Athos being the see of the Ecumenical Patriarch
Posted 26 September 2012 - 06:53 AM
The Turkish government and people hate the Greeks, and they have been constantly harrassing/genociding them for the last 100 years or so. One day, some loon is going to try to assassinate the bishop and every other high-ranking Orthodox Christian in the city in one fell swoop during Liturgy.
Why not move the Patriarchate to Athos? It's the center of Orthodox spirituality (like Constantinople was for 1000 years), so it only makes sense that the Ecumenical Patriarchate be there. They could build a church and plaza at the foot of the mountain for pilgrims to visit, and the rest of the mountain would be safe from all the publicity.
It's just a thought. After all, Antioch has been at Damascus for the last 500 years.
Posted 26 September 2012 - 02:14 PM
The main reason they moved the Patriarch from Antioch to Damascus wasn't persecution, but rather that the city of Antioch, by the 14th Century, was pretty small and insignificant. Moving a Patriarchate due to persecution just doesn't make much sense to me.
The Patriarch of Constantinople still has his duty to fulfill in Turkey. There are apparently a significant number of Turks who have converted to Orthodoxy. His duty is to them just as much as to the Greeks. He isn't a Patriarch of the Greeks as an ethnic people, no matter how the Turkish government sees him. The Turks don't determine how we run our Church or how we view our hierarchs.
Posted 16 November 2014 - 09:44 AM
Kindly allow me to make some remarks on the matter.
The issue of women pilgrimage is of no account.
One of the greatest traditions of the patriarchate is the patriarchal festive board (patriarchic trapeza), were women were never admitted.
This tradition always created problems in admitting female officials , that paid official visits to the patriarchate, but has never been broken nonetheless.
As such a form of avaton always existed even within the phanar walls.
Having the athonian avaton in place wouldn't be a problem.
Taking things a bit further.
What kind of patriarchate do we need?
The ecumenical patriarchate 's role has always been, since 1453, the spiritual and temporal leadership of the orthodox Christians under turkish rule. - Η καθ' ημάς Ανατολή
A role that was materialised hand to hand with the role of the Sultan as Caliph of Islam , within the frame of the functions of the millets.
This role has been diminished, since the secularisation of Turkey by the reforms of Kemal Attaturk.
From 1923 to 1955 the ecumenical patriarchate was nothing more than the archdiocese of Constatinople.
The greek immigration to the New world , created new greek orthodox communities, in the Americas, Oceania, and western Europe, adding four new archdioceses , two in Europe, one in Americas and another in Oceania.
At the same time the pogrom of 1955, decimated the Greek community of Instanbul , rendering as such the patriarchate an institution that leads diaspora greeks , from its headquarters , with a tiny flock to care about within its See.
At the same time the Patriarchate has the spiritual leadership of Mount Athos were all monasteries are stauropegic along with the entire peninsula .
Current realties delineate two paths, as alternatives -either the patriarchate to follow its cosmopolitan role , as head of the Diaspora greeks, or to become a highly spiritual institution , walled within the sanctity of the Holy mountain, assuming a new role as sovereign head, of a very strict pan-orthodox monastic republic.
Do we want the patriarchate to be the bastion of Diaspora Hellenism, or to merge its role with the Athonian community as the Citadel of Orthodoxy? ( Always remaining a primes inter pares head of the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Its hard to answer.
What is a fact however is that a global leader role cannot be assumed from the shores of Athos.
And as Athos republic can continue his role as the Ark of Christian Tradition without the presence of the patriarchate, there is no reason why the patriarchate shouldn't focus on its Diaspora role.
Holy mountain as such is an unfitted choice.
The Great Church of Christ, if ever forced to leave Istanbul, the Queen of Cities, the Red apple as once called in medieval times, she must choose an equal city that will reflect its role in the new world.
And this can only be , New York, the Empire state, the Big apple as it is known today.
There the patriarchate will be enabled to fulfil his role in the heart of ecumenical Hellenism , away of the malcontent of greek politics , and safe from any attempt on behalf of Moscow or Ankara to undermine its ecumenical role .
Posted 16 November 2014 - 06:21 PM
Because the Church of Greece is autonomous and has its own leader. However, Crete and the Dodecanese are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, so if the Patriarch had to flee Constantinople, he could set up in, for example, Rhodes.
It's autocephalous, not authonomous. But my question was, why? Why the autocephalous Church of Greece exists? What's the point of it being independent from Patriarchate?
Edited by Michał, 16 November 2014 - 06:23 PM.
Posted 16 November 2014 - 07:53 PM
Posted 16 November 2014 - 08:20 PM
As we can see, Athos is not an alternative. As one poster has already said they really don't want him. Furthermore this actually goes for all of Greece. He maybe able to relocate on Crete but certainly no where on the mainland. Regardless living in exile is the last alternative. He still has a flock of about 2000 and is a custodian of whatever Christian churches and ruins remain. Any relocation which is seen as permanent and not one in exile means he is no longer ecumenical anything. All the canons afforded to the EP is precisely because instanbul is new Rome. Leave new rome and you cease to function under those canons.
So Patriarch of Antioch is not real patriarch as well?
Edited by Michał, 16 November 2014 - 08:21 PM.
Posted 16 November 2014 - 09:25 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users