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:
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:
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.
http://www.byzantines.net/byzcathculture/chris
http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/cosmology.htm