Irenaios’ ouster confirmed
The world’s Orthodox Church leaders yesterday upheld the overthrow, by his own bishops, of scandal-mired Jerusalem Patriarch Irenaios, one day after the senior churchman defied a final appeal to voluntarily step down.
“We had to make a very sad decision concerning the Jerusalem Patriarchate,” Ecumenical Patriarch Vartholomaios, who convened the rare meeting of senior representatives from the world’s main Orthodox Churches – which Irenaios attended – told journalists after the decision was announced.
Irenaios has been accused of involvement in the politically explosive, covert handover of Church land in the Arab sector of Jerusalem to Jewish investors. Although Irenaios insists he is innocent – calling on God to cut off his hands should he be lying – rebel bishops raised the necessary majority in the Patriarchate’s ruling body, the Holy Synod, to depose him early this month. This decision has since been confirmed by the Jordanian and Palestinian governments.
After an eight-hour session yesterday, Church leaders agreed to no longer recognize Irenaios as head of the Patriarchate, to strike him off the list of Orthodox leaders and to cease mentioning his name during prayers. Rebel bishops in Jerusalem were invited to appoint a caretaker patriarch before electing a replacement for Irenaios.
“We first decided to address a brotherly appeal to [Irenaios] to voluntarily tender his resignation,” Vartholomaios said. “This was requested by our Synod, which did not convene as a court, as an act of sacrifice to pacify the Church. As [Irenaios] refused, the Synod accepted the decision by the Jerusalem Holy Synod.”
During his address to the Synod, Vartholomaios argued that, irrespective of Irenaios’s culpability, “the peace of the clerics and lay members of the Church of Sion [the Jerusalem Patriarchate] has been broken, and cannot be restored without a sacrifice.”
In Athens, Deputy Foreign Minister Panayiotis Skandalakis said the Church leaders’ decision should be respected by all.
“Obviously, whoever diverges or does not comply with the decision will bear the full responsibility for any negative developments,” Skandalakis said.
Athens had already strongly hinted that Irenaios should stand down, drawing angry complaints from the patriarch.
9 comments Wednesday 25 May 2005 | Jacobse | Orthodox Christianity |
Has there been any reports on the actual evidence for the so-called covert handover?
All the reports I’ve seen on this say the same thing: Bishops protest Ireniaos’ behavior, Ireniaos says he did nothing wrong, Bishops and government officials say he did, and now we have 3 governments and the Orthodox leadership deciding to fire Ireniaos. But I’ve not seen one article that actually detailed the evidence.
Anyone who approaches this terrible situation with anything resembling an open mind has to ask one question: Would this be happening if the land in question was given to Arabic investors?
“… Vartholomaios argued that, irrespective of Irenaios?s culpability “the peace of the clerics and lay members of the Church of Sion [the Jerusalem Patriarchate] has been broken, and cannot be restored without a sacrifice.”
This should give readers serious pause. Vartholomaios is saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not Irenaios did anything wrong; he is simply to be “sacrificed” to restore peace.
This looks to me like some “rebel bishops” didn’t like the fact that some land owned by the Jerusalem Patriarchate was sold to some Jewish investors. So I’m wondering: Who will these bishops and political leaders sacrifice the next time someone negotiates a business deal with the Jews?
Daniel –
The whole Orthodox Church isn’t riven through with anti-Semitism. There are a lot of issues with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The Greek domination is a problem for the Christian Arabs. Selling land to anyone, Jews or Muslims or even Catholics, would elicit a major backlash. In order to protect sites in Jerusalem, it is a standing policy that the Patriarchate keeps at least one monk at each location at all times. This is because various governments, throughout history, including the current government of Israel has had a tendency to seize property on the pretext that no documentation of ownership exists. (Deeds weren’t commonly issued 1,500 years ago.)
Turkey is playing this game as well, which is one of the problems that was brought up by the Greek Archbishop when he testified before Congress.
The Orthodox Christians in Israel are between a hammer and an anvil. The Muslims hate them because they are Christian, and many religiously conservative Jews hate them because they are Christian. Orthodoxnews.com publishes a periodic commentary of an Orthodox Christian lady who lives with her husband in the last Orthodox Arab village inside Israel. It is eye-opening stuff what they go through being at the center and alone in the middle of this conflict.
As for the guilt or innocence of the Patriach – I am at a loss to judge this. Like you, I don’t have the facts and I am not trying to pass judgment. The duly constituted authorities of the Orthodox Church will take action as they see fit. May it be pleasing unto God in its rightness.
It is quite possible that the Patriarch is being wrongly deposed as an expedient measure. St. John Chrysostom was removed from his throne, and for political reasons at that. These things happen. The Church may have the deposit of the faith, but that doesn’t mean that all administrative decisions by her bishops are free from error.
I would, however, think long and hard before leveling charges of anti-semitism at Orthodox hierarchs.
