Church of Greece vs. Patriarchate of Constantinople:

The Angel of History in the Era of Opinion Polls

AIM Athens, 31/10/1999

When Mary and Joseph wandered in the streets of Bethlehem in search of a place where Mary would give birth to Jesus, little did it cross Mary's mind that 2,000 years later the arrival of her icon from Mount Athos into modern Athens would be welcomed with all the honors suitable for the reception of a head of state and that 40,000 people would line up every day for more than five hours, in order to pay their respect and offer their contribution in support of the earthquake victims.

Little did it cross her mind too that Christodoulos, the Archbishop of Athens and Greece, who was elected 18 months ago on the promise to modernize the Church, would make a connection between the arrival of the icon and the liberation of a Greek hostage in Abhazia (Georgia). The Archbishop most probably assumed that in the era of urbanism it is Athens and not mountainous Athos that offers the icon more chance to develop its miraculous attributes.

Finally, little did it cross Mary's mind that the 'modernist' Greek government will ask for her "help in its work," according to a statement made by the Deputy Minister of Education and Religion. After all, Virgin Mary has never been a supporter of the governing party, neither has she ever participated in the various opinion polls, which get published in the media, especially in the run up to the elections.

Unlike the Holy Mother, Archbishop Christodoulos is not a paragon of modesty. He keeps on boasting about his popularity, which, according to the relevant opinion polls, is really formidable. His declarations, as well as his actions, get daily TV footage, even when he states accusingly, "I have never been the media's favorite, although I maintain proper relations with them." The conflict between the Archbishop of Athens and the Patriarch of Constantinople also gets wide coverage. This conflict, denied wholeheartedly by the two main actors during the Patriarch's July visit to Athens, was nevertheless revealed in Byzantine pomposity and detail during the October session of the Holy Synod.

The conflict was first flared up by three letters, which the Patriarch addressed to the Archbishop on the issue of the Churches of the 'New Lands,' an issue of disagreement between the Church of Greece and the Patriarchate for more than a century. In 1850, the Patriarchate recognized the Church of Greece as autocephalous. In the beginning of the 20th century, following the expansion of the Greek state, new dioceses -the so-called 'New Lands' (Northern Greece and many islands)- were added. In the 1928 synodical act, the Patriarchate assigned the administration of the new dioceses to the Church of Greece, on the condition that the Patriarchate would nevertheless preserve its spiritual sovereignty. Such sovereignty included, among other things, the reference to the Patriarch by name during the sermons in those churches. Recently, Archbishop Christodoulos has manifested his intention to amend this at the October session of the Holy Synod. He demands that the name of the Archbishop, instead of that of the Patriarch, be mentioned in the 'New Lands.'

The Patriarch's three letters came in response to this demand. There, the Patriarch states that he will not accept any change to the status quo as it is defined in the resolutions of 1850 and 1928 and emphasizes the fact that he remains "the First Archbishop of the whole Greek Nation." In conclusion he accuses Christodoulos of occupying himself "with the increase in the number of titles appropriated by him and not with the real and serious problems of our faithful."

The leak of the letters to the press came as a complete surprise to the Holy Synod. Mr. Christodoulos chose to handle the issue through badly assimilated techniques of political management. First of all, he had his chair, as Chairman of the Holy Synod, elevated, so that his very image suggests his (disputable) primacy. Second, he never referred directly to the letters, yet dedicated a large part of his six-hour speech to proving that he is the first among equals within the Church, giving a series of arguments as to his "primacy" but forgetting to do likewise for the term "equal." Third, he took advantage of every opportunity he had, to stress the 'autocephalous' character of the Greek Church, in contrast to his attitude during the welcome ceremony for the icon 'Axion Esti' when the hymn 'Polychronion' was sung in his honor. Traditionally, this hymn was sung to honor the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire and later to honor the Patriarch and the primates of the Church. Finally, although Christodoulos himself never made direct reference to the letters, some of the religious leaders loyal to him asked the Patriarch to "define his position. He can't be Oecumenical and Greek at the same time." "[The letter] has to be returned as undeliverable. He can't intervene in this authoritative way. He can speak in this way only to his own people. This is not the way to communicate with us." On the other side are those who oppose Christodoulos. Their camp has played down the importance of the letters and suggested self-control, thus giving a good reason to people to talk about a new conflict in the Church between Greeks, on the one hand, and friends of the Patriarch, on the other.

