Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pope In Turkey: Boom Or Bust For Ecumenism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pope In Turkey: Boom Or Bust For Ecumenism

    POPE IN TURKEY: BOOM OR BUST FOR ECUMENISM
    by R.L. Schwind

    Spero News
    Dec 17 2006

    Pope Benedict's purpose of exploring reconciliation between the
    Churches of East and West is of great interest to Muslims, and to
    the government of Turkey.

    (Ed. note) The following is an adaption of an article by R. L. Schwind
    from his website. He writes frequently on ecumenical issues involving
    Western and Eastern Christendom and the problems involved in bringing
    about full communion of the two. Herein he treats the goal of both
    the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of New Rome of bringing an end to
    the millenium-long schism between their churches.

    Here, too, he writes of Turkey's raisons d'etat for allowing the
    meeting at this time, as it awaits admission to the European Community,
    while being governed by an Islamic (or at least a Turkish nationalist)
    government.

    The 2006 Visit of Benedict XVI to Constantinople

    The Political Aspects

    In the page above we discuss the proposed visit of Pope Benedict
    XVI to his brother patriarch, Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of
    Constantinople and New Rome, at the end of November 2005 to celebrate
    with him the Divine Liturgy on the feast day of the Apostle, St.

    Andrew the First-Called, who is the Apostolic father and first bishop
    of Byzantium, later Constantinople.

    The Turkish state (9) viewed the proposed visit with much disfavor
    and refused to issue an entry visa to Benedict, preferring instead
    to invite him on a "state visit" in 2006 wherein its control over him
    would be more easily enforced. Long before this visit came about the
    Islamist-led Turkish state made it clear what its political interests
    in the visit would be.

    Benedict's purposes to explore paths of reconciliation between the
    Churches of East and West in a meeting between patriarchs are of great
    interest to Muslims, for Islam recognizes no distinction between
    religion and politics. Accordingly the proposed visit was regarded
    by the Turkish state first and foremost as an opportunity to exploit
    the Pope for its own political purposes and this it did very well.

    The Turks do not view the Patriarch of Constantinople as anyone
    but a local ethnarch in charge of the resident millet of a few
    thousand Greeks in Turkey. His larger role as second in the order
    of preference and dignity of the five Apostolic patriarchates (10)
    established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD and first among
    equals of all Orthodox hierarchs are ridiculed as obsolete.

    Moreover the Turks view contacts and close relations between the
    Churches of East and West in efforts to reconcile differences as
    inimical to the interests of the state and likely to diminish their
    ability to control the Patriarch.

    Pope Benedict's political stagecraft was, in our opinion, a disaster.

    He capitulated unconditionally to the Turks' demands and received
    nothing in return. Against all common sense, but probably at the
    behest of certain Islamophiles in the Vatican bureaucracy and of the
    ever-fearful Middle Eastern hierarchs, he abased himself in repeated
    apologies for having referred to Islam as a "violent religion" -
    a matter of objective truth fully manifest in the Quran, Hadith,
    Sharia and 14 centuries of Islamic history; he repudiated his earlier
    position that Islam belongs to the Islamic world of Asia, not Europe,
    and followed that by his endorsement of Turkey's application to join
    the European Union which would be the open door to the inundation of
    Europe by hordes of Asian Muslims.

    What did Benedict obtain for his humiliating concessions? The transfer
    of the Hagia Sophia (St. Sophia Church in Istanbul) to the possession
    and control of the Patriarch for use as his patriarchal temple? NO!

    Reciprocity in the treatment of Christian minorities in Turkey and
    other Muslim countries such as Muslim minorities receive in civilized
    countries? NO!

    Freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarch to pursue his mission to promote,
    maintain and extend the unity and faith of the Orthodox Churches
    worldwide free of meddling by the Turkish state? NO!

    Return to the Patriarchate of the Greek Orthodox seminary located on
    an island in the Sea of Marmara closed by the Turkish state in 1971
    because it was a private university? NO!

    Withdrawal of the Turkish occupation from a portion of Cyprus and
    its return to the Greeks? NO!

    Admission of and apology for the massacres of Armenian Christians from
    the 1890s to 1915 and of the Greek Christians in the early years of
    the Kemal Ataturk's regime? NO! Absolutely nothing!

