and the Patriarchal See of Western Christianity. Founded by St. Peter in 42 AD it was consecrated by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul during the persecution of Nero (63-67 AD). It has maintained a continual existence since then and is the source of a family of Rites in the West. Considerable scholarship (such as that of Fr. Louis Boyer in Eucharist) suggests the close affinity of the Roman Rite proper with the Jewish prayers of the synagogue, which also accompanied the Temple sacrifices. While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be traced directly only to the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin.
• Roman - The overwhelming majority of Latin Catholics and of Catholics in general. Patriarch of this and the other Roman Rites is the Bishop of Rome. The current Roman Rite is that of the 1969 Missale Romanum, to be published in a third edition in 2001.
- Missal of 1962 (Tridentine Mass) - Some institutes within the Roman Rite, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have the faculty to celebrate the sacramental rites according to the forms in use prior to the Second Vatican Council. This faculty can also be obtained by individual priests from their bishop or from the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei.
- Anglican Use - Since the 1980s the Holy See has granted some former Anglican and Episcopal clergy converting with their parishes the faculty of celebrating the sacramental rites according to Anglican forms, doctrinally corrected.
• Mozarabic - The Rite of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) known from at least the 6th century, but probably with roots to the original evangelization. Beginning in the 11th century it was generally replaced by the Roman Rite, although it has remained the Rite of the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and six parishes which sought permission to adhere to it. Its celebration today is generally semi-private.
• Ambrosian - The Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy, thought to be of early origin and probably consolidated, but not originated, by St. Ambrose. Pope Paul VI was from this Roman Rite. It continues to be celebrated in Milan, though not by all parishes.
• Bragan - Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primatial See of Portugal, it derives from the 12th century or earlier. It continues to be of occasional use.
• Dominican - Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.
• Carmelite - Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.
• Carthusian - Rite of the Carthusian Order founded by St. Bruno in 1084.
I wish I had seen this, but hey, I can't complain. I am back in the states again!
As much as it is a vivid analogy, we Orthodox do not see it that way. The Church is one, universal (catholic), it's faith is true (orthodox). The fullness of the Church is, and the fullness of the Faith is received where a bishop is. Every, even the tiniest church under a bishop offers the same fullness of the Eucharist as the Cathedral of St. Peter in Vatican or Moscow or Constantinople. Christ is not divided. We are.
The Ecumenical Patriarch is but one of the 14 patriarch of the community that is not in communion with Rome since 1054. He had no juridical authority over other patriarch; he is not the "pope/patriarch of the east".
What we see is not two lungs but Christian unity, we see One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church being healed from within.
"What we see is not two lungs but Christian unity, we see One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church being healed from within."
Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think a formal unification is going to happen anytime soon, and not in Benedict's reign. However, if and when it happens, Benedict will be the one regarded by history as getting the process seriously moving, which would be a truly great and historically important achievement.
There is a time for all things. The circumstances did not exist to move towards unity. Now there is no choice. By insisting on moving things forward with the East while the world has been skeptical, Benedict is a visionary and a great man.
For now it is enough to see a spirit of renewed cooperation and a sense of being united in Christ. Hopefully this spirit continues and will allow a future unification to occur.
One thing I've noticed is that this trip has brought the world's attention to Bartholomew I and the Patriarch. It's almost as if the world has rediscovered the fact that their is a Patriarch and the office continues to exist. I would like to see Bartholomew and future Patriarchs remain prominent on the world stage - and I say that as a Catholic. It would be a shame if he and the office slip back into relative obscurity, which is what the Turks and other Muslims would want to see.
One of the best ways to strenghten Christianity and undermine Islam is to continually broadcast to the world that, despite the oppressive atmosphere of the Turkish state and Muslim population, the Patriarch continues to thrive. Advertising this would do much to encourage the Christians and other religious minorities trying to live in the Muslim world. Therefore it is vital that the Patriarchs remain prominently visible for the world to see.
Dear kosta50,
"I believe that if God lets Pope Benedict XVI continue his ministry he will truly be St. Benedict the Great, the Pope who re-united the Church. God grant it!"
Your optimism is consoling.
However, I don't believe that the schism will be healed before the Second Coming of Jesus.
sitetest
I don't see the two formulations as mutually exclusive, although I am happy to live with yours. Two lungs exist within one body, and it is clear that there are legitimate differences of rite and small "t" traditions in the east and west, and all coexist within the one Church of Christ. I was also viewing the Ecumenical Patriarch as more of a symbol of the Eastern churches, not making a statement that he has exactly the same authority as the Pope. Anyways, thanks for your comments.
That is a very misleading impression if that's the impression received by others as well as you. There are Patriarchs and Bartholomew I is one of them.
There is no such thing as the Patriarch. Such impressions in the west, if it becomes prevalent, could cause serious problems withing the Eastern Orthodox Church community. It would be akin to someone trying to become an American Emperor or King. The American mindset is not ready for a monarchy any more than the Eastern Orthodox are ready for "papacy" of the EP.