One cannot help but see the incredible differences in the presence, words and actions of the Patriarch and the Archbishop respectively. While the Patriarch is the embodiment of spiritual leader, who prefers gentle, modest, simple, yet serious words with a few gestures, the Archbishop acts as a secular political leader, whose style is ambitious and whose words are pompous in order to impress the public.

While the Patriarch questions the mental state of a "political leader who chooses to eradicate his opposition biologically, thus causing pure genocide, or who prefers to subjugate the opposition by force, and not to look into the causes of the separatist tendencies," the Archbishop invents "'Greeklings' who are plotting behind the scenes in order to hurt the healthy morale of our people and are trying to eradicate our nation" and denounces "the imperialist tendencies of the Eastern neighbors who, through various tricks, try to alter the ethnic composition of Thrace, with a view to raising the issue of autonomy."

The moment the Patriarch pledges "a new, tolerant, multinational, multicultural and multireligious society, in which every person will choose freely their way of living, at the same time respecting the choice of their fellow-beings; in this way we would have applied sufficiently the art of living and justified our human nature,'' the Archbishop attacks the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for having set up a Commission on Religious Freedom, which includes members "who have already expressed in the press anti-clerical views, which are rejected by the vast majority of the Greek people" and which, "we fear, is going to make really happy those, both inside and outside the country, who question the existence of true religious freedom in Greece."

Christodoulos also attacks the Ministry of Education and Religion because of its decision that religions other than the Christian Êrthodox one may be referred to when teaching the subject Religion at school. Moreover, he opposes the project on the Education of the Muslim Children on the grounds that the teachers in charge, "evidently inspired by internationalist ideas, are tied to the views of the Turkish Consulate of Komotini, notorious for its suspicious actions." At the same time Christodoulos is adamantly against the building of a mosque for the 100,000 Muslims of Athens, unless it is built some 40km outside the city and its minaret cannot be seen from the road that connects the airport with the capital!

And last but not least, it is worth mentioning that while the Patriarch organizes international conferences on ecology, Christodoulos gives his tacit consent to the declassification of a site belonging to the Church as a forest in order to turn it into a building ground.

Apart from having to do with aesthetics and mentality, the conflict between the Greek Church and the Patriarchate is also related to the survival and the role of the Patriarchate in the international arena. The most recent conflict about the 'New Lands' comes shortly after the intense controversy related to the founding of autonomous offices representing the Church of Greece at the European Union level. The Patriarchate considered this move as undermining its own status. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Patriarchate in Moscow has been 'upgraded' to a status that jeopardizes the traditional primacy of the Patriarch in Constantinople. That is why the conflict between the Greek Church and the Phanar (seat of the Patriarchate) and the attempt to disconnect the Patriarchate from the Greek territory --its traditional living space-- are bad for the Patriarchate's prestige and its role as an international player. Its current status as an institution of the Turkish state limits its potential and demands the keeping of a delicate equilibrium.

The resurgence of the conflict about the 'New Lands' has put the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in an awkward position. Its behind-the-scenes attempts to reach a compromise between the two sides have had no results. At the same time, the Ministry has to observe the embarrassing developments from a distance, lest it provokes nationalistic groups into rash action, which will rise the political cost of such interference. In the past, the government has not hesitated to keep its distance to the series of issues related to the teaching of Religion and to Christodoulos' interference in foreign affairs. A possible intervention in favor of the Patriarch, however, would result in a head-on conflict with the Church on an extremely serious matter. This conflict has the potential of reaching horrific dimensions.

On top of all this the Greek bishops have proven again and again that they can be united in defense of their own interests. In spite of the strong personal differences and the harsh criticism against the Archbishop during the last meeting of the Holy Synod, the Archbishop nevertheless succeeded in promoting his favorite candidate to the diocese of Karditsa with 49 votes in favor and six blank ballots. Meanwhile, the conflict with the Patriarchate has been transferred into the future, with the set-up of a commission that will be visiting Phanar in order to negotiate a solution.

The new millennium will find the Church of Greece reproducing sterile issues of power of the last century. Unlike Benjamin's "Angel of History," who flies towards the future with eyes set on the past, the 'angels' of our story are attached to the past, while gazing into the future, which gets further and further away from them.

Dimitris Angelidis (AIM)