Read an Excerpt

Modern Christianity in the Holy Land

AuthorHouse

Chapter One

Introduction

The history of the Orthodox Church in the first half of the nineteenth century was a continuation of its history in the earlier Ottoman eras. During this period, three enthroned patriarchs were elected in Constantinople. For the first time, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Kyrillos II, was elected in Jerusalem in 1845. In this period, the Russian presence in Palestine became apparent from the pilgrims, the consulate and the Russian Church Mission in Jerusalem. Patriarch Kyrillos showed sympathy with the Bulgarian Church, which demanded independence from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, prompting the Holy Synod to depose him. The Russians supported the Bulgarian cause and the attitude of Kyrillos. The most prominent Russian figure in this period was Archimandrite Profiri Uspenski.

1- The Patriarchs Anthimos, Policarpos and Athanasios V

Anthimos was elected Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1788. He was an Arab from Antioch. It was said that he was from Mosul. He commanded the Arabic, Persian, Greek and Turkish languages. He was an author, and wrote a commentary on the Psalms. At the end of his reign, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was burned, and he died in 1808.

Patriarch Policarpos succeeded Anthimos in 1808. He was the Metropolitan of Bethlehem. "He was elected by the consensus of all the senior clergy of the Constantinople See, who met in Constantinople in accordance with the recommendation of Patriarch Anthimos, who appointed him before his death." Patriarch Policarpos secured a firman from the Ottoman authorities for the restoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 1809, and died in 1827.

Athanasios V was elected patriarch in 1827 in "Paki Koi, one of the suburbs of Istanbul on the coast of the Bosphorus at a meeting attended by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the see bishops, and the Orthodox millet notables. At that time the Jerusalem See was heavily indebted despite its great revenues." The debts of the Patriarchate totaled 30 million piasters despite its great revenues from its awqaf property in the Orthodox world and the presents made by the pilgrims to the holy shrines. A committee was formed in Istanbul to regulate the revenues of the Patriarchate and to pay its debts. The patriarch showed goodwill by cooperating with the committee. As for its powers and duties, they were restricted to the following:

- Supervision of the books of accounts of the Patriarchate and securing the committee's approval for the lease of the remote property of the Patriarchate.

- Delivering all the revenues to the committee's fund.

- Appointing the treasurer and the patriarch shall appoint his assistant.

- To intervene in the appointment to ecclesiastical offices in the Patriarchate.

- To intervene in watching and examining the accounts of envoys sent on official missions outside the Patriarchate to collect aid or raise funds.

- A special commission shall be appointed to watch the works of the committee.

- Some or all of the members of the committee may be changed with the approval of the Jerusalem and Constantinople Patriarchs.

However, the committee did not succeed in the total liquidation of the debts. But, it managed to reduce these debts at the end of the reign of Athanasios V. Nonetheless, this made the Jerusalem See succumb to the influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople:

"It was the men of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher of the Jerusalem See, who caused this sharp decline and acquiescence of the Jerusalem See. In earlier phases, it was the see, for which patriarchs had sacrificed their lives until they made it one of the most important sees of the patriarchates in terms of its prestige and resources. The Jerusalem See has now fallen to the abyss because of its men. It has become like a child who needs guardians, educators and advisors. Thus the clergy on top of whom was Patriarch Athanasios, accepted to have their hands cuffed and their mouths shut and to be under the command and control of the Constantinople See."

Qazaqya points out that during the reign of the three patriarchs, the Orthodox community was dismembered and many of its followers joined the Latins and the Protestants. He gives several reasons for this phenomenon, and then he asks:

"Where are the schools which they built to eliminate ignorance which was the strongest factor for making others dominate minds and ideas and draw the people closer to them? Have they investigated the needs of the people and consequently, built hospitals, homes and other facilities ...? What about their interest in schools and genuine spiritual education ...? There are reasons other than negligence, which were working for the dismemberment of the Orthodox community and the alteration of its faithful to other Christian denominations. Among these reasons was the fact that the patriarchs and bishops supported one party against the other on the questions of the differences among individuals and families. They sided with the party that was supporting them and which was disseminating their ideas, even if it was not the party that was right. They issued rulings and made judgments in accordance with their whims and interests, even if this led to the loss of the other party and departure from their community. We have an abundance of evidence and cases showing how hundreds of Orthodox faithful renounced their community and joined other Churches."