Here is an interesting article on this situation that was published back on March 20th, 2005: Jaffa Gate Hotels Bought by Jewish Groups.
As I read the articles being linked at this blog I thought the trouble was over land where a church may have been built. Instead this is over 2 hotels near the Jaffa Gate.
According to the article linked above, “church treasurer Nicholas Papedemes … is said to be behind the sales, acting on behalf of Irineos. The two major properties that were bought in the recent purchases are the Petra Hotel and the Imperial Hotel, both very close to the Jaffa Gate.” Anyone know whether or not Vartholomaios thought it necessary to “sacrifice” Mr. Papedemes in order to maintain “peace”?
I found this article via the weblog Discarded Lies, which has more information on the “byzantine” intrigues behind this situation.
This all makes it look much more complicated then the simplistic story the Greek press is reporting.
Glen writes, “The whole Orthodox Church isn’t riven through with anti-Semitism”. I never made that charge (but it is very telling that that’s the first thing he writes).
I absolutely agree that “There are a lot of issues with the Jerusalem Patriarchate”, and clearly “The Greek domination is a problem for the Christian Arabs.”
Regarding charges of antisemitism, I have thought about it, I am thinking about and I will continue to think about it. And as I do I will continue to go back to my original question: Would this have happened if the land was sold to Arabic investors instead of Jewish investors? One way to answer this question would be to look at whether or not the church has ever sold church owned land to Palestinian Arabs in this area? And what, if any, reaction was there to such sales?
The role of the Patriarch, Irineos I, is murky. He declared the sale of church property null and void, and it was carried out with his authority. Nonetheless it set of a firestorm among his largely Palestianian flock and senior clergy and to the consternation of Palestinian leaders. Irineos is a figure to which controversy appears to be attracted since his election. If Patriarch Irineos is stunningly stubborn he may cling on as signaled with a hand gesture when he left the extraordinary, Synodical meeting, just as he has defied the verdict of his bishops in Jerusalem. (We make a different hand signal when in defiance.) Then the crisis that is devouring the Patriarchate will continue to erode the influence of Patriarchate–there is little left of it at this point. It is probably safe to say that he is in a no-win situation. Irieneos? only real option is to resign.
In business, they say never ?burn bridges,? so in the ecclesiastical world, Irieneos? must find a way to gracefully bow out and not allow the Church to burn down.
It is said that Jerusalem is the ?kingdom of heaven,? just as it is described in the movie by Ridley Scott. Even so, it is a kingdom of immense power politics and blood curdling hatreds?it has been the case since biblical times. For the sake of Christ’s Church, he should go. It will be a long time before we get over this.
Realistically, the ancient Patriarchates are anachronisms. The Ecumenical Patriarch has no real flock–he has only a symbolic role to play. Christians are leaving Palestine. It is conceivable that the Christian presence there will be extinct.
Frankly I think the bottom line is that, having lost the support of the Synod, there was no way for Irenaios to continue as Patriarch. My understanding was that he was only clinging to power in the official sense by refusing to call the Synod into session. Obviously that’s not a situation that could be allowed to continue for long.
Also, I doubt that his departure will be a big loss for the Israelis. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Israel withold approval for Irenaios to become Patriarch because he was too closely associated with Arafat?
Daniel – “I never made that charge (but it is very telling that that?s the first thing he writes).” You have been extremely free, in the past, with accusations of anti-Semitism. The fact that you would frame such a question probably means that you believe that the Jewish identity of the investors in question is the basic problem, or at least a major compounding issue.
In the article that you linked to earlier, the writer clearly believes that the anti-Ireniaos campaign is driven by the PLA. This is interesting, considering the rap against the Patriarch by the Israelis was that he is too ‘pro-Palestinian.’
Are the Christian Palestinians anti-Semitic? Do they hate Jews? Are they and their organizations merely tools for the PLA and Hamas? To me, it seems that those are the real questions that you are asking.
You may as well expand the list of questions. Is the Patriarchate of Antioch anti-Semitic, given that it has condemned many actions of the State of Israel? Is the Patriarchate of Constantinople anti-Semitic? How about the Vatican, since the Latin Patriachate has been critical of the Israeli government?
May be they are all rabid anti-Semites? Which brings up the question – if that is the case, why do you wish to be in communion with such evil people? Or, perhaps, they are not evil at all, but the problem is that the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ has been stretched so broadly that it is now meaningless?
What was interesting to me was a sentence in a report that appeared elsewhere, on Yahoo. “The patriarchate of Antioch abstained.” Now, the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV is in the states right now, but I am told that if his representative abstained, it could be significant, since there is apparently bad blood recently between Antioch and Jerusalem, due to Jerusalem’s ill-treatment of the Arab Christians it has pastoral care for. Antioch used to be under Greek control as well, but the Arabs gained control sometime around the early 20th century.