    Benedict returned to Rome with a bagful of pious platitudes about
    harmony among Christians and Muslims, equality, brotherhood,
    mutual respect, etc. etc. - all of which have not the least chance
    of realization.

    It appears to us that Benedict and his advisers failed to understand
    that in the Muslims' cosmology there is no equality, reciprocity,
    fraternal affection or mutuality between Muslims and Christians.

    The Quran defines Muslims as "the best of nations raised up to lead
    all others" (Surah 3: 110) and infidels as "the vilest of animals"
    (Surah 8: 55).

    The relationship between Muslims and those who reject Islam is
    governed by hatred. (Surah 40: 10) In addition, the Quran prescribes
    the proper relationship between Muslims and Christians as the total
    subordination of the latter to the former in a social and political
    arrangement known as "dhimma" in which the condition of Christians
    shall be humiliation (jizya) enforced by the obligation to pay the
    annual jizya tax to the Muslim umma (community) in acknowledgement
    of that humiliation. (Surah 9: 29) (11)

    None of the issues which Christians might have raised to establish
    a relationship based on peace, equality, and mutual respect between
    Christians and Muslims were addressed. Thus we shall remain what we
    have been for 14 centuries - despised infidels.

    The Religious Aspects

    As stated above, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's invitation to
    Pope Benedict following the latter's installation as Pope in 2005 to
    visit him at his residence in Constantinople on the occasion of the
    feast day of St. Andrew at the end of November was intended by both
    first and foremost as an opportunity to continue the inter-ecclesial
    dialogue and commitment to explore avenues for restoring the peace and
    communion between the Churches as had existed in the First Millennium.

    Unfortunately the Turkish government interfered. The proposed visit
    was re-scheduled for the end of November 2006. The entire visit was
    colored by the political agenda of the Turkish government which gave
    it the outward appearances of a state visit.

    Whenever the Patriarchs of Rome and New Rome met, their dialogue
    was carefully crafted to express little more than platitudes about
    the desired unity of the Churches and the commitment of each to
    that objective.

    On November 30, the feast day of the Apostle St. Andrew the First
    Called, the two patriarchs issued a joint Declaration wherein they
    renewed their "commitment to move towards full communion". The
    Declaration reminded us of the acts of their predecessors "effacing
    the memory of the ancient anathemas" which gave rise to the schism of
    1054 and referred to the re-constitution of the Mixed Commission for
    theological dialogue where the real issues confronting the Churches
    might be discussed.

    The Declaration continued with the affirmation that: "In any step
    towards unification, minorities must be protected, with their cultural
    traditions and the distinguishing features of their religions. In
    Europe ... we must unite our efforts to preserve Christian roots,
    traditions and values, to ensure respect for history, and thus to
    contribute to the European culture of the future and to the quality
    of human relations at every level.

    In this context how could we not evoke the very ancient witnesses and
    the illustrious Christian heritage of the land in which our meeting
    is taking place, beginning with what the Acts of the Apostles tell
    us concerning the figure of St. Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles? In
    this land, the Gospel message and the ancient cultural tradition met."

    Thus both patriarchs remind us of the areas of their interest -
    the Pope in Europe and the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Middle East.

    The preservation of Christian roots in Europe is dear to Benedict
    who views the secularization of Europe and the Islamic invasion as
    threats to its existence.

    To us this seems to contradict his endorsement of Turkey's application
    to join the European Union, for, in the unlikely event that it should
    happen, and given the freedom which the populations of the member
    states have to live and work anywhere in the Union, Europe would
    suffer an invasion of Muslims of catastrophic proportions which,
    in our opinion, would constitute within a few decades the demographic
    invasion and Islamification of Europe which the Ottoman Turks attempted
    militarily but failed to achieve in recent centuries.

    The Ecumenical Patriarch's interest in the Christians of the Middle
    East is understandable but for them the future is dim as they in
    ever increasing numbers seek relief from islamofascist tyranny and
    oppression by emigrating abroad.

    See "Christian flight from the Middle East" at:
    http://www.byzantines.net/byzcathculture/chris tflight.html

    An issue dear to Bartholomew was mentioned in the Declaration, namely
    his "concern at the negative consequences for humanity and for the
    whole of creation which can result from economic and technological
    progress that does not know its limits.