Athanasios V died in 1844. The Constantinople See dominated the Jerusalem See through the intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarch in its financial and administrative affairs. Meanwhile, the Protestants became vigorous and organized, and established an Anglican bishopric in 1842. The Russian influence was also enhanced and continued to increase since the time of the establishment of the Russian Mission in 1847. Prior to the establishment of the Russian Mission, Russian-Palestinian ecclesiastical relations were growing progressively.

2- The Russian interests in Palestine and Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Places

The Ottoman Sultanate and Russia are two neighborly states with common borders. From the strategic standpoint, Turkey controls the straits, which are the only outlet for Russia to the warm waters of the Mediterranean. From the political perspective, there are many Slav peoples and Orthodox Christians living under the rule of the Ottoman Sultanate. From the religious point of view, the Ottoman Sultanate is the strongest Muslim state existing in the heart of the old Byzantine world and is ruling the Holy Places in Palestine. Russian policy toward Orthodoxy and Palestine was influenced by these three factors. The Moscow Patriarchate, which was formed in 1589, viewed itself as the legitimate inheritor of Constantinople, which fell to the Ottomans in 1453, and the center of Orthodoxy, as Rome was the center of Catholicism. The anticipated Russian role toward Christianity in general and Orthodoxy in particular is discussed in the letters, which a Russian monk Philotheus, wrote to Grand Duke John Basil III (1462-1505): "The first Rome collapsed owing to its heresies, the second Rome fell a victim to the Turks, but a new and third Rome had sprung up in the North, illuminating the whole universe like a sun ... With prophetic conviction Philotheus pointed out that, the first and second Rome have fallen, but the third will stand till the end of history, for it is the last Rome. Moscow had no successor; a fourth Rome is inconceivable." The Slavs considered the Russian Tsar as the head of the Russian Church, although the spiritual leadership remained vested in Constantinople. Nonetheless, Moscow sought to improve its situation and extend its influence to the Orthodox patriarchates.

Russia's interests until the end of the seventeenth century were restricted to religious matters among the Christians of the Ottoman Empire. However, in the early eighteenth century, the tsars sought to play a political role in their capacity as the protectors of Orthodoxy and the supporters of Ottoman Christians. "All these could come, perhaps, through the Russian Christ. This idea reached its highest expression during the second half of the nineteenth century, when political and economic necessities forced Russia's close attention to the Black Sea and the Straits."

The Church in Russia is an effective instrument for the enforcement of the Russian policy in the East. The tsars viewed the Church as an extension of the government bureaucracy. The Russian Church was the Church of the State. Therefore, we should take a look at its history in order to understand its role in Russian politics and its relationship with the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

Peter the Great (1672-1725) abolished the patriarchal system for all practical purposes and appointed himself as head of the Church, which he placed under the control of the Holy Synod that was presided by the over procurator, who is a government figure appointed by the Tsar.

Alexander I (1801-1825) created the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Education and merged the Holy Synod with it. In 1824, he revoked this system and renewed the post of over procurator, who became a minister of state and one of the members of the ministers' cabinet, and the Holy Synod became his ministry. The Holy Synod consisted of the churchmen who were loyal to the Tsar. Churches became platforms from which the state declared its policy and offered its projects and plans to the people. The over procurator became the link between the state and the Church represented by its patriarch.

The relations that existed between the Russian and Palestinian Church in the nineteenth century were in fact relations between the Russian Tsarist establishment and the Jerusalem Church through the Russian Church. "This tactic was especially true in the Near East. When Russia reduced her political influence in the Ottoman Empire, not, of course, suspending it completely, she tried to supplement it through religious channels by using the Russian Orthodox Church and the latter's relations with the Orthodox Churches of the Near East. Signs of this policy were evident everywhere in the Balkans, but the policy thrived primarily in the four eastern patriarchates, particularly through Jerusalem which had been the traditional avenue of the Russian Tsars to the Orthodox East." In view of the nature of the Russian Church and its relationship with the State, "Russian ecclesiastical policy in the nineteenth century formed part of the general diplomacy of Saint Petersburg, which sought to advance Russian political interests in the Near East."

