Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow: War parallels through centuries
200 years ago, the Phanar supported Turks in the war against Greeks, leading to the Greek Church’s autocephaly. Today, the ROC supports the war against Ukraine. Déjà vu?
In an interview with the UOJ, Greek theologian and priest Anastasios Gotsopoulos, responding to questions about Ukraine's attempts to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church for canonical and Eucharistic ties with the ROC, referred to a historical example – the relationship between the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Church of Greece.
He recounted a similar situation in Greece after the country gained independence from Ottoman rule. "Since 1830, when the national Greek state was recognized, some Greek archimandrites and professors said, 'What connection do we have with the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is a citizen of a hostile state, an invader?' Supporters of this position broke away from the Ecumenical Patriarchate and proclaimed the autocephaly of the Church of Greece. This led to a schism. Prayerful communion was severed. It took approximately 30 years for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to recognize the autocephaly of the Greek Church," said the theologian.
According to him, in the Church, it is possible for a primate or patriarch to be in the territory of a hostile state, while maintaining prayerful and spiritual communion. "The Greek Church was canonically subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarch, even though he was in the Ottoman Empire, a state hostile to us. We Greeks suffered so much persecution from the Turks! But if the Patriarch is in Turkey and we are in Greece, it does not mean that we should separate from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I think something similar is happening now in the relationship between the Ukrainian and Russian Churches," emphasized Father Anastasios.
Is history repeating itself?
If we distill Father Anastasios's words into a certain scheme, the following narrative emerges:
- Greece fought for independence from Turkey, where the head of the Greek Church, the Constantinople Patriarch, was located.
- Immediately after gaining independence, some individuals began demanding autocephaly because the patriarch was in a hostile country.
- Eventually, a faction of the Greek Church supported this autocephaly, leading to a schism that was healed after 30 years.
We deliberately provided this extensive quote from Father Anastasios's interview and summarized its main theses because the respected theologian's words require some additional context and clarification.
Firstly, he is entirely correct that the UOC is currently experiencing a situation very similar to the one described.
Secondly, we reiterate Father Anastasios's words because we agree with him regarding the necessity of maintaining Eucharistic and canonical ties within the Church even (and especially) in times of conflict.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the theologian did not elaborate on the events preceding the idea of autocephaly and the context of its self-proclamation and subsequent recognition. This gap is what we intend to fill.
So, here it is.
Phanar under Turkish rule
In 1453, the forces of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed captured Constantinople. Almost immediately after this, seeking support from the conquered people, the Sultan issued a decree inviting all Greeks to return to their homeland, promising them religious freedom. Mehmed kept his word, endowing the Greeks with rights and freedoms that other conquered peoples could hardly dream of.
Most importantly, the Constantinople Patriarchs gained authority under the Sultan, becoming not only spiritual but also political leaders for the Greeks. The patriarch, in a direct sense, had his "subjects" in the form of Orthodox believers in Turkey. He conducted trials, sent people to prisons or exile, collected haraj (a poll tax paid to the Ottoman Empire by all non-Muslims) through his representatives or even bishops, and served as an intermediary between the Sultan and the Greeks. For this reason, an ancient historian describing the ascent to the throne of one of the patriarchs said, "He sat on the throne... The bishops bowed to him as their ruler – both as their king and as their patriarch."
Furthermore, the hierarchs of the Constantinople Patriarchate befriended the Janissaries, sworn enemies of Christianity, and even enlisted their names in the lists of various Janissary units. To the extent that the hierarchy of the Phanar was referred to as "kara-kazan" (black cauldron) – the same term used for Janissaries. In other words, patriarchs and hierarchs of the Phanar lived well in Turkey. So well that they wrote panegyrics to the Sultans, calling someone like Mehmed a "dazzling light," and the famous Patriarch Cyril Lucaris said, "We have no constraint in anything from the authorities, live in prosperity, and thank the Sultan."
However, the common people, especially the Greeks, were in no hurry to "thank the Sultan." There were many reasons for this, including the aforementioned haraj, the conscription of every tenth boy into the Janissaries, and many others. Therefore, as soon as the war between Russia and Turkey began in 1768, the Greeks saw it as an opportunity to gain their independence.
Joining Russian sailors under the command of Count Orlov, the Greeks of the Morea and the Archipelago rebelled against the Turks. After some time, the Russians left, and the Turks brutally suppressed the uprising. Here arises a crucial question: what was the reaction of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the rebellion of the oppressed Greeks against the Turks?
Greeks' struggle for freedom and the reaction of the Phanar
One might assume that the hierarchy of the Constantinople Patriarchate, predominantly composed of Greeks, was obligated to support their fellow Greeks in their pursuit of freedom. Indeed, Patriarch Seraphim II, who was retired, upon learning of the Greeks' attempts to break free from Turkish rule, issued a call to support the liberation movement. However, the reaction of the hierarchs not in retirement was quite different.
Some of Seraphim's messages were intercepted by Metropolitan Gideon of Euboea and delivered to the ruling Patriarch at the time, Theodosius II. It's noteworthy that these letters were intercepted not by the Turks but by fellow Greeks and fell into the hands of Greeks. So, how did they react?
Patriarch Theodosios betrayed Seraphim. Through the Grand Logothete, he submitted a message to the Sublime Porte (the governing body of the Ottoman Empire) condemning Patriarch Seraphim and, after convening the Synod, deprived him of all sacred dignity. Theodosios then addressed the Greek people, urging them to remain loyal to the Sultan's authority. Understandably, in this situation, the authority of the Constantinople Patriarchate among the common people was severely shaken. However, it did not diminish their determination for freedom.