    As religious leaders, we consider it one of our duties to encourage
    and to support all efforts made to protect God's creation, and
    to bequeath to future generations a world in which they will be
    able to live." Herein is expressed Bartholomew's restatement of
    the Eastern Church's broadly cosmologically view of creation which
    contrasts, at least until recently, with the Western Church's narrowly
    anthropological view of creation. See "Cosmology of the Eastern Church
    at: http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/cosmology.htm

    In summary, we observe that the first meeting of the two patriarchs
    may be characterized as exploratory. What was said privately we do
    not know. What was expressed publicly in carefully crafted statements
    we have heard before, namely re-commitment to the goal of unification.

    Unfortunately the grim pall of Turkish interference hung over their
    meeting like a poisonous fog and smothered whatever blessed spontaneity
    of word or act that might have emerged. The real discussions in
    the future are likely to take place in the Mixed Commission which
    convenes elsewhere.

    Let us hope that Bartholomew's visit in 2007 to his brother patriarch
    in the free air of Rome far from the meddlesome Turks will yield
    happier results inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Conclusion and Remarks

    As stated above, we are profoundly disappointed with the Holy Father's
    humiliation by the Muslim Turks. Regarding the religious aspects of
    the visit, it may be said they have achieved what little was possible
    under the circumstances.

    We listed above several issues which Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch
    might have discussed to advance reunion, the latter's mission to
    Orthodoxy and an improved relationship between Christians and Muslim
    Turkey.

    None of these matters were addressed and remain unresolved. Given
    the hostility of the Muslim Turkish state to religious and ethnic
    minorities in Turkey and its unrelenting efforts to Turkify all that
    is deemed un-Turkish by harassing and suppressing the same, we see
    little chance for much progress.

    In effect there is little difference between what Muslims want and how
    Turkish nationalists treat non-Muslims and non-Turks - the results
    are the same. Demanding the return of Hagia Sophia to its rightful
    owner, the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the withdrawal of the Turkish
    occupation from Cyprus or any of the other matters raised above are
    regarded by Muslim Turks as an affront to Islam and Turkish-ness to
    be rejected out of hand, as, indeed, they are.

    What then, under the circumstances, might Pope Benedict do to assist
    his brother patriarch in his mission? We note that the Western Church
    is far larger and richer that the Eastern Church.

    Perhaps the money may be found to fund, equip and maintain a
    patriarchal pan-Orthodox seminary and university located outside
    of Turkey and free of Turkish meddling for the training of priests
    and others from all over the Orthodox world to draw Orthodox from
    diverse Churches closer to their Byzantine theological, liturgical
    and ecclesial heritage and to the Mother Church of Orthodoxy in an
    effort to overcome the parochialism of many national and autocephalous
    Churches.

    Money might be found to fund scholarships to encourage the exchange of
    seminarians and other students among the several Orthodox Churches to
    promote pan-Orthodoxy and broaden the international outlook of those
    who may serve in the parishes and chancery offices in the future. We
    would expect, of course, Turkish suspicion of a subterfuge to undermine
    Turkish control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

    Nevertheless, the Pope might consider more aggressively other means
    to assist his brother patriarch in many ways to slip the surly bonds
    of the latter's Turkish masters.

    Resistance by the Turks to ecumenical dialogue between the Churches
    is not the only obstacle to inter-ecclesial unity. Many Orthodox
    Churches view these efforts with grave misgivings. Since the schism
    of 1054 the Church of Constantinople has devolved into a plethora of
    national and autocephalous Churches, each claiming full independence
    while acknowledging the Ecumenical Patriarch as "first among equals",
    but in reality paying him scant heed.

    The largest Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Moscow, which is not
    an Apostolic Church at all and itself a creature of Constantinople,
    frequently claims equality in status with Constantinople and has
    never abjured its "Third Rome" pretensions.

    It asserts as condition prerequisite to any dialogue with Rome that
    the latter abandon its hierarchical administration of Roman Catholic
    parishes in Russia and, of course, the Eastern Catholic Churches (the
    hated "Uniates") and concede exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction
    to Moscow over all the territory occupied by the former Russian Empire.