We should certainly take into account the nature of the relationships that existed between Russian Tsarism and the Ottoman Empire, and also the nature of the relationships between Tsarism and the Greek figures that governed the Jerusalem Patriarchate. The Greek influence and domination in Jerusalem have complicated these relationships and made them very sensitive and very delicately balanced. Perhaps the series of wars and treaties concluded between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, particularly the 1699 Treaty of Carlowitz and the 1774 Treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji have placed Tsarist Russia in a distinguished position as the protector of Orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire. As for the Adrianople Treaty of 1829, it consecrated the independence of Greece, consolidated the Russian influence and Russia's claim of the protection of Orthodoxy. The series of these treaties made the Ottoman Empire look like a sick man. Russia abandoned its old dream of regaining Constantinople and liberating the Holy Places and was content with the reality of the weak Empire, which was in line with its political aspirations. These aspirations reached their climax when Russia supported Mohammad Ali in his mutiny against the Ottoman Empire so as to aggravate its weakness and attrition. Russia and other Great Powers manipulated the Mohammad Ali mutiny and challenge to the sultanate in the best possible manner. "Ibrahim Pasha -son of Mohammad Ali- opened Syria to the West, to its missionaries, consuls and trade. A new period had begun and Russia together with the other European Powers was anxious to take full advantage of it."

Palestine constituted the focus of the Russian interests in Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria) because of the memories of the Old and New Testaments that are cherished by the Russian people. It should be recalled that ever since the fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Turks, the Russian people made generous aid to "alleviate the afflictions of the stricken Christians of the East." The Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Places is an old practice that dates back to the eleventh century. Pilgrims offered gifts and grants generously to the churches and the Holy Places. The Antioch and Jerusalem Churches continued to ask for aid. "These requests were seldom refused, as financial aid was at that time the only expression which Russia could make of the sympathy she felt toward the Syrian and Palestinian Orthodox Christians." However, spending the grants and aid was not always subject to the control of the benefactors; "No interest was taken in the maintenance of Orthodoxy among the Arabs and no attempts were made to supervise the use of the Russian alms."

Papadopoulos says that the Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Places was rare before the nineteenth century. In 1811, Russian pilgrims began to appear in Palestine at an average of three or more pilgrims each year until 1819, which was the year in which 100 pilgrims came to Palestine. The Russians knew early enough that their pilgrims did not find those who could protect them or care for them in Jerusalem and that they were at the mercy of the Turks and the Greeks. Therefore, Papadopoulos links the movement of the Russian pilgrimage to Palestine early in the 19th century with the opening of the Russian Consulate in 1819. The first Russian Consul in Palestine was George Mostra, who was followed by Dimitrios Daskoff. The Russian Consul took residence at the Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem; later on he was compelled to leave his residence following accusations by the Ottomans that the Greek monks were colluding with the Russian Consul. So Ottoman soldiers stormed the residence in search for arms.

It should be recalled that a number of Russian figures and noblemen visited Palestine from 1830 on. These visitors submitted reports to the concerned authorities urging the officials to improve the status of the Russian pilgrims in Palestine as their number was increasing. The most important report submitted was one by Count Andre Moravev, who visited Palestine in 1838. Moravev presented Tsar Nicholas I (1825-1855) as a present a copy of the episode of his pilgrimage to Palestine in two volumes. So the Tsar appointed him Over Procurator of the Holy Synod. Thus, in his new job, he sponsored the Russian interests in Palestine. Among the proposed projects of Moravev was that the Tsar should raise the level of the protection of Orthodoxy and the Holy Places in Palestine and that a Russian Mission or agency be opened in Jerusalem to care for the pilgrims. He expected that this Mission would be the nucleus of the Russian religious and political presence in Palestine and that it would be linked with the Russian Mission in Istanbul. The Foreign Ministry welcomed the ideas of Moravev. However, no immediate measures were taken to enforce his proposals.

The Russian Consulate in Jerusalem was opened in 1819 for the care of pilgrims. A second consulate was opened in Jaffa in 1820. The two consulates were placed under the jurisdiction of the Russian Consulate in Alexandria, and in 1839, they were placed under the jurisdiction of Beirut.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Modern Christianity in the Holy Land by Hanna Kildani Copyright © 2010 by Rev. Hanna Kildani. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---