Don't forget that the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia has 85% of the world's Orthodox under his fold, and that together with other Slavic Orthodox Churches (Patriarchates), Ukraine, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. that number if even higher.
A Patriarch is a patriarch — a presiding archbishop. Whether it is the Moscow Patriarch, the Belgrade Patriarch, the Sofia Patriarch, you name it, they are all equal. The EP is simply the sitting president of the Patriarchs' council. He is not the pope of the East.
Dear sitetest, your pessimism is disheartening. The Second Coming will be to judge the living and the dead (that's what yours and mine Creed says). If we wait until His seocnd coming, it may be a little too late, imo.
Hardly. A virtual prisoner of Islam, uncertain even if he will be allowed to live where he lives now, he would be a sad reminder that Orthodoxy is an orphan more than a vibrant and resiliant Church of God that has endured centuries of persecution and dhimification under Islam.
The EP is a presiding bishop of a community of bishops, not a symbol. We don't need a flag. Our symbol is The Cross. We don't need a Prince. Our King is Christ.
One thing I noticed in reviewing the Holy Mass in the Turkish Catholic Cathedral in Instanbul was that hardly anyone paid any attention or reverence to the Holy Gospel being carried into the church, but everyone paid attention and showed ample revrence to the Pope who walked some distance behind the Holy Gospel.
I would say, our mindset and priorities are a little different, don't you think?
Dear kosta50,
"Dear sitetest, your pessimism is disheartening."
I don't disagree.
"The Second Coming will be to judge the living and the dead (that's what yours and mine Creed says). If we wait until His seocnd coming, it may be a little too late, imo."
Yup, that's true. And we will be, as always, dependent on His mercy to make up for our shortcomings.
But in honesty, the two roads traveled by our respective communions do not map out an intersection in the future.
sitetest
Whatever. Yeah, like we Catholics worship the Pope and don't reverence the Holy Gospel. Ecumenical greetings to you too...
Watch the video.
The so called secular Ataturk state was envisioned as being a nationalist state unified under an artificial construct called 'Turkishness'. 'Turkishness' can't stand that there are within its borders any non Turks.
For example, even if all the Greeks converted to Islam and were not ethnic cleansed out by the Turks but while Muslims still spoke Greek and kept their Greek culture the Ataturk state would be against them because they need to convert to 'Turkishness', which is why the Kurds, themselves Muslims, are discriminated against as well and the Turks rather classify them as "Mountain Turks" and not Kurds.
The reason the Turks today don't recognize the patriarch's ecumenical title is that if they did that would allow a non-Turkish citizen - i.e. a Greek from Greece or America for example - to be nominated and hold the ecumenical office rather than selecting a patriarch from what is left of the 2,000 Greek Orthodox in Turkey. That is what is meant by Turkey not recognizing the ecumenical title and why they will only allow Turkish citizens from the dwindling Orthodox population to hold the office. This is what the Ataturk state wants - the elimination of the (now) minority Greek Orthodox that reminds them that they were not there first to live on the land they now call Turkey - an ever present reminder their claim is not legitimate.
Much has been written about the tragic event of the fall of Constantinople, but the famous Finish author Mika Waltary has crystallized the impact of this tragedy to the western world in his 1953 historical novel “The Dark Angel” as to what will happen to the west if Constantinople falls to the Turkish Muslims, in the following few phrases:
"Flesh without spirit," I said. "Life without hope, the slavery of mankind —a bondage so hopeless that slaves will no longer know they are slaves. Wealth without happiness, abundance without the power to enjoy it. The death of the spirit."
While the above thoughts that were first published in English in 1953, he may be describing the west of today. Basically, he says that the west without the Greek spirituality and intellectual wisdom will amount to nothing.
That is what Pope Benedict XVI was getting at in his speech citing a conversation between a 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor and an Islamic Persian where Benedict quoted Manuel II: “‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’”
Great post, thank you very much. I am going to go to Alibris (Internet book search company) and try to find Waltary's book, because that describes exactly what happens to a society once it is invaded and overcome by Islam. The society has about 100 years, by which time everyone who knew the old ways has died off and Islam presses its dead hand down on the art, the music, the literature, the science, the learning and the joy of that society.
Snip......The Greeks know how to die for the last inch of their crumbling Empire.
Barbarians in the east, barbarians in the west. On the borders of the two worlds Christ's last city is fighting for its life -without hope of help, without claim to glory. Naked, mutilated corpses pierced with stakes, swarming with flies.......end snip.
Snip.......You're fighting on the wrong side, Johann Grant! Sultan Mohammed would hail you as his fellow, if he knew you."
He said, "No, no. I belong to the West-to Europe. I fight for the freedom of man, not his bondage."
"And what is the freedom of man?" I asked him.
He looked at me with his restless eyes, pondered for a while, and answered, "The right to choose."
"Just so," I whispered. "That is man's terrible freedom-the freedom of Prometheus, the freedom of our original sin."
He smiled, laid his hand upon my shoulder and sighed.
"Ah, you Greeks!".......end snip.
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.