I would hope that Moscow and Constantinople have reconciled. Patriarch
Kyril visited many of the Churches beginning with Phanar in the
last several months and there seems to be less of a strain in
relations.

It is possible that Russian pressure forced Phanar to back off on
Ukraine, but even so it was the right thing to do, and the severing
of communion between these two Patriarchates would have been
disastrous for the whole of Orthodoxy.

With regard to Greeks and Russians. I do not believe they are in
competition with one another. I believe the Greek-Russian rivalry
is a myth dating to the British in the nineteenth century who
were attempting to eliminate Greek sympathies for Russia.

I think that Patriarch Kyril’s agreement with Patriarch Bartholomew
to bring the Russians living in Turkey under the Phanar is a welcome
gesture, both because it conforms with the Canons and it demonstrates
the Russians would like to help the Phanar.

I for one would have no problem with a Russian Ecumenical Patriarch
or Russian Bishops at the Phanar. Steven Runciman mentions in his book
“The Great Church in Captivity” that there were even a couple of
Serbian Ecumenical Patriarchs a few centuries back.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate could become like Mount Athos with Bishops
coming from all Orthodox Churches. This would certainly breathe new
life in the Church in Turkey.

But again for the Russians and Greeks, I do not think they are in
competition. The Russians have had a strong presence in Jerusalem
since Tsarist times and ROCOR always had the sympathies of the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem since they both follow the Old Calendar
and were suspicious of Ecumenism.

Theodoros

I do not know much of the Patriarchate during the Nixon,
Ford, Carter, and Reagan years. I presume Archbishop
Iakovos had lobbied for the Phanar in those years.

Theodoros

Personally, I beieve that the MP is playing along because he realizes that in due time, the EP will be a Russian preserve with Russian incumbents. Thus, any attempt to “elevate” the status of the EP by the Russians must be viewed in this light. If however +Bartholomew does something to displease them, then watch out for some repercussion. For example, I think (and I have it on pretty good authority) that if the upcoming Episcopal Assemblies do not bear any fruit (distinct possibility) then look to Moscow to pull the plug on the offending parties.

Sad to say (from a Greek viewpoint) but the Russians hold all the cards. They are incredibly patient but they play for keeps. The see of Constantinople is only going to exist for as long as Moscow sees any need for it. Otherwise, it’ll become extinct and/or be relocated into exile. Even in exile, the Russians control a lot of cards. Look at the recent travels of +Hilarion to Cyprus, the success of the MP in the European and British courts, and the rising Russian presence in the See of Jerusalem. (Antioch is pretty much allied with Moscow.)

Thanks Theodoros, insofar as I pretty much have Green Patriarch Fatigue these days this is a welcome discussion.

What do we know of the treatment of the Patriarchate during the Reagan years?

American relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate to my knowledge
go back to the period following the First World War when the
Western powers occupied Constantinople (1918-1922). Meletios
Metaxakis had been Archbishop in America when he was “elected”
(his canonicity was disputed by many Greeks) and was welcomed to the
White House where he was congratulated before leaving to visit
Constantinople.

In 1923, at the Lausanne Conference the US, Britain, and France
pressured the Turks not to expel the Patriarchate. Meletios
Metaxakis who was a disaster because of his modernist Church
tendencies (adoption of the new calendar, Canon 28 etc…)
was on the other hand quite sensitive to the plight of his flock
and frequently lobbied the western powers to help them.

Metaxakis advocated the removal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to
Greece and was subsequently pressured to remove himself by the
Greek government. The US and the other western powers pressured
the Turks simply to permit the Patriarchate to remain where it
was, and did not demand that the Turks formally recognize the
Phanar’s “Ecumenical” status. The Kemalist regime in Turkey to
this day insists the Patriarch has no significence beyond being
a local Bishop to the Greek community.

Orthodox countries Rumania and Yugoslavia (Serbia) also supported
the Patriarchate’s right to remain in Constantinople.

Greater American involvement with the Patriarchate came with the
election of then Archbishop Athenagoras of America to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. Athenagoras was supported by the Truman administration
and flew to Constantinople on the Presidential Plane.

