Month: December 2009

But first a word from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: “With Turkey anchored to Europe, we can anchor the world and extend peace and love and justice East and South. ”

Nat da Polis on AsiaNews.it:

The new headquarters of the Secretariat for entry into the European Union is an old school of the minority Orthodox in Ortakoy, seized in ’90. Embarrassment of Erdogan government and Europe.

Istanbul — Unbelievable but true: the headquarters of the Secretariat for the entry of Turkey into the European Union is a building confiscated from the Orthodox Christian community in the 90s. The building is located in Istanbul, in the well-known area of Ortakoy, under the first bridge over the Bosphorus.

Before the seizure, the building was used as a primary school for children of the minority Orthodox in Ortakoy. Here, once lived a thriving Orthodox community, now non-existent because of past purges against minorities, executed by the “secular” Turkish State.

Thanks to the policy of purging, the building and many other schools, at one point found themselves without students, unused and then confiscated. The forfeiture rule however prevented foundations – owners of buildings – from allocating them to different uses. The community of Ortakoy appealed to the administrative courts in Istanbul, which have yet to rule on the issue. In case of a ruling to the contrary, the Orthodox intend to apply to the court in Strasbourg. The inauguration of the Secretariat took place in the presence of Prime Minister Erdogan, accompanied by Minister for European Affairs Bajis and by various authorities and European representation. Continue reading →

From the Dec. 11 National Herald (HT: Orthodox Christian Laity):

Give us your property!!!

The demand – for that is what it is, in essence – by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to our Metropolitans, presented in a letter signed by him, to transfer ownership of at least one building from each one of them to the Patriarchate, is a terrible idea and the request should be withdrawn immediately.

If it is not withdrawn, then the metropolitans ought to make it clear to Barthlomew that for the sake of maintaining the unity of the church, and the ties to the Patriarchate, they will refuse to obey or even discuss it with the laity. If there should be a metropolitan who, acting to serve his narrow self interest, tries to pressure the parishioners into transferring a property of their community or the diocese to the Patriarchate, then the people should deny him his request and hold him in low esteem.

Because, should this outrageous demand be obeyed, it could lead to the breaking up into pieces of our Church, and to its being controlled by forces in Turkey, which would work toward its neutralization, if not its dissolution as an ethnic group.

We wish there was a nicer way to say it, but this demand by Bartholomew has crossed the line. It is so unacceptable and offensive, but also so revealing of his designs on our Church and its assets, that it raises many questions about his relationship to this community. Continue reading →

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew wants legal title to properties around the world, but how would this, as the author below argues, secure the legal position of the the Patriarchate vis-a-vis the Turkish government? Further, with the request for metropolitans worldwide to apply for Turkish citizenship, the Ecumenical Patriarch seems to be distancing the Patriarchate from the other Orthodox churches given that the invitation was only extended to Greek metropolitans.

The National Herald, December 11, 2009, By Theodore Kalmoukos, The National Herald Staff Writer

BOSTON – The Ecumenical Patriarchate – in an official letter recently sent to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and its local Metropolises – requested the official transfer of the ownership of at least one real estate property belonging to each metropolis to the Patriarchate. Archbishop Demetrios of America and the metropolitans have yet to notify the parishes of the Archdiocese of the request of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The same request was made to all other eparchies (ecclesiastical provinces) outside of Turkey that belong to the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate, that they “register at least one real estate property irreversibly in the name of the Patriarchate.”

By taking this action, the Patriarchate is trying to secure its legal position vis-a-vis the Turkish government. The Turkish government does not recognize Ecumenical Patriarchate as a legal entity or its ecumenical nature and mission, and has treated the institution with disrespect since the creation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. The interference and abuses of Turkish officials have been reported in the international media for decades and occasionally elicit protests from U.S. and other government officials and agencies.

Patriarch Bartholomew in his letter (protocol number 861) stated that “The (Turkish) authorities refuse to recognize the legal status of our most sacred institution.” Ankara considers it to be a Turkish institution in the Phanar district of Constantinople under the administrative jurisdiction of the district’s prefect.

The issues that pertained to the property request were discussed at the Holy Synod in Constantinople and the Patriarch stated in his letter that, “We were led to the decision to urge, though this Patriarchal letter, the hierarchs of the Eparchies abroad to register in the Registry of Deeds in the country in which their Eparchy is located, at least one real estate property, community or parish in the legal name of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as follows: “Ecumenical Patriarch, instituted according to the International Law whose See is in Constantinople (Istanbul).” Continue reading →

The president of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology Fr Michael Sweeney, OP makes some interesting–and I think correct–observations about pluralism and totalitarianism in relation to certain cultural trends.  The following remarks come from his talk, “Expressing the Good,” that he delivered at the recent Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture Conference.  You can read the whole of his talk HERE but I wanted to bring the following points to the attention of all of you.  I am particular interested in what people think of Sweeney’s thought both in itself and how (if at all) you would see it helping the witness of the Orthodox Church both in the public square and in explaining the importance of such a witness to Orthodox laity, clergy and bishops. I am especially interested in your thoughts because Sweeney’s argument is  Thomistic in content and methodology.  I am aware that many Orthodox Christians are inclined to dismiss Thomism. But I have found it to be  very helpful an approach to philosophy and theology and it is a school of thought that held a prominent, and fruitful, place in my own education and spiritual formation as a Catholic.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

I think that it is imperative for us to realize that appeals to “pluralism” are not any longer merely denoting the social fact that different faiths and customs are represented in most contemporary societies. Rather, given the premises that all knowledge is contingent upon one’s worldview, and that one’s worldview is largely a product of social construction, pluralism must be insisted upon in order to relativize previous social constructions –worldviews or belief “systems”– in order to achieve “progress” in society, which effort consists in positing a new ideal toward the construction of the social order.

What will such an order achieve? Always it will promise to maximize advantages to the individual for the sake of achieving a new order in society. This holds, I think, for two reasons: first, the “individual” who must always seek, like Sisyphus, for an elusive autonomy, is a creature who is isolated from history, and therefore particularly susceptible of ideals and possibilities; such a one must look forever forward, not back. (When he does look back it is see evidence for an evolution of society organized around the idea of freedom as autonomy). Second, the autonomous individual is not a social animal; he is not rooted in a community, but is taught to identify himself according to certain preconceptions that he has inherited –his “belief system”– from which he can be easily detached. Continue reading →