    We doubt that inter-ecclesial dialogue between Rome and Constantinople
    can proceed far without involving the other Orthodox Churches and
    that no unity will ever be consummated without the unanimous consent
    of all Orthodox Churches.

    During the Pope's visit we noted that both Pope and Patriarch,
    in their respective liturgies, adhered to the ancient practice of
    excluding the other from the diptychs. (12) What this failure means
    to say is this: "We do not pray for any hierarchs with whom we are
    not in peace and communion."

    While that is clear in its intent, it is also obsolete, unchristian
    in its purpose and the antithesis of what the Churches seek. For
    example, in the Byzantine liturgy we pray for peace, salvation,
    the well-being of the Churches, the government, the armed forces,
    travelers, for good weather, etc. and for every other Tom, Dick
    and Harry who enters through the door etc., but have never a kind
    word for the patriarchs and other hierarchs of our Sister Orthodox
    Churches. "Therefore pray for each other that you may be healed."

    said St. James in his Epistle at: 5: 16.

    Then why don't we pray for the hierarchs of our Sister Churches? In
    response to that paradox we suggest here below an amendment to the
    diptychs for use in the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy and in
    the Commemorations following the hirmos after the epiclesis:

    First, Lord, remember His Holiness N, Pope

    of Rome, our Holy Patriarch N, our Most Rev.

    Father and Archbishop N and our Bishop N, His

    All-Holiness N, Patriarch of New Rome, and all

    the venerable Catholic and Orthodox Bishops.

    Preserve them as a blessing over Your holy Churches

    in peace, safety, honor, health, long life, rightly

    dispensing the word of Your truth.

    Returning the Orthodox hierarchs to the diptychs requires
    neither consent from the Turks, nor reciprocity, for charity
    is non-reciprocal. It would be an enduring act of good will and
    Christian charity which is Christ's first mandate, namely that we
    love one another.

    ________________________________________ _____________________

    FOOTNOTES:

    9) The Prime Minister of Turkey is RECEP ENDOGAN. His Islamist party,
    AKP, has controlled an absolute majority in the Turkish parliament
    since 2003. Endogan and his party are committed to the revocation of
    the secular constitution of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and its replacement
    by the Islamic law code, the Sharia. Turkey's gradual return to
    the reactionary Islamic East bodes ill for any amelioration of the
    conditions of its religious and ethnic minorities.

    10) The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD ranked the order of precedence
    of the Apostolic patriarchates as follows: Rome, Constantinople,
    Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

    11) Over the centuries the institutionalized practice of humiliating
    "people

    of the book" viz. Jews and Christians became increasingly onerous and
    intruded on all aspects of life. The purpose was to impress on all
    the wholly inferior and despised status of those who rejected Islam
    in order to compel their conversion to Islam, to plunder their wealth,
    and to force them into exile.

    The Christian virtue of humility is not valued by Muslims. Their
    concept of self-esteem and worth is governed by exaggerated notions
    of honor and shame derived from the Bedouin society of the 7th
    century Hijaz.

    The honor-shame society of Islam propels Muslims to extremes in quest
    of honor and glory and, conversely, to exert great efforts to avoid
    dishonor. These notions are further aggravated in the Muslim vs.

    infidel context.

    Because Muslims regard themselves as "the best of nations" and
    infidels as "the vilest of animals", any words or acts by infidels
    deemed offensive to Muslims, their god, Muhammad, the Quran and
    Islam are treated presumptively as "hadd" crimes (beyond the limits)
    punishable by death.

    Thus the great emphasis on humiliating the Pope by insisting that
    he apologize for uttering that which is the unvarnished truth and to
    reverse his stance on admitting Turkey to the European Union.

    Tragically Benedict fell into the trap. By humiliating the chief
    prelate of Christendom, the Muslims confirm what they already believe,
    namely that infidels, even the exalted ones, are indeed the vilest
    of animals.

    12) In its liturgical usage, the term "diptychs" refers to
    commemorative prayers in which are included the names of the high
    hierarchs in peace and communion with the Church. When Pope and
    Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054 AD, they also struck each
    other from the diptychs of their respective liturgies. Although Pope
    and Patriarch have revoked the ancient excommunications, they still
    exclude each other from their liturgies.
Working...
X