In 1923 and 1948 (when Athenagoras became Ecumenical Patriarch)
American and the British were concerned that Communist influence on
the Moscow Patriarchate would lead to Soviet influence over the
Eastern Orthodox Churches and wanted to build up Constantinople.

The support given by Washington to Patriarch Athenagoras did not mean
support for the Orthodox Greek community in Constantinople. The
Greek community was assaulted by an infamous government sponsored
pogrom in September 1955 when 60 Churches were violated in unspeakable
ways, and all Greek homes and businesses were burned while ordinary
Greeks were beaten, raped, and in some cases brutally murdered as in
the case of a 90 year old priest who was doused with gasoline and
burned alive, and in the case of a Metropolitan who was beaten to
death.

The Patriarchate lost most of its flock in Turkey following these
events, and there are no figures as to how many Christians fled
Turkey in the aftermath of this violence. Athenagoras lost much
respect as a result of his failure to speak up for his flock.

American intervention prevented the expulsion of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in 1964 when Turkish rulers expelled another 10,000
Greeks and threatened the Phanar as well.

The Turks in turn realizing that removing the Patriarchate would lead
to diplomatic problems responded by closing the Halki theological
school in 1971 and cutting off the Phanar’s lifeline of future priests
and Bishops.

At this point in history, the Phanar declined internationally as in
the period between 1923 and 1948. It was in 1990 that Patriarch
Dimitrios became the first Ecumenical Patriarch to visit the
United States where he was well received by the first Bush White
House. The Turks became aggravated by the White House visit and it
has been reported that Dimitrios was called in by the Turkish police
to answer questions on his return as to why he was given such a
prominent reception by the US government.

In 1991, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was elected. His enthronement
was attended by American officials and other government
representatives.

It was during the 1990’s that the Ecumenical Patriarchate began to
regain some of its old international stature and prestige. The
diplomatic community (especially the US government)became more
conscious of the Patriarchate’s presence in Turkey. The Phanar began
to receive American and other foreign diplomats as well as heads of
state from Europe and some Muslim countries as well.

Patriarch Bartholomew received Bill Clinton in his capacity as
President in 1999 at the Phanar and met with George W. Bush in 2004
outside the Phanar but at least in a public meeting with media
outlets covering the event.

Patriarch Bartholomew was received at the Clinton White House in
1997 and at the Bush White House in 2002.

The Patriarch’s international visibility came at a price. Turkish
military leaders, Islamists, and violent groups such as the Grey
Wolves targeted him asserting the fantastic and bizarre accusation
that he was planning to revive the Byzantine Empire!!!

In turn the Patriarchate was attacked by arsonists and bombers five
times between 1993 and 2004. In 2007, retired Military officers were
arrested for plotting his assasination and that of the Armenian
Patriarch.

The Turkish government officially insisted the Patriarch was not
“Ecumenical” despite important Pan-Orthodox Synods that were convened
at the Phanar in 1992, 2005, and 2008. The State Department in late
2005 stated that it fully recognized the Patriarchate as “Ecumenical”
and expressed support for the reopening of the Halki Seminary.

Finally, the Obama administration seems to have reversed policy toward
the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch was not well received
during Obama’s visit to Turkey last April. He was forced to meet the
President in a private hotel room out of public view and away from
the spotlight.

The spotlight would have brought unwanted attention to the Turkish
government’s historical horrors that it has wrought against all
Christian communities. The question remains whether Obama decided
keeping Turkey happy in the midst of an Islamic revival took
precedence over supporting religious freedom for the Patriarchate?

When Pope Benedict visited the Phanar in 2006, there was enormous
coverage of the visit. The Turks were publicly criticized by
Newsweek magazine, and the Patriarchate’s difficulties were showcased
on CNN, FOX News, and National Public Radio in addition to being
written about in a few American newspaper editorials and op-eds.

The Turks took a beating there and so it is quite possible they
pressured Obama to keep his meeting with the Patriarch out of the
spotlight.

Another theory for the cooling of Washington’s support for the
Ecumenical Patriarchate could lie in the warming relations between
Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church. In July 2008, it
appeared that a crisis was imminent over the Ecumenical Patriarch’s
visit to Ukraine which is the Canonical territoy of Moscow.