Towards the end of the 18th century, influenced by the same "professors" mentioned by Father Anastasios Gotsopoulos, Greek youth openly began dreaming of liberation from Islamic rule. The influence was significant, as the most well-known among them, such as Korais, Eugenios Voulgaris, and others, received education in Paris, Vienna, Leipzig, Munich, and were recognized intellectuals of their time.
So, their speeches about freedom greatly alarmed the Sultan, and he ordered Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople to excommunicate the "godless French," which he duly did. In 1820, the same patriarch excommunicated Alexander Ypsilantis and all the members of the Filiki Eteria (Greeks fighting for independence from Turkish rule). Earlier, in 1803, the hierarchs of the Phanar excommunicated the Greek priest Samuel, labeling him a "traitor to the legitimate ruler."
Furthermore, the Sultan directed his demands to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Anthimos (who lived in Istanbul), to excommunicate the rebellious Greeks. The patriarch, highly respected and revered in Greece, wrote a book for the Greeks titled "Paternal Counsel," expressing his patriotic feelings towards Turkey. In this book, he claimed that the Byzantine emperors had fallen into Western heresies. To preserve the people from the errors of the West, Divine Providence established the rule of the Ottoman Turks in the former Byzantine Empire. He labeled the desire for freedom from Turkish rule as "devilish" and considered it a "rebellion against piety". According to him, those who "indulge in freedom" do not inherit eternal life.
Moreover, in an attempt to please and serve the Turks, another Patriarch of Constantinople, Eugene II (successor to Gregory), imprisoned all Christian Greeks suspected of desiring freedom from Islamic rule.
Naturally, such a position of the Patriarchs of Constantinople could not go without a reaction from the hierarchs and believers in Greece. How did they respond?
Autocephaly of the Greek Church
If you open textbooks on the history of Local Churches published by the Russian Orthodox Church, you will see that the autonomy of the Greek Church seemingly emerged out of nowhere. Professor Skurat writes: "The natural consequence of the political revival of Greece was the emergence of the independent Hellenic Church... During the hostilities, the relations of the bishops of Hellas with the Patriarch of Constantinople, of course, came to an end."
In other words, the proclamation of the independence of the Greek Church is a "natural consequence" and a result of the "cessation of relations" with the Phanar. But what could be "natural" about the Greeks breaking ties with their patriarch? Even during wartime? Considering the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, supporting the Sublime Porte and excommunicating Greeks, it can be argued that this position led to a complete rupture between the Churches. Skurat hints at this, stating that the documents of the Phanariots, "purely political and unacceptable to the Greeks, had a very small readership," and "they not only did not contribute to the cause of communication but, on the contrary, led to greater division."
Again: the Phanar openly served the authorities of Turkey, and its attempts to persuade the Greeks to remain slaves to the Turks only "led to even greater division." It can be said that the blame for the schism of the Hellenic Church lies with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, whose hierarchs entered into harmony with Muslim rulers.
Let's go further. In his interview, Father Anastasios did not mention the fact that Greek hierarchs disagreed with the position of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and had stopped commemorating them long before the proclamation of autonomy. Here is what pre-revolutionary historian I. Sokolov writes: "Greek bishops and clergy mentioned 'every Orthodox bishop' during worship, or simply 'every bishop.'" This situation persisted until 1830, when the autonomy of the Greek Church was declared, a move that the Phanar recognized 17 years later, in 1850.
Conclusions
We want to emphasize that we are by no means urging the UOC to declare autonomy. Autonomy is by no means a guarantee of the "normal" existence of the Church. It is always a painful decision, the ultimate result of which is difficult to predict. Our goal is different – to show how unwise and adaptive actions of the highest church hierarchy provoke divisions and schisms. Autocephaly is almost always the result of politicking, a departure from the essence and calling of the Church, whose task is to preach the Gospel, rather than engage in political matters.
During the Greek insurrection against the Turks, both the Phanariots and the clergy of Greece were in the wrong. It is not the Church's business to call people to the barricades, but it is also not its business to excommunicate those who go to these barricades. The Church's role is to call for peace and speak of the Risen Christ.
That's why we believe that in the situation with Ukraine and the UOC, the position of the leadership of the ROC leads to the division of the Church. Regardless of whether someone wants to think that only heresy justifies breaking relations with the patriarch, history and life testify differently. Such a reason can be the pain for one's people, bodies of children torn apart by shells, the tears, and unbearable pain of their mothers. Even if this pain is not prescribed in the canons. In this sense, the question of why the UOC stopped commemorating Patriarch Kirill should be addressed not to the Council in Feofaniya but to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.
However, we know why the Greeks stopped mentioning the head of the Constantinople Church. The Greeks stopped mentioning their patriarch when he forgot that his flock is not the Sublime Porte but ordinary believers. When he forgot that he serves not the sultan but Christ. When he put his personal well-being above the interests of his flock. When he ceased to be a shepherd. Korais, a leader of the Greeks fighting for freedom, said when he read Patriarch Anthimos's letter of loyalty to Turkey, that "His Holiness has either gone mad or turned from a shepherd into a wolf."
Perhaps the ROC will be indignant, but reading the speeches of the Patriarchs of Constantinople about the authorities of the Ottoman Empire, it is challenging not to agree that they bear a striking resemblance to Patriarch Kirill's statements about the authorities of contemporary Russia. For example, that in the entire history of the Russian Orthodox Church, there has never been such "harmony in relations between secular and ecclesiastical authorities" as now.
However, there has already been this "harmony", albeit not in Russia but in Turkey. And hardly would Patriarch Kirill want his name to be associated with such a context. Believe us, we wouldn't want that either. Unfortunately, no one asks for our opinion.