In the end, Patriarch Bartholomew met with Patriarch Alexey and
repaired his relations with the Russian Orthodox Church.

This is a theory, but who knows whether the reconciliation between
Constantinople and Moscow angered the State Department.

Theodoros

I think it would be very interesting from a historical perpective to review how past presidential adminstrations have treated the EP.

Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan etc.

Who was the first president to receive the EP? Who treated him the best?
Who treated him the worst? What were some of the defining moments in the history of these visits?

Maybe instead of making video games the GOA internet office can come up with this little piece of info? It would be a much better use of stewardship money. And since this is unlikely since it means they have to stop twittering and start thinking, I am pretty sure the folks here at AOI can do a great job on this topic.

So AOI readers what do we know about this history?

I am not sure whether it was a last minute thing or whether someone
really screwed up the schedule.

Whether the Patriarch’s visit is a sign of the Archdiocese’s
declining influence or Obama’s ideological disposition is hard
to say at this point.

I was going through his book “Encountering the Mystery” which is
actually very good when it discusses theology and Monasticism.

That is what I think he should have emphasized in his talks in
Washington.

Theodoros

Hey maybe the EP pushing healthcare at the Center for American Progress helped move things along.

All frustration aside, its nice to see the GOA secured a last minute meeting -although you do have to wonder if the GOA influence in Washington is fading. In the old days whether it was a Democrat or Republican the EP always was a sure thing to visit the president. Not so anymore.

Now what this meeting entails and how it unfolds will be interesting given Obama’s disposition.

Theodoros

Sorry, George. As of January 20th, dissent is no longer patriotic but subversive and possibly treasonous, warranting direct repudiation and marginalization by White House staff. (Even if you are a “well-dressed” retiree worried about the future of your own medical care.) As is clearly evident, such comments exhibit the broad, “unconditional” tolerance of those whose progressive agenda is not to be questioned — not given obvious purity of their intentions.

Any criticism of this agenda is clearly “hate” filled because we can not possibly have valid concerns or offer reasoned arguments. Our opposition is prima facie evidence of our moral bankruptcy. Because we have failed to recognize the enlightened views of our progressive betters, we are unfit (possibly sub-human – apparently demonic), and do not deserve to have our voice or concerns aired. This is why we certainly deserve to be judged as sons of “Satan” (which is just a wee bit more noxious than the title of “fool” which Jesus sanctioned) or “know nothings” (roughly the modern equivalent of “fool”). “Show trials” would be too good for those of us who clearly must represent the forces of evil.

This, so far as I can tell, is why many of those who hold this view and are now in power feel justified in seeking to both expand and use their power in the very way that they feared the former administration might. Maybe they knew what they would do if and when they had such power. Now we know.

Seriously, I do hope that in a less passionate moment, he might realize that those who disagree with him aren’t automatically evil – and we are, in fact, VERY concerned about protecting the great tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The three previous Patriarchal visits to America (1990, 1997, and
2002) all featured prominent visits to the White House and honors
by both Parties in Congress. Then House Speaker Newt Gingrich
gave honors to the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1997, so it would seem
strange for the Republics to criticize Congress for welcoming a
prominent Christian leader to Washington.

What seems to have changed is the ideology of the White House. Barack
Obama has visited Turkey and Egypt to apologize to the Islamic world
for every conceivable injustice they feel. This White House has no
interest in Christianity or the interests of Eastern Christians living
in Muslim countries.

In addition, President Bill Clinton in his capacity as Chief Executive
visited the Phanar on a State Visit to Turkey in 1999. In 2004, Bush
visited the Patriarch in Constantinople, not at the Phanar but at least
in a very public setting before the world’s media.

The lack of a White House visit is in large part motivated by the
favoratism Obama and the left feel for Islam over Eastern Christianity,
as well as their desire to appease Turkey.

Theodoros
House.

Theodoros

… you are a bunch of know-nothings… ignorant people who serve their father -Satan…

This statement got me to thinking. At first it looked like an argumentum ad hominem except that ad hominem means “to the person.” So… can an argumentum ad hominem be directed at a group (“a bunch”), or is the phrase meant to apply to individuals?

I know that a group of people can take offense at this, but when the statement is directed at a group is it technically an ad hominem attack?